And what if the answer to the first one is "no" or even just "maybe'?
Well, if the answer is no, then the second question doesn't matter because that which doesn't exist can be ordered in reality. And "maybe" is not an end state position, "maybe" is a state of not knowing if the Divine exists or doesn't. Agnostics are a spectrum of course, with some leaning atheism and some leaning towards at least deism, but it isn't an "answer" so to speak.
Because at the end it is either "yes" or "no" with "maybe" being a public position of "I personally don't know" while everyone else takes the posistions of either believing there is the Divine or not, regardless of the actual answer.
Or I suppose Buddhism might count as a halfway point, with there being a deeper spiritual truth, but just one without a deity, for the version of Buddhism without deities.
No, it's not an argument, it's making fun of your hypocrisy.
Well I didn't state the original statement of what you responded to, but I wouldn't say that response necessarily refutes their position of "an atheist is just a person that wants to benefit from the fruits of religion without contributing to the structure needed to keep it up."
But I also wouldn't say that sentence refutes the "'Atheist' does not mean 'does not believe in religion', it means 'does not believe in deities' sentence they were responding to, whose point is that there are atheistic religions, of which I assume Buddhism (or at least certain sects of Buddhism count, because I know some adapted to the local region to include local deities) would count. And I would also agree with both posistions, or at least with certain interpretations of both posistions.
I would argue purely materialistic atheism with no spiritualism involved, AKA no Buddhism or the like, would not correctly fill in the space of a society and would lead to a fracturing of said society. Religion and spiritualism does seem to lead to some advantage or another in group cohesion, if only because it helps form group identities, generates a sort of moral code/law to follow, and then certain rituals basically act as therapy while other rituals basically are basically social gatherings.
So bringing it back to the Texas school situation, you can see why certain people, maybe even atheists who count as "Cultural Christians" are not exactly hostile to the book that helped form Western Civilization to the way it is, being taught in schools at least partially.
That said while I am now neither positive nor negative of the idea at this moment, I am now of the position of "Well, I guess a test run in one state wouldn't be bad and we can walk it back if it turns out to be more negative in consequences than positive." as opposed to my earlier position in the thread as being slightly positive. I am at best "hopeful" now I suppose, hoping it turns out to be good, but also not be die hard defending it if it turns out to be more bad in consequences, at least in initial reports.
