Faux News: Atheism is a religion, too

[Ben Davis]

Because I was specifically told that atheism under anthropology is categorized as a religion.

Well, that's simply wrong, atheism cannot be a religion. It's exactly the same as trying to claim that 'oblivion' is a 'doughnut'; law of identity fail.
I wonder how one might go about getting that corrected?

---

There are many different definitions of religion and many of these definitions can include things that are not stereotypically thought of as religions.

Indeed. There are also a lot of blurred boundaries regarding cultural & tribal phenomena. Some definitions of religion separate cultural memes from religious ones, others include them. The common use definitions generally separate them using dogma/philosophy/tenets as the differentiator.

We must learn to separate theism from religion as they are quite distinct. Examples of this would be Daoism (Taoism) and how there is no theistic figure but it is still a religion.

'Theism' is a subset of 'religion' not a descriptor or something separate. Some religions are theistic, some deistic, some atheistic, some pagan, some philosophical etc.

---

I refer to that as tribalism, where people create social bonds around a specific criteria.

That's exactly the type of cultural phenomena that I referred to above.

Atheists don't have to be religious, as they follow no particular deity or deities. But like any other person, we prefer to associate with people who have similar views and ideas.

It's important to note that those views aren't informed by the atheism, rather the beliefs that the person does hold.

I think that some theists will refer to atheism as a religion as a way to counter the criticisms against organized religion, or the criticism of those who follow a religion. If they can categorize atheism as a religion, then they can cry "glass houses" when religion is criticized. It's a substitute for any argument of actual substance, so I tend not to care whether people consider it to be a religion or not. Most of the time, they believe in far greater (and more harmful) myths, and I'd rather address those.

Indeed, it seems to be an accusation of 'you're just as stupid as us!'. It's a deliberate misrepresentation which always has an ulterior motive. Consequently, I care a great deal about whether people consider it a religion or not because if they do, they're wrong and demonstrating their ignorance. If someone can't even get this point right, refuses to update their position when corrected or they're deliberately getting it wrong, there's little point in continuing conversations other than for publically outing the misdefinition.

---

local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

You don't have to be making 'god' claims to be religious. Many religions are atheistic. Also, many football fans have a near 'religious' fervor about their team

Faith? To claim "...there is no god..." is blind faith.

Not necessarily. There are many reasonable justifications for positively claiming 'there are no gods' (e.g. the weight of evidence against supernaturalisms, the number of gods which have been disproved, the differences between 'reality' and religious claims). Given the amount of information available to most people now o'days and modern models of education, I'd suggest that if anyone does have 'blind faith' that gods don't exist, they're in a tiny minority.

[Angrboda]

local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

You don't have to be making 'god' claims to be religious. Many religions are atheistic. Also, many football fans have a near 'religious' fervor about their team

I think this is something of an equivocation, but there may be some kissing points in common.

[archangle]

Because I was specifically told that atheism under anthropology is categorized as a religion.

Well, that's simply wrong, atheism cannot be a religion. It's exactly the same as trying to claim that 'oblivion' is a 'doughnut'; law of identity fail.
I wonder how one might go about getting that corrected?

---

There are many different definitions of religion and many of these definitions can include things that are not stereotypically thought of as religions.

Indeed. There are also a lot of blurred boundaries regarding cultural & tribal phenomena. Some definitions of religion separate cultural memes from religious ones, others include them. The common use definitions generally separate them using dogma/philosophy/tenets as the differentiator.

We must learn to separate theism from religion as they are quite distinct. Examples of this would be Daoism (Taoism) and how there is no theistic figure but it is still a religion.

'Theism' is a subset of 'religion' not a descriptor or something separate. Some religions are theistic, some deistic, some atheistic, some pagan, some philosophical etc.

---

I refer to that as tribalism, where people create social bonds around a specific criteria.

That's exactly the type of cultural phenomena that I referred to above.

Atheists don't have to be religious, as they follow no particular deity or deities. But like any other person, we prefer to associate with people who have similar views and ideas.

It's important to note that those views aren't informed by the atheism, rather the beliefs that the person does hold.

I think that some theists will refer to atheism as a religion as a way to counter the criticisms against organized religion, or the criticism of those who follow a religion. If they can categorize atheism as a religion, then they can cry "glass houses" when religion is criticized. It's a substitute for any argument of actual substance, so I tend not to care whether people consider it to be a religion or not. Most of the time, they believe in far greater (and more harmful) myths, and I'd rather address those.

Indeed, it seems to be an accusation of 'you're just as stupid as us!'. It's a deliberate misrepresentation which always has an ulterior motive. Consequently, I care a great deal about whether people consider it a religion or not because if they do, they're wrong and demonstrating their ignorance. If someone can't even get this point right, refuses to update their position when corrected or they're deliberately getting it wrong, there's little point in continuing conversations other than for publically outing the misdefinition.

---

local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

You don't have to be making 'god' claims to be religious. Many religions are atheistic. Also, many football fans have a near 'religious' fervor about their team

Faith? To claim "...there is no god..." is blind faith.

Not necessarily. There are many reasonable justifications for positively claiming 'there are no gods' (e.g. the weight of evidence against supernaturalisms, the number of gods which have been disproved, the differences between 'reality' and religious claims). Given the amount of information available to most people now o'days and modern models of education, I'd suggest that if anyone does have 'blind faith' that gods don't exist, they're in a tiny minority.

I agree, not necessarily.

But you have pointed to traits. Not god, or no god. The best you can say, there is no "that type".

The universe may be alive. if it is, maybe that would be what people "felt" as god. they just got the traits drastically wrong. We could just be proteins in a larger thingy. Maybe just proteins in the biosphere of earth?

What is a piece of evidence can you offer that we are not part of the biosphere of earth?

anyway, that's what I claim. Not necessarily accurate, I definitely agree to that.

---

local soccer club aint a religion. they don't concern themselves with such matters. They don't make claims about god at all.

Nor do we atheists, usually. But we do make judgments about other people's claims regarding god. All you'd have to do, if you wanted to make me personally believe- I can't speak for anyone else, obviously- is to provide some real evidence. Why is it that theists never can?

If someone claims to you that they've been abducted by aliens and you answer "I don't believe you," are you making a claim about the existence of aliens? Or just one about the veracity of someone else's claim?

Faith? To claim "...there is no god..." is blind faith. Which is completely different than "Your type of god does not exist".

Maybe you should, I dunno, spend some time actually talking to atheists before you start making blanket statements about them, hmm? If you did, you'd find that each of us has our own personal stance on the existence of gods, rather than the one size fits all system you seem to believe it is. Some of us are gnostic atheists who believe in no god, that's true, but most of us are just waiting for better evidence before they believe in something. Why would you start believing in magical things without evidence for them, after all?

lmao, I have. I am one.

But to make a claim "no god" is different than "no that type of god". They are two different claims. i would have to side with carl on this one.

When people ask me I just say I don't believe in that type of god. It really ends there.

for example.
I say a man did not rise as taught. I offer 7 billion people that died as evidence. At least, right. Then I say, now stack that up against the three you have. which stance is more reasonable?

they say "faith", but that is meaningless and they know it. Although, I have to say, I never argued with an asshole "bible literalist" that would force his belief on me. I don't talk to those types. I aint religous.

[DeistPaladin]

Fine, atheism is a religion.

And my house is now a "church", so no property taxes for me!

And all those billboards all over my town about abortion and "repent" are offensive to my religion! I demand sensitivity and that they be taken down!

And I demand that they "teach both sides" in their Sunday Schools!

[Esquilax]

lmao, I have. I am one.

But to make a claim "no god" is different than "no that type of god". They are two different claims. i would have to side with carl on this one.

When people ask me I just say I don't believe in that type of god. It really ends there.

Yeah, that's what weirded me out a little! I thought you were a nonbeliever, but then I thought if that was true you must know that getting atheists to properly agree on things is like herding cats (I'm a writer and I couldn't even think of a better expression... )

I dunno, kinda hard to call atheism a religion when only some of us adhere to the definition you have of religious atheism.

[KichigaiNeko]

Fine, atheism is a religion.

And my house is now a "church", so no property taxes for me!

And all those billboards all over my town about abortion and "repent" are offensive to my religion! I demand sensitivity and that they be taken down!

And I demand that they "teach both sides" in their Sunday Schools!

[archangle]

lmao, I have. I am one.

But to make a claim "no god" is different than "no that type of god". They are two different claims. i would have to side with carl on this one.

When people ask me I just say I don't believe in that type of god. It really ends there.

Yeah, that's what weirded me out a little! I thought you were a nonbeliever, but then I thought if that was true you must know that getting atheists to properly agree on things is like herding cats (I'm a writer and I couldn't even think of a better expression... )

I dunno, kinda hard to call atheism a religion when only some of us adhere to the definition you have of religious atheism.

Muslims say the same thing. "kind of hard to call us a religion when we all disagree with you". Yeah, so what. Oh wait, you gona do what to my butt ... Can I change my mind?

I only list the possible definition and see how people are interacting with each other. It seems we fit many parts of the definition that's all.

For me, I say, yep, we are a religion. It ends that debate quickly because it is quite meaningless to me i don't mind. the message is for them not me.

I ask them, "Now what is that evidence you use again for your god? "

when they ask "what is your evidence for "no god".
I say I am not making that claim.

I am claiming your god does not exists with the traits you are claiming.

---

Fine, atheism is a religion.

And my house is now a "church", so no property taxes for me!

And all those billboards all over my town about abortion and "repent" are offensive to my religion! I demand sensitivity and that they be taken down!

And I demand that they "teach both sides" in their Sunday Schools!

This is ok.
Then we can talk about the laws we make.
1)Is there a law that you could use for exceptions of taxes?
2) can you put billboards up?
3) Do private schools have any say in what they do/don't have to teach?

although, if you do this, it kind of seals the deal doesn't it.

[FragileTag]

"Athiesm to religion is like baldness to haircolor" Athiest poster

[archangle]

"Athiesm to religion is like baldness to haircolor" Athiest poster

atheist is to religion as to baldness is to hair style.

[KichigaiNeko]

"Athiesm to religion is like baldness to haircolor" Athiest poster

Fragile

Sorry if I missed your intro thread.