Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Nay_Sayer]

It's really stupid when you think about it a little more.

Atheism (and theism) don't have forms, meaningful or not. They are states of being. One is the state of not having a belief in any God or gods; the other is the state of having a belief in at least one God or god. There are different kinds of atheists, as there are different kinds of any sort of person, but only one kind of atheism. The kind where you don't believe in any God or gods. Atheism and theism don't purport to say anything except that a person who doesn't believe in any gods is an atheist and a person who does is a theist. Theism isn't a religion either, btw.

Also, btw, I don't believe, but it's perfectly okay with me if you believe. In fact I'd rather you keep believing until you're the kind of person with whom I wouldn't mind having more things in common. There may be people who have a rational basis for believing in God, but I don't know of any who have demonstrated that to be the case.

The basis on which those claims are being made is your straw man of what atheism is and 'says'.

Even if you were right (and you're not: pro tip, making blanket statements about a demographic is one of the most reliable ways to be wrong), 'blind faith' is not what makes a religion a religion. You seem to be misusing a definition of religion similar to this one from Wikipedia:A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Atheism is none of those things. An atheist may have a religion, but their religion can't be atheism itself. Just as a theist's religion can't be theism itself (and not all theists are religious).

My atheism would be one of the least important things to know about me in a world that cared more about how and what I think than whether my conclusion puts them on their 'team' or not. It may sometimes appear superficially that atheism has motivated me in some way, but if you look closer, it is always other aspects of my totality at work. I think everyone should be treated fairly, and I speak up when I see people being treated unfairly, if you're being unfair to atheists you might get the impression that I have a special motivation to defend atheists, but if you look at all of my contributions to this forum, you will find a lot in defense of theists when someone makes stupid blanket statements about them, too.

You can believe anything 'as an atheist' except that God and/or gods exist; and that's a definitional thing, not an 'atheist dogma'. When you start believing in a deity, you stop being an atheist. There are atheists who believe in ghosts, astrology, homeopathy, aliens building the pyramids, that the moon landings were a hoax, etc. None of that disqualifies them from being atheists. It probably disqualifies them from being rational skeptics if they're intractable about it, but that's a separate subject. Neither atheism nor mere theism restrict what you are allowed to believe, they describe the state of belief you currently fall under, when you stop fitting the definition of one category, you automatically fall into the other.

Your post was straw men, unsupported assertions, and misconceptions from start to finish, so it's no surprise that your conclusions are off. The only way that atheism should be treated like a religion is that freedom of conscience and the right to one's owns opinions of atheists should be equal to that of theists in the eyes of the law.

Thanks for making a post with some substance. It warrants a response.

Unfortunately, I see no evidence for the claim that "Atheism (and theism) don't have forms, meaningful or not. They are states of being."

I see evidence, however, that epistemic attitudes (believing, knowing, doubting, being ignorant of, disbelieving, etc) can be rational or irrational. Thus, disbelief, just like belief, can be rational or irrational.

What would the rationality of atheism consist in? I argue it would consist in showing atheism to be more plausible than theism. And to do this, you have to provide arguments against theism, arguments for atheism, or a combination of both. You would also have to refute theistic arguments.

All of this, atheists here are incapable of. This is why atheism is irrational.

As for the definition of religion you invoke, I don't think it's a good enough definition, because there are plenty of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence that are not religious. Not sure where your argument goes once you acknowledge this.


Another thing that's worth noticing is that atheists in general, and you in this post, love to move the goalposts to suit your argument. Whether you are doing this intentionally or unintentionally is an open question, but it's worth exposing. You use the narrow dictionary definition of atheism when you want atheism to be a small target, more difficult to object to. But you ignore the broader definition which is often in use, which refers not to the view, or beliefs that atheists bear an epistemic attitude to, but the sociological definition of atheists as a group of people.

This goalpost-moving represents a failure on your part to understand the argument. Many if not all of the criticisms I levied weren't against the dictionary definition of atheism, but the practice of atheism as espoused by the fairly homogenous, predominantly white sociological community that is far from diverse on viewpoints beside atheism. It is to this group that religiosity was ascribed. 

Once you fix the errors in your post, we can see what's left of your criticism.

well that was completely wrong...like...all of it...every sentence.....damn.