A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

I gave you kudos not so much because I agreed with all of your post, but because I thought you did a nice job defending your position. However, I'd like to know something. If you are thorwing out legal dominions, and the seven dimensions of religion, then just how do you determine what is and is not a religion?

I never claimed that I could differentiate between what is and is not a religion. You on the other hand, claimed that you could demonstrate that atheism is a religion. The burden of proof lies entirely on your shoulders. You've implicitly claimed that you can tell religion from that which it is not by claiming that you can show that atheism is one.

If you find my analysis of the insufficiency of your argument faulty, by all means demonstrate how I have erred. Telling me you disagree without telling me why you disagree leaves me with no confidence in your ability to make such a demonstration.

I will help you on the way toward that demonstration by pointing out an aspect of Smart's framework which it appears you have neglected. Again, I'm not familiar with Smart's work first-hand, so please point out any errors I make. According to Wikipedia's entry on Ninian Smart -- which if in err I presume you will correct -- the first three criteria (what you term narrative, doctrinal and ethics) are what Smart terms "para-historical", meaning those dimensions that take the investigation into the experience, or inner lives, of religious people; in other words, those aspects are private to the religious adherent. Again, from Wikipedia, Smart says, "since the study of man is in an important sense participatory – for one has to enter into men’s intentions, beliefs, myths, desires, in order to understand why they act as they do – it is fatal if cultures including our own are described merely externally, without entering into dialogue with them." As noted, I'm not an expert on Ninian Smart's thought like you, but it appears that Smart is saying we cannot assess these first three criteria without taking into account the relevant subject's own experience of their 'religion' in these areas. In short, for those three criteria, we atheists, we're the experts, not you. Subtract three criteria. You have four criteria left to argue with, and if even one fails, atheism will fail on a majority of Smart's criteria. That is, provided you can even demonstrate that applying Smart's framework in the way you are doing is even valid (which you've yet to show).

Anyway, I'll save the final piece de resistance for replying to your "disagreements" with the points I made previously.

The ball is in your court. You claimed that atheism is a religion. Defend your claim or don't.
I really don't care which course you choose.