A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Angrboda]

I'm not sure I agree. I think he did in fact make a good case and ably defended himself. I think his argument is flawed and I will provide a Cliff notes version below, but I can't claim to have won the day in any sense. He introduced a novel defense of the claim (novel to me), and while I assign his success in presentation to debating skill more than substance, I'm not one to try to argue with success.

Short version.

A) legal cases may arguably set precedent in treating atheism as a religion (at least in terms of distributing rights fairly).

B) He introduced what apparently is a well respected theory about some of the main features that religions have, characterizing them according to seven traits or features, which he enumerated with respect to atheist's behavior. Some argued whether he was basing his analysis of how atheism fared in these seven areas on accurate and factual characterizations of atheists and atheism, but at least the approach had the virtue of being based on legitimate ideas. I argued that using the theory in the way he did was invalid in the technical sense, to varying success.

I think, given some of his later comments, his claim that atheism=religion was primarily a stalking horse for the related argument that (some) atheists act very religiously with respect to their atheism, presumably to paint atheists with the same tar and feathers that they do theists. Seeing as he has not expanded on the point, I leave it merely as a hypothesis as to his goals.

And, unless I left something out or distorted something, that's it in a nutshell.

Statler Waldorf is welcome to dispute any of this, and I won't gainsay his opinion by debating him on the matter further.