Faux News: Atheism is a religion, too

[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.