Margaret Atwood claims atheism is a religion

[rado84]

Someone, please, book her an appointment at

[Cyberman]

She reminds me of someone:



But I can't think who.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's certainly not a religion in the conventional sense, but I do think she is trying to raise a valid point but is using the wrong words or rather using them in an unfamiliar way to express herself.

Religion of course is a very vague term, it can encompass everything from a belief to a series of traditions or rituals totally devoid of belief in any supernatural realm. Timothy Fitzgerald's book The Ideology of Religious Studies is a very good exploration of this, one I very much recommend.

We're used in the west to Religion referring specifically to belief in a deity, but elsewhere especially in the far east it can mean so much more, even just a world view as in the case of Modern Daoism or Confucianism.

Of course there is no solid "atheist code of practice" like there is a list of "thou shall nots" in the Qu'ran, but many Atheists do tend to lean far more strongly to liberal and libertarian views than mainstream society. That coupled with a strong conviction that God does not exist might be worthy of the term.

Socialism is often described as a religious system in Religious Studies departments because it is an all encompassing world view, indeed several leading scholars including the founder of the discipline itself Ninian Smart devoted several works to justifying why the USSR could be described as a theocracy.

We're too used to religion specifically meaning Abrahamic religion, because when we put the Brights next to an Eastern New Religious movement like Happy Science in Japan (yes this is a genuine religion that claims 12 million membership, which is likely to be inflated but not entirely negligible, and has its own political party http://en.hr-party.jp/) such a comparison might not be so far fetched.

Atheists may generally not have the centralization of the Happiness Realization Party, but like the Confucians who are perhaps even less centralized (they have no "Bright" movement for instance) they do hold very similar opinions on many issues, especially within the realm of morality and social issues.

For some folk, their atheism is certainly a religion, a matter of dogma, an idea to be evangelized. For others, not so much. Ms Atwood ought to think more about what she says, because her paintbrush is too broad to be useful. Some atheists assert no god, but others, like myself assert no faith rather than positive knowledge.

But hey, it's the old joke, she's agnostic because it enables her to feel superior to theists and atheists alike.

Color me unimpressed. She doesn't define me or my atheism, and should kindly fuck off.

[Spooky]

That exchange makes my head hurt.  Makes me want to do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8eQUvSlck8

[bennyboy]

I think she's clearly using different definitions than most here use, and so her position sounds nonsensical. Pretty clearly, she's referring to "hard" atheism, i.e. the belief that there is not a God, i.e. a positive assertion which would therefore have to accept the BOP or be based on faith. She's saying that the belief that there is no God, unsupported by any ability to confirm that belief scientifically, is religious-- it's a belief not founded on observation-- which isn't right IMO, but which position isn't as crazy as it sounds to those using the definitions usually used here.

[robvalue]

Bullcrap.

"I'm superior to everyone else because I use different definitions to them. I just haven't done enough research to be aware of this."

Clearly, what she says is a "strict agnosticism" is atheism. Possibly ignostic atheism, which is technically my position, although it's hard to say from the garbled mess she comes out with; otherwise agnostic atheism.

Fuck off with atheism is a religion and has dogma. She is saying the definition of the word atheism (which she misrepresents) is its own dogma? Is it dogmatic to not believe in fucking Santa Claus too?

[Foxaèr]

Yeah, I don't buy Atwood's definition one bit. Sure, she's an accomplished writer; it does not make her an expert on atheism.

[tjakey]

If I say, "There is no Santa Clause" no one has a problem with my conclusion, and no one accuses me having "faith" that there is no Santa Clause. No one makes my not believing in Santa a religious stance in any way, shape or form. Nor does anyone insist that I can't say there is no Santa because no one can prove a negative. or that Santa may exist in some form that is yet to be defined.

But if is say, "There is no god?" Suddenly I am some kind of dogmatic, anti-religious religious person. Yet the reasons for saying "There is no god" and "There is no Santa" are exactly the same.

The word chopping attempts to try and show that no one can possibly know about god's existence, one way or the other, always come across as rather lame. Say the word "god" and everyone kind of knows what is being discussed. That "thing" doesn't exist. People who understand that are atheists. People who don't are something else.

[robvalue]

No one can know about "God" because it can mean literally anything. That's the problem. It's a malformed question, unless you have an accompanying particular definition.

That's why I take the ignostic stance. It's the question that is the problem.

[Foxaèr]

No one can know about "God" because it can mean literally anything. That's the problem. It's a malformed question, unless you have an accompanying particular definition.

The thing is that god does have a definition, at least according to philosophy.

There are certain criteria in philosophical thinking which must be met for an individual to be considered a god.

Therefore, asking what a god should be is asking the wrong question.  

I am not making a platform for god, but I am fucking tired of seeing that retarded question: "What is god".