A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Anomalocaris]

Turnip's whole "argument" boils down to "I will accuse you of having a belief system that is similar in nature to mine until you admit my belief system is the only valid one ratified by the one I take to me the one true god"

Meanwhile, he is succeeding in wasting time belonging to people far better than his ilk.

[Rayaan]

Islam is a false religion because it claims that both the Bible and the Quran are the inspired word of God.

Yes, we believe that the Bible is the word of God as well as the Torah but not the present ones. We only believe that the original version of the Bible is true, and it was sent from God, but sadly the original version doesn't exist anymore because it was changed by man and there is proof for this. You can read more about this in Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." And when this happened, God has sent another book, the Quran, as a last and final confirmation of the previous holy books that were tampered with.

Scriptures Before the Quran: http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about...66938.html

[downbeatplumb]

So now we must look at two major factors that make atheism a religion.

A. It falls under the legal definition for a religion.
B. It falls under the scientific definition of a religion.

I just read the legal and scientific definitons and you are wrong on both counts.
The definitions of both put wieght on peoples beliefs in but atheism is a rejection of beliefs.
There are lots of religions you dont believe in Statler, does your lack of faith in Islam your become your religion?

Point A)
Modern atheism is split on this issue, many atheists want to be recognized as a legal religion because it gives them the same rights to expression on public lands as current religions have (an example would be putting up atheistic signs in capitol buildings near other religious symbols such as nativity scenes). On the other side of the divide atheists do not want to be associated with religions because they feel that their anti-religious arguments would crumble if they were part of a religion themselves. Sadly for these people, atheism has been legally deemed a religion on numerous occasions. Two examples would be…

When an inmate was denied the ability to hold an atheistic study group he sued claiming it violated his religious freedoms. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin ruled in 2005 that atheism is indeed a religion. The court stated, “ "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.,"

Another death knell came for the “atheism is not a religion” crowd over 40 years prior to the above case when in 1961 the US Supreme Court decided that a religion did in no way require the belief in a supreme being in the Torcaso v. Watkins case. In its list of examples it included both atheism and secular humanism as such religions.
It will be interesting to see if the people who are so quick to point to court decisions concerning creationism and intelligent design will be as excited about these court decisions deeming them legally religious.

What I want is freedom from religion, but the right to be secular has to be fought for in theoracratic countries like the US of stupid A. If that means playing he system then so be it.

Footnotes:
Many atheists do not feel they belong to a religion, however this is completely irrelevant as to whether they really do or not- Christianity would still be a religion even if Jesus said it was not one.
Many atheists try and make the argument that atheism is not a positive belief but rather the absence of belief. However the absence of belief would also necessarily imply absence of knowledge about a certain subject and not many atheists would say they do not know there is no God. This new definition of atheism is actually a revisionist’s definition. The traditional definition of atheism is summed up by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy as follows,
““Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”

Atheism was the offical state religion of the former Soviet Unition.

-SW

That last bunch of sweeping generalisations does not require taking apart individually.

Atheism was the official doctrine of the soviet union and not its religion coz it didnt have one

[Zen Badger]

Okie dokie, here goes…

There is a very strong case that can be made suggesting atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism and here it is in a nutshell.
For the purpose of this ‘challenge’ I will be defining atheism more in the western sense which defines atheism as not just the lack of belief in God or gods but also the lack of belief in spirits and the supernatural as well. Since the vast majority of atheists on this board are strict materialists I do not anticipate any objections on this.
So now we must look at two major factors that make atheism a religion.

A. It falls under the legal definition for a religion.
B. It falls under the scientific definition of a religion.

Point A)
Modern atheism is split on this issue, many atheists want to be recognized as a legal religion because it gives them the same rights to expression on public lands as current religions have (an example would be putting up atheistic signs in capitol buildings near other religious symbols such as nativity scenes). On the other side of the divide atheists do not want to be associated with religions because they feel that their anti-religious arguments would crumble if they were part of a religion themselves. Sadly for these people, atheism has been legally deemed a religion on numerous occasions. Two examples would be…

When an inmate was denied the ability to hold an atheistic study group he sued claiming it violated his religious freedoms. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Wisconsin ruled in 2005 that atheism is indeed a religion. The court stated, “ "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.,"

Another death knell came for the “atheism is not a religion” crowd over 40 years prior to the above case when in 1961 the US Supreme Court decided that a religion did in no way require the belief in a supreme being in the Torcaso v. Watkins case. In its list of examples it included both atheism and secular humanism as such religions.
It will be interesting to see if the people who are so quick to point to court decisions concerning creationism and intelligent design will be as excited about these court decisions deeming them legally religious.

I'm unware of the cirmcumstances of the first case but in regards to Torcaso vs Watkins, here is the REAL story, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source...VzC6Vgvsxg, I think you should research your material a bit better laddie.

Point B)

---

The most common test given to determine “religiousmanship” is the “Seven Dimensions of Religion” developed by Anthropologist Ninian Smart. Religions do not need to possess all seven dimensions in order to qualify and the system the most widely used in anthropology and archeology. The seven dimensions are: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Let’s look how atheism does on the test.

Narrative: This is simply the story told as to why we are here and how we came to be here. Nearly all atheists believe that the universe came about by purely naturalistic means and that man is just another one of the animals. These two concepts are incredibly important to how the atheist views the world. As Dawkins even said,
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Which helps to demonstrate just how closely tied atheism is to evolution and the narrative of how we all got here and what our real purpose is (survival).

Experiential: There are two components to this dimension. The first is what the person experiences before they are a member of the religion that drives them to join. For atheists this is usually a heavy indoctrination into Darwinism. Most atheists can even pinpoint this down to a single moment in life when they affirmed the non-existence of God and the supernatural, almost the mirror image of the Christian’s time of regeneration.

The second component is after they join the religion. Many atheists including Christopher Hitchens and Carl Marx describe their conversion to atheism as a feeling of freedom or liberation. Hitchens even describes Darwin as the great liberator, filling a very similar role as Moses to Jews and Jesus to Christians.

Social: The social aspect of atheism is greatly driven by evangelism within the religion. Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that, “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”
Atheism also has its fair share of apostates just like many other religions. When one time atheistic poster child Antony Flew decided to leave atheism and become a Christian he was viciously attacked by many who used to praise his work when he was still an atheist including Richard Dawkins. If atheism really was just the absence of belief and not a religion then why would any atheists care who was with them? I don’t believe in Santa Claus but I really don’t care if anyone else does or not.

Doctrinal: Doctrines are any beliefs that logically derive from a religion. Secular Humanism directly arose from atheism and is heavily ascribed to by many atheists today. Moral relativism also has very heavy ties to atheism.

Ethics: Atheism has proposed many different ethics systems, almost all are closely tied to Darwinism and all are morally relativistic. Some atheists live by the ethics of other religions and others live by governmental laws which are usually inspired by other religions.

Ritual: Because Atheism is a fairly young religion, it has not developed any major rituals. Although atheists are beginning to recognize Darwin’s birthday every February (some wanting it to even be a federally recognized holiday), so this is quickly becoming a ritual for the atheistic religion.
Material: This includes all the physical things created or greatly regarded by a religion. Many atheists have a very high view for nature. They see earth as having some form of authority over man, and survival is man’s number one purpose. The atheist’s view of nature is also heavily influenced by Darwinism.

That finishes up the Seven Dimensions of a Religion, outlining them for atheism is actually far easier than it is for some of the other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism.

---

Let us look at the actual dimensions of religion as defined by Smart and see how atheism compares........

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)
What forms or ceremonies does atheism have?

None, and certainly none that are "revealed"

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it.

Atheism again has no stories of creation. As has been stated earlier Evolution is not a part of, or a prerequistite for atheism which predates it by thousands of years. Also Evolution is built on mountains of facts, not "revealed" "knowledge". Which again causes it to fall outside your definition.

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)
I get all of that from riding my motorbike, does that make motorcycling a religion?

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)
Again this can be used to define fans of baseball and soccer as religious in their behaviour, and although some of them certainly act that way would you call either sport a religion?
Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)
Atheism has no rules about human behaviour. Atheists as people certainly do, but they do not derive that from their atheism, unless of cause you can show me the "revealed" source of that information.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form
This one also by definition excludes christianity since the bible is neither intellectual or coherent.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural

Please,please,please show me an atheist church that "symbolises the sacred or supernatural"
And although a requirement for a god is not directly stated, five of the seven dimensions have either "revealed","supernatural" or "religious" as part of their stated requirements so atheism automatically falls outside of their realm.

Footnotes:
Many atheists do not feel they belong to a religion, however this is completely irrelevant as to whether they really do or not

By whose definition? Yours? I hardly think anyone here takes THAT seriously.

- Christianity would still be a religion even if Jesus said it was not one.

You would argue with your god?!?!?!?

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

Many atheists try and make the argument that atheism is not a positive belief but rather the absence of belief. However the absence of belief would also necessarily imply absence of knowledge about a certain subject and not many atheists would say they do not know there is no God. This new definition of atheism is actually a revisionist’s definition. The traditional definition of atheism is summed up by the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy as follows,
““Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”

Atheism(despite your jingosim) is still merely an absence of belief in a god or gods.

Anti-theism on the other hand is much more positive since it believes that the world would be a much better much place if religion faded away completely.And will work to that end.
And yes, I am very much an anti-theist.

Atheism was the offical state religion of the former Soviet Unition.

So Fucking What?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Firstly, a group being "religious in nature" does not make atheism a religion. If an atheist starts a group that is specifically about discussing religion, it is religious in nature. Furthermore, this guy gamed the system so he could have the same rights you have. Pretty sad that he had to do that, huh?

As for Torcaso v. Watkins, you will have to quote where exactly the findings show that specifically. I am relatively certain you are paraphrasing with minimal success on that one. In Justice Black's footnotes, he mentions Secular Humanism, but not atheism.

---

If atheism is really not a religion then why should atheists enjoy the same religious freedoms as actual religions? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, I am sorry.
Well I am sure you are aware that Secular Humanism was developed by atheists, so not really sure what your point is there. The fact of the matter is that the court in Wisconsin DID conclude atheism was a religion and the Supreme Court DID conclude that religions do not require a belief in a supreme being in order to be classified as religions. You can ignore these facts all you want, but it does not dimension the validity of my argument any.

Fail. All atheists would have to believe the same "narrative" for this to apply to atheism.

Wrong, not all Christians agree on the Christian Narrative, some believe the Earth is old, some believe it is young, some believe God used Evolution, but most do not. I would challenge you to find any atheists who do not believe that life on earth evolved through natural means. Nice try.

Fail again. "Indoctrination into Darwinism?" I didn't even read "On the Origin of Species" until I was in my twenties.

Ahh but you have still read it? Not surprising at all, and unless you were raised by illiterate natives in the jungles of South America you were heavily indoctrinated with Darwinian Theory from grade school on. Try and be honest here.

I don't see where you went from point a to point b. Experience after joining a religion . . . great liberator. Christ, you could be an Olympian with that jump.

The fact you are having difficulties keeping up is irrelevant to the validity of my argument.

Okay, Dawkins may have said that. What about every other atheist?

Doesn’t matter, not all Christians are interested in evangelism, but most of their leaders are just like the atheistic leaders like Dawkins and Hitchens.

He was attacked by individuals. There are a ton of those when it comes to atheism.

He was attacked by atheistic leaders, atheistic organizations, and atheistic publications.

*sigh* How can something have very heavy ties to something that can be described, at most, with a sentence?

Let me be clearer, the atheistic worldview and presuppositions gave rise to secular humanism. I have never run across an atheist who believes in absolute morality because it is not closely tied to the atheist religion, however atheists who openly believe in moral relativism are a dime a dozen because it is very closely tied.

Um, nope. I do what I think it right. It has nothing to do with law or your silly book.

Ok, so you do what YOU think is right, that is moral relativism so thanks for proving that point for me. Now if we went through what you think is right I can guarantee it could be traced back to Judeo-Christian ethics. So thanks again.

Fail. Again. Atheism is at least as old as Christianity. There are no rituals because it is not a religion.

Sure there were people who didn’t believe in God even before Christianity, but these people were not part of the atheist religion. The Atheist religion is very young as far as religions go.

It is pretty easy to pull shit out of your ass.

What are you? 13?

So you admit that Christians would deny the word of God's son if it didn't suit them? Oh, wait, wasn't he God?

Nope but scientists, the judicial system and historians would, and they are who decides what officially counts as a religion or not, try and keep up, I know it’s hard.

I love astute atheists.

I would love them too if I ever could find one. Unfortunately they are far and few between these days.

Wait, what? To not believe in fairies, you have to have never heard of fairies. Do you read what you write?

I hold the positive believe that fairies do not exist, I affirm their non-existence. Just like you hold positive belief that God does not exist. Do you not read what I write?


Oh, Statler, how you love your Soviets. Tell me, do you define genocide in the same way Stalin did? If not (I sincerely hope not), why would you go with the Soviet definition of atheism?



[/quote]

Non- sequitur, just because Stalin didn’t define one thing correctly in no way means he defined everything incorrectly. Stalin defined atheism the exact same way you do, I am sorry if that makes your religion look bad but you will learn to live with it.

---

Statler:

Prove to me Islam is a false religion.

Well that is not what this thread is about, but since it's fairly simple I will take a break from my response to why atheism is a religion and answer this quickly.

Islam is a false religion because it claims that both the Bible and the Quran are the inspired word of God. However, the Bible says it is the ONLY word of God. So if the statement the Quran makes is true then the statement is false (law of no contradiction) and if the statement is false it is also false so therefore the statement can only be false and the Quran is not the inspired word of God.

I mean real evidence not the bible.

---

I didn't use the Bible you silly goose (I could have), I used logic. I will try and make it simpler for you.
Person A and Person B are standing in a room.
If Person A says, "I tell the truth all the time and so does Person B" but then person B says, "I am the only person in the room who tells the truth" then it is obvious Person A is not telling the truth because if they were then they would be lying because of the two contradictory claims they have made. Very simple logic.

Your whole argument can be summed up as one big over generalization akin to "all catholics are pedophiles."

Actually my argument is akin to "Christianity is a religion" or "Islam is a religion".

---

Atheism was the offical state religion of the former Soviet Unition.

The communists where they ruled tried to replace whatever religion was dominant in the societies they rule over with the dogma of Marxism. Might I further more state that Marxism in it's various forms could be considered a religion. I know Marxism fairly well, because I was one as a teenager regrettably.

---

True statement, but Marxism was not the official religion of the Soviet State, atheism was. May I ask though, why are you no longer a Marxist?

---

Turnip's whole "argument" boils down to "I will accuse you of having a belief system that is similar in nature to mine until you admit my belief system is the only valid one ratified by the one I take to me the one true god"

Meanwhile, he is succeeding in wasting time belonging to people far better than his ilk.

---

I was desperately hoping Chuck that maybe for once you would actually try and refute one of my arguments. *sigh* Disappointed again.

---

Islam is a false religion because it claims that both the Bible and the Quran are the inspired word of God.

Yes, we believe that the Bible is the word of God as well as the Torah but not the present ones. We only believe that the original version of the Bible is true, and it was sent from God, but sadly the original version doesn't exist anymore because it was changed by man and there is proof for this. You can read more about this in Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." And when this happened, God has sent another book, the Quran, as a last and final confirmation of the previous holy books that were tampered with.

Scriptures Before the Quran: http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-about...66938.html

---

Yes I was aware of that; all the verses in the Bible that contradict the Quran have been tampered with and changed, very conveniently. It's the same argument the Mormons make, retroactive verification of the Bible is completely illogical though.

I just read the legal and scientific definitons and you are wrong on both counts.

Well apparently those judges in Wisconsin who have actually been to law school disagree with you. So does the Encyclopedia of Philosophy for that matter.

The definitions of both put wieght on peoples beliefs in but atheism is a rejection of beliefs.
There are lots of religions you dont believe in Statler, does your lack of faith in Islam your become your religion?

First of all- no, atheism is the positive belief in the non-existence of God, you are trying to play revisionist games here. Secondly, I do not believe in other religions because of my religion (Christianity) just like you reject them because of your religion (Materialistic Atheism).

What I want is freedom from religion, but the right to be secular has to be fought for in theoracratic countries like the US of stupid A. If that means playing he system then so be it.

If you want freedom from religion then you are going to have to stop being an atheist. You are just as religious as I am right now.

That last bunch of sweeping generalisations does not require taking apart individually.

Atheism was the official doctrine of the soviet union and not its religion coz it didnt have one

So you just ignore the rest of my points? Nice job.

The Soviet Union required its people to “profess atheism” in order to hold government and high social positions. Not sure how you can profess an absence of belief. The Soviet Union practiced “State Atheism”, just like I said.

---

I'm unware of the cirmcumstances of the first case but in regards to Torcaso vs Watkins, here is the REAL story, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source...VzC6Vgvsxg, I think you should research your material a bit better laddie.

I figured you would completely ignore the Wisconsin decision. Not sure what the Wiki article has to do with anything, everything I said was factual. What I quoted was directly out of the decision and the court said a religion does not require the belief in supreme being and secular humanism and atheism are examples of such religions.





[hide]

Let us look at the actual dimensions of religion as defined by Smart and see how atheism compares........

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed)
What forms or ceremonies does atheism have?

None, and certainly none that are "revealed"

---

Well if you had actually read my post you would know that I said that atheism does not have any current rituals because it is a fairly young religion. However, many atheists are proposing the anniversary of Darwin’s birth as something that should be celebrated by all atheists.

---

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it.

Atheism again has no stories of creation. As has been stated earlier Evolution is not a part of, or a prerequistite for atheism which predates it by thousands of years. Also Evolution is built on mountains of facts, not "revealed" "knowledge". Which again causes it to fall outside your definition.

---

Now you are just being intellectually dishonest. Can you find a modern atheistic leader who does not believe that the universe arose by naturalistic means and that life on earth developed through Darwinian Evolution? You can’t, because it is a core piece of the atheistic religion’s narrative. It also says these things are “often” revealed, they do not have to be.

---

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private)
I get all of that from riding my motorbike, does that make motorcycling a religion?

[/ride]
That’s a question for Dr. Smart, not me. If your motorcycle riding fell under several of these dimensions then it could be classified as a religion yes. There are many crazy religions out there.

[hide]

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public)
Again this can be used to define fans of baseball and soccer as religious in their behaviour, and although some of them certainly act that way would you call either sport a religion?

---

Again this is, a question for Dr. Smart and the anthropologists who use this system (which is most of them) not me. You are doing nothing to demonstrate how atheism is not a religion though.

---

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm)
Atheism has no rules about human behaviour. Atheists as people certainly do, but they do not derive that from their atheism, unless of cause you can show me the "revealed" source of that information.

---

Again, it just says “often” revealed, you are having trouble with that word today. I am sure you are aware that atheists came up with what is known as “Human Secularism”- which of course does contain rules for human behavior. Nearly all atheists are also morally relativistic, telling people that they make up their own wrong and right is still formulating rules about how people should behave.

---

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form
This one also by definition excludes christianity since the bible is neither intellectual or coherent.

---

You are right, I am sure the Bible is a bit over your head philosophically.

---

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural

Please,please,please show me an atheist church that "symbolises the sacred or supernatural"

---

Does not have to be a building and it does not have to symbolize the supernatural, just has to be sacred. Many atheists consider the environment, science, empiricism, Darwin’s birthday, and materialism all to be sacred. They don’t all have to agree on what it is that is sacred, not all Christians agree on what is and is not sacred.

---

And although a requirement for a god is not directly stated, five of the seven dimensions have either "revealed","supernatural" or "religious" as part of their stated requirements so atheism automatically falls outside of their realm.

---

Actually none of them have these as a requirement; they use the word “often. Maybe you need to look that word up.

- Christianity would still be a religion even if Jesus said it was not one.

You would argue with your god?!?!?!? [/quote]

Nope, but I am not who determines what is and is not a religion. The people who do would surely classify Christianity as a religion regardless of what Christ had said. Sorry if that was confusing.

Atheism(despite your jingosim) is still merely an absence of belief in a god or gods.

I will take the most highly regarded Encyclopedia of Philosophy over your personal opinion if you do not mind thank you.

Anti-theism on the other hand is much more positive since it believes that the world would be a much better much place if religion faded away completely.And will work to that end.
And yes, I am very much an anti-theist.

Oh I am sorry for you, even though you have no logical grounds to even define what “better” is.

So Fucking What?

Well kind of hard to make something that is not a religion your “official religion” I would think. Also, I doubt that many people who lived in Stalin Run USSR would agree with your anti-theistic ideas. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out, 60 million people were murdered all because the Soviets “forgot God”.

[lilphil1989]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we concede your proposition "atheism is a religion".

What's the point? What would that demonstrate?

[orogenicman]

Everyone should read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://www.atheistrev.com/2010/02/atheis...igion.html

This last one, in particular

One of the most puzzling things about the sort of right-wing Christians currently afflicting the U.S. is that many of them are determined to debase atheism by bringing it down to their level, the level of religion. This has to baffle international observers because it seems that these Christians are defending their religion by arguing that atheism is "just another religion." Indeed, they are trying to have it both ways by simultaneously claiming that religion/faith are wonderful but that atheism is merely another religion/faith.

And this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and...a_religion

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.[13][14] The plaintiff in the case was a prison inmate who was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism. The court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

There are also online churches that have been created by atheists for purposes ranging from parody, advocacy, education, securing legal rights, to ordaining atheist clergy for atheist weddings.

[Skipper]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we concede your proposition "atheism is a religion".

What's the point? What would that demonstrate?

I'd imagine it would make the religious idiots feel better in the sense that as most Atheists are against religion (at the very least against what it is built on (a faith in a god)) they feel it would discredit our arguments against their religion if we were part of a religion ourselves.

But that's just a guess and obviously not even an issue as Atheism is not a religion, not at any stretch of the imagination and just makes the people arguing that it is seem even more ignorant than they already are.

[KichigaiNeko]

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that we concede your proposition "atheism is a religion".

What's the point? What would that demonstrate?

I'd imagine it would make the religious idiots feel better in the sense that as most Atheists are against religion (at the very least against what it is built on (a faith in a god)) they feel it would discredit our arguments against their religion if we were part of a religion ourselves.

But that's just a guess and obviously not even an issue as Atheism is not a religion, not at any stretch of the imagination and just makes the people arguing that it is seem even more ignorant than they already are.

Is it just me but does the whole "Atheism is a religion" accusations are coming from religious people who (generally) ARE religious and are totally incapable of thinking any other way???

Just a thought

[Justtristo]

---

Atheism was the offical state religion of the former Soviet Unition.

The communists where they ruled tried to replace whatever religion was dominant in the societies they rule over with the dogma of Marxism. Might I further more state that Marxism in it's various forms could be considered a religion. I know Marxism fairly well, because I was one as a teenager regrettably.

---

True statement, but Marxism was not the official religion of the Soviet State, atheism was. May I ask though, why are you no longer a Marxist?

Good question, I stopped being Marxist, because Marxism is a flawed philosophy.