So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[charlou]

Seth, I'm interested in your response to this:

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

"can be, and most usually is" ... Would you describe the exceptions as a simple lack of belief, then?

[camoguard]

I've got a related subtopic that I hope can help us dial into if atheism is a religion or not.

Here is a definition of religion from an online dictionary with comments.

re·li·gion
 SNIP

I think only two of the above definitions are useful for arguing what is or isn't a religion. Points 1 and 2.

Nice try, but you're committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

The pertinent definition, and the one I have been using, is definition 6.

You wish to limit the scope of the discussion only to those definitions that support your preference that only "spiritual" or classically theistic religions fit and exclude the more general form defined by 6. But that's pettifoggery. You don't pick the definition and then see if the behavior fits within it, you observe the behavior and then see if one of the definitions fits.

And I think the U.S. case law has supported the idea that the religion that is protected is the individual and subjective kind which includes nonbelief and might include environmentalism for all we know. And I want to make sure I know which form of "religion" we're arguing for or against here.

We're arguing whether ANY definition of religion can be applied to ANY sort of atheistic belief and practice.

I can't even get most atheists to admit they hold a belief, so things go slowly.

So environmentalism is a religion? I want to be able to agree upon a definition that allows Catholicism and discards political fantacism, sports fandom and nationalism. If all of those are religions to you, then I'm wasting my time trying to distinguish anything.

Right, you want to define "religion" as being exclusively belief/practice sets that include supernatural deities because it's convenient to your desire to keep Atheism out of the definition of religion.

Unfortunately for you, the theistic definition of religion is no longer the ONLY definition, and other, broader definitions of religion apply, including the one I use, precisely because it is a observed fact that people who follow a belief/practice set devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics, are, at the core, functioning exactly the same way as Catholics or other theists, and further, a number of non-theistic religions exist, and have existed for, in some cases, thousands of years.

It's a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it." If it looks like a religion, waddles like a religion and quacks like a religion, it's a religion. That this may include things you don't traditionally think of as religion merely indicates a narrowness of perspective on your part, not a defect in the definition, which is sufficiently clear and precise for the experts at Random House to include in their dictionary. I value their expertise and judgment more than yours.

Your complaint is very typical of atheist argumentation. It reflects an antipathy and hatred of "religion," which is actually antipathy towards THEISM, that clouds rational thought to a rather remarkable degree. In order to maintain a sense of ethical purity, Atheists of the radical variety must be able to attack "religion" as a general concept because it is often beyond their capacity to nuance their arguments and direct them against specific individual theists, or specific theistic claims, ideas or actions. It's much simpler for them to attack "religion" as a propaganda tool, and so they balk at any suggesting that their own behavior might be precisely the sort of thing they are complaining about with regard to theists, such as expressions of prejudice, bigotry and intolerance based in a religious belief. No few vocal radical Atheists are precisely as stupid, ignorant, prejudiced, ignorant, intolerant and irrational as Fred Phelps and his ilk, and it's worth pointing out that they are every bit as much religious zealots as the Phelps clan is.

Debunking this bigoted, prejudiced propaganda and exposing Atheism for what it often is, a bigoted, intolerant, cruel, dismissive, disruptive, morally bankrupt ideology is one of my favorite pastimes.

I had three sentences in my last post. One was a question. Answer the question.

[Coito ergo sum]

Right, you want to define "religion" as being exclusively belief/practice sets that include supernatural deities because it's convenient to your desire to keep Atheism out of the definition of religion.

No, it's that you want to re-define "religion" to mean something other than what it really means. Your apparent goal is to create a false equivalence between religion and deeply held philosophical, political or other views.

Unfortunately for you, the theistic definition of religion is no longer the ONLY definition, and other, broader definitions of religion apply, including the one I use, precisely because it is a observed fact that people who follow a belief/practice set devotedly, as a matter of conscience or ethics, are, at the core, functioning exactly the same way as Catholics or other theists, and further, a number of non-theistic religions exist, and have existed for, in some cases, thousands of years.

Non-theistic religions are still religions. That doesn't make Epicureanism, or existentialism, or being a Republican a "religion." And, it certainly doesn't make the belief that there are no gods a "religion."

It's a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it." If it looks like a religion, waddles like a religion and quacks like a religion, it's a religion.

And, atheism looks nothing like that duck, sounds nothing like that duck, and certainly doesn't smell like that reeking stench wafting off that duck...

That this may include things you don't traditionally think of as religion merely indicates a narrowness of perspective on your part, not a defect in the definition, which is sufficiently clear and precise for the experts at Random House to include in their dictionary. I value their expertise and judgment more than yours.

The definition you quote doesn't support your assertion that atheism is a religion. You are apparently not reading it right.

Your complaint is very typical of atheist argumentation. It reflects an antipathy and hatred of "religion,"

Antipathy or hatred of religion is "antitheism." Some atheists aren't that. Some atheists are of the sort that think faith is a good idea, but they just can't accept any gods. Other atheists dislike or even hate religion. Some atheists are, in fact, religious - like those that follow non-theistic religions. That of course does not make atheism a religion. It just means that some atheists follow religions.

Debunking this bigoted, prejudiced propaganda and exposing Atheism for what it often is, a bigoted, intolerant, cruel, dismissive, disruptive, morally bankrupt ideology is one of my favorite pastimes.

There are a few hundred religions that you might take a look at ....Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto.....and all sorts of derivations thereof... they are swamps of bigotry, prejudice, and propaganda.