Atheism is a Religion

As earlier agreed, this is my last round for argumentation so I may not be able to go as in-depth on some things as I'd like. 7 Dimensions I'll start by looking at the "7 Dimensions" that I alluded to earlier, but didn't have space to elaborate. A belief system is not required to meet all dimensions to be a religion. Some may only meet a few, but are heavy in those areas so they qualify. Narrative- Evolution, Big-Bang, etc. Natural theories about matters involving origins. Experiential- Liberation and peace once released from the confines of God. Watch the video, this guy describes his liberation almost as one would describe being in God's presence. Science saved his soul. I like this guy, btw.[2] Social- Atheism has a social component and atheists feel secure being around atheists. They seek to gain converts, just as any missionary would. Doctrinal- Basically the Humanist Manifesto Ethical- Atheism uses morality to argue that God is immoral. Ritual, no Material- No real objects of worship, but sometimes nature, and mostly mankind are treated as sacred. "Poisoning the Well" Con says that my heading off of his argument is unfair, but then he tries refuting the dimensions, that he knew I'd argue this round, before I get the chance to make my point. He also uses "damm hell bound, sneaky, deceitful atheists", as an attempt to garner sympathy votes. Seems to me he's trying to get a conduct point on a technicality but turning around and doing the same thing himself. His claim is refuted by his own actions. "Court Case" Plaintiff wasn't suing for freedom from religion. He sued to gain permission to actively practice his belief system. Free Exercise is a clause to protect the right to religious practice. Why would Kaufman sue under that clause if he didn't consider atheism his religion?? Why would he file a form called "Request for New Religious Practice", if he wasn't asking to be allowed to practice a religion?? A further comment from the court, found in the same decision…"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise." A comment on "atheism doesn't get you there". Here's a guy who wants to build a series of atheist temples. Atheism is the root of what got him there, it certainly wasn't his theism that inspired it.[1] "Atheism" Con says that atheism is not the beliefs of individual atheists. That is ludicrous. Christianity is indeed composed of the beliefs of Christians. The two cannot be separated if you are to have a serious discussion about what atheism or Christianity really is. He is sticking to definitions, and seems to imply that, in agreeing with the definition of atheism, I'm proving his point, but that is not the case. It's clear that I contend several points here. That atheism can't remain under the protective umbrella of "lack of belief", unless it is silent. It can't argue for itself or against theism without making some kind of claim. Atheism is more than just a definition. Let's go to con's own thread, in his OP… http://www.debate.org... "I don't think atheism has a monopoly on depressing thoughts and conclusions." Here con admits that atheism does have thoughts and conclusions, thus is more than just a definition. "Now lets consider theism is true, if theism is true among other things this means....." He then lists 4 things that follow from that claim. This is con using the same concept of "logical implication" that he is now arguing against. "Religion" Now con is claiming that he "prompted" me to look at what religion is. I explained in the previous round, why I didn't put in a full section on that particular question and I explained what I did do to address that issue, within the space that I had left. To imply that I would accept a debate on this issue when I hadn't even considered that question, or didn't have anything to back up my claim, is quite frankly just asinine. No, I don't have a definitive answer that everyone will agree with on the issue of what a religion is. However, con issued this challenge to find out why I claim that atheism is a religion. I have shown that there is indeed good reason for my claim. "Aliens" Con's alien analogy is not valid, he's making presuppositions and calling it a comparison. Our beliefs are in the Bible, and well known. They have been for a long time. When science can prove an alternate explanation that differs from ours, then I will have no reason to say that his conclusion is faith or dogma because it'll be proven. Until then it remains no more likely to be true than theist theories. Con could also prove me wrong about this by proving his omniscience, which in the absence of empirical evidence to support his conclusions, is what is required for him to not be using faith. "Tennis" Con says that "Atheism is a religion is unintelligible". That should be changed to "Atheism is a religion is unpalatable", because that's his motivation for denial. It doesn't really matter what I say in this debate, he's going to call the idea nonsense because he doesn't like it. To that I can only say that if he could refute my reasons for believing it then I'll come over to his side. Hitchens, aliens, not playing tennis, and trying to hide his faith behind a definition just isn't cutting it. Using Con's own words, and other resources, I've shown the following… 1. That he knows that atheism is more than just a definition, he admits that it draws conclusions. A simple "lack of belief" does not get you to a conclusion. 2. Arguing against theism means that it has taken the position that God does not exist. Atheism must remain silent in order for con's definition to protect it. "Awitchism" is a good example of lack of belief, it's silent, we do not hear about awitchists nor do they argue anything even though they obviously exist. They do not have tax exempt educational groups, they don't write books and participate in debates at universities, they don't seek to gain converts, they do not use the court system to suppress any signs of belief in witches from the public eye, etc., you get the picture. Essentially, awitchism is something that seemingly doesn't exist, it's nothing, but most of us are awitchists. That's an example of a lack of belief, and it isn't a religion. Atheism should mirror awitchism, if it's just a lack of belief, but does anybody buy that it does?? It is far from "nothing" and its existence as a belief system has logical implications for its adherents. 3. The claim that there is no supernatural Creator means that they are saying that the universe and existence has a natural explanation, there is no other possibility. They can't prove that explanation though, therefore, their conclusion is taken on "faith". Their belief on religious matters that is taken without proof isn't just faith, but also qualifies as religious "dogma". 4. Atheism is recognized as a religion by a number of entities including the U.S. legal system, the IRS, the military, and even some atheists. This isn't just my claim. 5. A look at other religions proves that a worship of a deity is not required to qualify a belief system as a religion. 6. I gave an expert's best attempt to provide a means for defining what a religion is. Though not perfect, it is certainly a valuable tool for defining something that experts can't come to an agreement on. Atheism meets 6 of those 7 dimensions, thus easily qualifying. Con made a joke of it, but even so he doesn't refute its effectiveness. Nor does he give anything more concrete than his preferred definition of religion. 1. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2. http://www.youtube.com...