Atheism is a Religion

I look forward to the opportunity for an in-depth discussion on this issue. I agree not to argue in the last round, as requested, and ask that no new arguments be introduced in the top half of that round. Con wants to get to the bottom of why I say that atheism is a religion, so let's take a look. One reason I believe it is that atheists themselves, argue for their religion in court. In the linked example, Kaufman, an atheist, submitted a form entitled "Request for new religious practice", to prison officials, which was denied. Kaufman sued, using the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The court found in his favor, recognizing atheism as a religion, and saying that the prison violated his right to free exercise of religious beliefs. In the court's decision, there are also other precedents that support protection of atheists religious rights. [1] So there are only two possible options. 1. Atheism is a religion, because atheists admit it, and the court concurs.2. The court was wrong, and atheism should not be allowed to use the Free Exercise Clause, since it isn't a religion and doesn't have religious beliefs. This would mean that atheists are knowingly and deceptively molesting the spirit of the First Amendment of our constitution for their benefit. The Free Exercise Clause was intended to protect religious freedoms, so benefiting from it if you know you aren't a religion can't be argued as anything other than deception and intentional misuse. Which do you prefer? ? The legal argument and its implications are compelling, and certainly a good argument, but I don't depend solely on legal criteria, for my claim. I think it important to answer some other questions. Deciding what atheism is, I suspect, is going to be a subject of contention in this debate. Having had many discussions before this one, I anticipate that con may posit that atheism is nothing more than a "lack of belief in God". If you buy that, and are not willing to look at what atheism REALLY is, then read no further. You've already decided that con has won. In doing so though, you also have to give up any claim that theists have a BoP in the God debate. Theism is nothing more than a "belief in God", and a belief carries no BoP. If we simply hide behind our definitions, then there is no rational means for any intelligent discussion. The discussion ends here UNLESS we're going to take a more reasonable approach, and look at the truth claims made by both sides. This is the only logical way of determining what theism or atheism REALLY is, and without it discussion is impossible. In other words, if atheism hides behind the definition, then they have essentially said "nothing". We cannot have a discussion if "nothing" is said by atheists, and theists have nothing to prove. But are you really going to buy that atheism is silent on the issue and does not actively argue? ? A short look around the internet, or at YouTube, shows active argument from atheists. [2,Video] You can't actively argue without making truth claims of your own. This is proof that atheism is not saying "nothing", and hiding behind the definition is intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale. Go to link #2, and scroll down, reading the titles of some of the links provided by that atheist site. God is imaginary, Evil Bible, Bible is crap, Evidence Jesus never existed, The will of God is messed up, are just a few of the links provided. I could provide numerous other examples but we all know the vast amount of resources available on the subject. This is active argument by atheists, and truth claims are being made. This is not saying “nothing”, atheism does indeed claim that God does not exist. Theists could hide behind the definition too, if they want, but intellectual honesty requires us to admit that we are indeed claiming that God exists, right? ? That same principle applies to atheism. Sure, it's possible for atheists to do nothing more than "not believe", but that requires silence on the issue. Once they enter into the discussion and begin to argue in support of atheism, or against theism, they are indeed saying that God does not exist, and are making truth claims. This removes them from the protection that "lack of belief" provides, and bestows upon them a responsibility for any claims they might make. Now that we know that atheism does indeed have something to say in the God debate, and that atheists do actively argue their point, we can begin to look at some of the claims being made. Doing this requires looking at what atheists say during discussions, and what denying God’s existence logically implies. This helps establish that atheism isn’t just a lack of belief, but a system of both positive and negative beliefs. Let’s look at some other critical truths about atheism. If man had no concept of God, atheism would not exist. As such, atheism is a belief system based on God. It argues that God doesn’t exist, and does so to the exclusion of other beliefs about God. Christians argue that they have the truth, Muslims that they have the truth, Atheists that they have the truth, etc. Atheism argues that the universe created itself, or has always existed. It claims thatwhat we call fine tuning in the universe, which allows for life, is nothingmore than random inevitability, chance, or some similar argument. It claimsthat existence itself was brought about by purely natural means, abiogenesisand evolution, or similar claim. It argues that man is capable of establishinghis own moral code, and that that code proves a benevolent God cannot exist. Theseclaims are necessary with denial of a creator, and are the very arguments thatatheists make during debate. They are also seen throughout the many forms of atheistpropaganda. There can be no denial that atheism claims all these things. It argues that science, logic, and reason, support it’s claims, and that samescience disproves the possibility of miracles and other supernatural claims. Yet it also argues God un-falsifiable, as science CAN'T prove or disprove thesupernatural. What that really means is they have no empirical proof to supportany of their claims. So if science can’t prove their claims to be true, or can’tdisprove God, then that means that their conclusions are taken on “faith”. Science, logic, and reason, can't be proven to be on their side. This is dogma, folks. These claims deal with the same subject matter that religion does, and can't be proven. Therefore, it qualifies as “religious dogma”. [4] What’s missing from atheism that most religions have? Worshipping a deity? That isn’tnecessary to be a religion. Confucianism, Scientology, Some Buddhist sects, NewAge, etc. , are considered religions but worship no deity. Atheism is a system of beliefs that has God as the centerpiece, it reaches itsconclusions using faith in that which is unproven or un-provable, it has its ownreligious dogma, it’s followers proselytize, propagandize, and preach it’s virtuesin order to gain converts, it argues a better world if everyone converts, itargues that other beliefs about God are irrational and harmful, and it cannotprove it’s claims. Since we know that worship of a deity is not necessary to beconsidered a religion, what more do you need to show that atheism qualifies asa religion? ? Add all this to a full confession, under oath, in a court of law. The logicalconclusion is that the resolution is affirmed. I expect, however, that con willnot capitulate so I look forward to his response. 1. . http://scholar.google.com... 2. . http://www.atheismresource.com...3. . http://www.youtube.com... 4. . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...