Atheism is a Religion

Atheism is not the same as other beliefs atheists do or might haveThe huge problem with Pros argument is that it's more directed to atheists. Atheists this, atheists that, but what Pro must argue for and show is that atheism is a religion. Not that atheists have other beliefs (this is not in dispute), not that atheism is compatible with other beliefs (this is not in dispute either), but that atheism is a religion. I would also like to point out that Pro is free to argue anything he wants, but to just preempt a line of argument, say the argument that atheism is the lack of belief in God by saying such things as. .. "If you buy that, and are not willing to look at what atheism REALLY is, then read no further. ". .. &. .. "Again here, con wants the reader to stop at the definition, and not look any further. I think that anyone who does so is remiss, and is not considering the totality of what atheism is, and what it means"This is just poising the well by Pro. .. "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say" [1]Pros court casePro says. .. "The court recognized that atheism qualifies as a religion"And on what basis did they make that determination ? What is the criteria they use to determine what is and what is not a religion ? and what was the "atheism" that was being argued for as a religion ? Pro has not presented the courts reasoning in their case. As such I will argue my own reasoning. The freedom of religion includes within it the freedom of not having a religion just as the freedom to vote includes the freedom too not vote and the freedom of speech includes the freedom to not speak. As such the freedom to talk/discuss/argue atheism is although not a religion its self is covered by freedom of religion. What is Atheism ? Pro presents a definition of atheism as. .. "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. .. "I would point out up to this point, this is what I have being arguing for, but then this definition goes on to say. .. "which implies. .. .. .. .. .xyz"Pro says. .. "Con argues that atheism doesn't get us anywhere other than atheism, but that's false. "Allow me to clarify here, what I mean is that atheism by its self doesn't conclude by logical necessity to something else. I'd like to point out, what something "implies" is open to debate. Also Pro may be surprised to know that under even their provided definition of atheism the non existence of the supernatural does not follow with logical necessity. I also think its worth pointing out for my side here without the added opinion of what atheism implies provided by Pro as the lack of belief of a deity is what I have been arguing for from the start. Pro asks the question. .. "Con wants to separate atheism from atheists, but how do you do that? ? "Well go back to my first round here on that matter. Some theists are Muslims, as Muslims they believe the Quran is a book from God. Now once again, does this mean that theism its self are these beliefs ? No. Like wise does the fact that atheists have beliefs including such things as. .. (insert beliefs here) mean that atheism its self is those beliefs ? No. Pro remarks. .. "Con then goes on to post Hitchens arguing that he shouldn't have to prove atheism. That isn't applicable to this debate though"But there is something Hitchens says in my last post which is very applicable. He talks about the unbelief in say witches or santaclausim or as he calls it "asantaclausism" & "awitchism. " There are plenty of such people who we could call asantaclausists or awitchistists, and these people of course have beliefs in all kind of other things, say for example creationism or evolution. Does that mean that awitchisism is a religion too ? of course not, and if some one claimed but awitchism is a religion, look at all the beliefs that all those awitchitists have, its a religion I tell ya ! !! what could you do ? maybe tell the person you are confusing the lack of belief in witches with other beliefs those non believers in witches have, and what if that person still insists, no, awitchism is a religion, its a religion I tell ya, what can you do ? What is a Religion ? Pro remarks that my definition of religion is problematic, I am open to a better definition/criteria. But what I am not open to is some one claiming that atheism is a religion when they didn't tell use what they meant by religion in the first place, or for that matter what their definition of atheism is. Pro seems to respond to my prompting to give a criteria to evaluate what is and what is not a religion. This is welcome, as it sure beats Pros previous arguments about pointing to those damm atheists and what other beliefs they have then claiming that's religion folks on his say so. Let's look at this criteria when judging whether say the The National Basketball Association (NBA) [2] is a religion or not. Narrative, If by just having stories, then yes, the NBA is full of stories. Experiential, yes People do seem to get quite excited when their team wins. Social, yes, Well of course the NBA is social. Or if by social you mean does it have a power structure then yes, David Stern. [3]Doctrinal, No, The NBA is not a religion so doesn't have religious doctrines coming out of it, either does Atheism. Ethical, yesRitual, Yes/maybe Some NBA players have rituals, some even pray to a God. Material, yes, the NBA has many buildings. So how many yes boxes does one have to tick to now proclaim the NBA as a religion ? Should we know declare the NBA as a religion ? Unfalsifiable propositions, Dogma & Faith Pro retorts that in my example naturalism is presupposed, that would be a great refutation if that was my argument but it wasn't. What I did argue for is that its not dogmatic or an act of faith to deny a proposition such as God or the Alien in your room that has so many caveats and rationalizations thrown in to make it unfalsifiable. As I explained before. .. "Consider the claim that there is an alien in the same room you are in right now. You may point out well I don't think there is an alien cause after looking around I don't see one. But then I tell you, ahhh but you see, the alien is invisible. Now maybe you get some instruments like infra red to look for this alien, but then I tell you, ahh but you see, the alien is undetectable by any human means. And it goes on and on like this, no matter what objection you raise I have a rationalization/caveat to add in order to save the alien proposition from being falsified. ""As such It is my argument that to claim that atheism and/or atheists are being "dogmatic" or are engaging in some sort of "faith" to not accept such an unfalsifiable God or Alien proposition is false. " Atheism is a religion is unintelligibleI did make an argument here that to say atheism is a religion is like saying not playing tennis is a sport. I take it Pro dis-agrees here but that's only cause they refuse to separate what atheism is (and even by their definition it IS the absence of belief in deity) and what other beliefs those damm hell bound, sneaky, deceitful atheists do or might have. As such it is still my argument that the claim that atheism is a religion is unintelligible. In closing I leave you with this question, if atheism is a religion, then what isn't a religion ? Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...