Atheism is a Religion

Thanks to con for a timely response. "Pro makes false claims about atheism" Read con's source, the wiki page, and you have his entire argument, and he is asking you to accept that and make that the end of the story. What I argued in my opening was that there is more to the story. I asked you to consider what atheism is, in its totality. The totality of what atheism is, or any belief system, includes what its believers argue and what the belief itself means, from a logical perspective. Why would a simple "lack of belief" require many organizations involved with atheism to require 501c3 status, if they aren't a religion?? They're tax-exempt because they are an educational organization, right?? Well, what are they educating us about?? Do we need to be educated on how "not to believe"?? Why would one need an educational organization, or many of them, if one has no beliefs or claims to educate people about?? American Atheists, one such group, defines atheism this way: [3] "Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are "super" natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own." Does this sound like atheism makes no claims?? Click on the link and scroll down, and you'll see some claims made in front of the SCOTUS. Con argues that atheism doesn't get us anywhere other than atheism, but that's false. If there is no supernatural creator, then that logically implies that there is a natural explanation for the universe, and for existence, and this is born out in the arguments that atheists use. They do indeed argue for a natural explanation for the things that theists attribute to God. Which specific natural theory they prefer is irrelevant, as it's going to be natural. Con wants to separate atheism from atheists, but how do you do that?? Isn't Christianity the sum total of the claims that Christians make, any logical implications that result from those claims, in addition to the definition?? Can't a reverence of Christ be logically implied from the definition of Christianity?? Same with atheism. I really think con's argument fails here. Note, this isn't a complaint or a rant. It is support for the point that atheism is more than a definition. "Court Case" Con seems to be venturing away from the key points of this case, which are: 1. The atheist filed a form called, "Request for new religious practice". The atheist is asking to practice his "religion". There is no other rational interpretation of this request. 2. The atheist sued, using a constitutional clause meant to protect legal rights of religions. 3. The court recognized that atheism qualifies as a religion, and found that the atheists' religious rights were violated. Pointing out the fact that an atheist who believes that he is not religious, but uses a clause or law meant to protect religion, is being deceitful, is not pointing fingers and making nasty remarks about atheists. It's simply pointing out the logical implication of that position, which is dishonesty and exploitation of something that he knows wasn't meant to deal with his beliefs. Obviously I believe that option #1 is true, or we wouldn't be here, so I wasn't making nasty remarks as con implies. "What are we arguing about?" Here con is totally misrepresenting my opening arguments. He states that I'm complaining about atheists and going on rants against them. This is not true. Reading my opening will show that my intent is not as con portrays it, but that I was providing support for the argument that I was making. Con's mischaracterizations are not supported. "What is atheism?" 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. I believe I made a good argument in my opening, so I won't dwell on it here. It should also be noted, that Wikipedia is probably not the best place to go for facts and definitions, as I could go write an entire article then cite it as a source, factual or not. Con then goes on to post Hitchens arguing that he shouldn't have to prove atheism. That isn't applicable to this debate though. When I point out in my opening that atheism and atheists can't prove or disprove anything, I'm obviously talking about the claims made by the belief system and its adherents, claims such as natural explanations for the universe etc. Unless atoothfairyist organizations are granted 501c3 tax exempt status by the IRS, like religious and atheist organizations are (see video round 1), and recognized as a religion for legal purposes, I don't see any applicability for Hitch's argument in this debate. "What is a religion?" I was running out of character space in the last round so instead of putting an entire section in trying to define religion, I opted to draw some parallels between atheism and accepted religions, and list some defining characteristics that most would agree are common to religions, faith, dogma, etc. Sure, asking what is a religion is certainly a valid question, I'll concur. Defining exactly what a religion is though, is a goal that evades even the experts. Pro quoted a passage from his source that points out the problem, but he then went on and asked you to use the definition that involves worshipping a god anyway. Nevermind the fact that the problem with that definition was pointed out. Let's just use it anyway. It's not that easy, not all religions worship a god so that isn't the end-all criteria. Con's source lists a few religions that do not have faith in a god, some Buddhism sects, Jainism, Shinto, for instance. I could make an argument for atheism being a denomination of any religion that emphasizes nature as the explanation for all that is. This would not be possible unless atheism also had some other characteristics of religion. Con says that I can't simply point to some things and claim that's a religion because I said so. By the same token, he can't just point to his preferred definition, when so many exist, and say it's NOT a religion. Let's look at the etymology of the word itself. "According to John Bowker, the etymology of the word religion comes from the Latin words relegere and religare. Relegere means to "gather things together, or to pass over the same ground repeatedly" while religare means to bind things together (2000, Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Religions, p. xix). Thus "religion binds people together in common practices and beliefs: it draws them together in a common enterprise of life" (Bowker, 2000, p. xix)…" [2] Ninian Smart gave us probably the best chance of coming to some decision with his "Seven Dimensions of Religion". Atheism qualifies under six of the seven dimensions. Due to space limitations, I'll have to go in depth next round. For now I'll just list each dimension and say whether atheism qualifies, and there's a link if you want to read a little more.[4] Narrative, yes Experiential, yes Social, yes Doctrinal, yes Ethical, yes Ritual, no Material, yes "Unfalsifiable Propositions" I don't have the space to go in to this in depth but it doesn't need much. In spite of the cute analogies, con is presupposing that all answers must be natural, but yet he hasn't proven that all answers are natural or that the supernatural doesn't exist. It's still an unproven claim regarding religious matters, thus it's religious dogma. My point remains unrefuted. I look forward to the next round. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://libraryguides.mdc.edu... 3. http://atheists.org... 4. http://creation.com...