Atheism is a Religion

The resolution states that Atheism is a Religion. Not only has Pro failed to provide any arguments that lead to this conclusion, he also fails to understand the very basics of what it would take to affirm the resolution. In order to demonstrate that Atheism is a religion Pro needs to define both atheism and religion, and then explain how the definition of atheism fits into the definition of religion. He has made no such attempt. What he has instead provided, are semantical examples of things being described as religious (due to the similarities they share with things that are actually religious) and examples of things that atheists can fit into, while disregarding that none of these things he discusses are tied to atheism. His central argument could be described as follows: P1: Person A is an atheistP2: Person A engages in activity XP3: Activity X is similar to Activity YP4: Activity Y is religiousC1: Person A is religiousC2: Since Person A is an atheist and religious, Atheism is a religion The flaws in this are abundant and obvious, which I will refute as I respond directly to Pro’s arguments. Pro begins Round 3 by attempting to make it seem as if I contradicted myself by misrepresenting what I said. I never said that Pro made no points, I said he has yet to make a coherent argument. A coherent argument would require Pro to explain how we get from his points to the conclusion. He never puts this together for us which is why I said that he apparently expects the readers to do it for themselves. Well since Pro has yet to do this, I did above. Let’s see how Pro responds. Pro claims that atheists “have their own bibles”. First of all, these books do not meet any reasonable criteria to be considered a bible. They are merely written by individuals explaining their own personal observations and making their own personal inferences regarding religion and religious claims. To call that a bible is to call Donald Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” a bible, which is clearly the point where we have departed from the English language. Second, I am an atheist and yet not only have I never read any of the books Pro cited but my atheism has no necessary tie to any of them. The fact that some other atheist might have the same opinions as myself on various religions claims does not make me a follower of theirs. If that were necessarily the case than every liberal and conservative in America would be considered religious followers of some politician that preceded them. This is once again, another departure from the English language. Pro claims that I will not be moved by his Fermi paradox and Drake equation, which is evidence of my religious beliefs and needs. No, it is evidence that Pro’s arguments are nonsense. Pro again tries to use my debate records as evidence that I am defending my religious beliefs. Pro seems to completely disregard the fact that I have done 46 debates to date of which he can only find 7 or so that are religious, so his invalid point still fails. Pro tries to argue that no religion has any distinct specific belief, which renders my point that atheism has no belief system to be invalid. Pro fails to understand the basics of what it means to be a religion. It is true for example that there are many variations of Christianity, but a simple Google search reveals why that is… Christianity: “the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.”https://www.google.com... One is by definition considered a Christian so long as they believe in and follow the teachings of Christ. But those teachings are is subject to interpretation, which is exactly why we have so many different variations. Atheism does not have variations of beliefs. It has variations of people who fit into the category of being an atheist. The fact that an atheist can believe something does not tie atheism to that belief, just as a conservative believing in UFO’s does not mean that UFO beliefs become a part of conservatism. If a Christian no longer believes in Christ and stops following his teachings then he or she is no longer a Christian. That is the difference between religion and atheism. For a person to stop being religious they have to stop believing and acting in accordance with their religion. The only way for a person to stop being an atheist is to start believing in a God. Finally, Pro tries to escape the fact that he must actively hold a belief in God by claiming that he holds a “non-lack of belief" in God. Pro can try and play word games with this all he wants, this does nothing to refute the point I just made. A non-lack of belief is a non-non belief, which is just a very silly way of saying he believes. In summary, Pro has yet again failed to tie any of his arguments together so we can understand exactly why atheism is a religion. Moreover, he continues to make egregiously false assertions such as the idea that atheists engaging in activity X ties activity X to atheism, or the idea that religions do not require specific beliefs or practices, an idea that contradicts the fact that those beliefs and practices are how religions are defined. Pro has no regard for the English language, which is why he believes the resolution.