Does it piss you off when you hear, "Atheism is a religion"?

[daaron]

http://www.examiner.com/article/rabbi-claims-atheism-is-becoming-religious

"Rabbi claims atheism is becoming a religion"
William Hamby
Atlanta Atheism Examiner

According to the rabbi,

Atheism nowadays does indeed require a lot of devotion as it’s on the way to becoming a religion. The title of Alain de Botton’s new book heralds it: Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion. He even wants to build temples because “it’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals.”

The author responds,

And here we have the crux of the argument. Or, something approaching an argument. It is certainly true that some atheists (myself included) think that there are valuable elements of religious practice. These include community building, group accountability, motivation to action, and other social phenomena that are central features of many church or temple environments. However, like many (if not most) atheists today, we think that these elements are corrupted by the defining premise of religion -- that some things are true despite their complete opposition to all evidence, and may only be known through blind faith.

This is the single arrow straight through the heart of the "atheism is religion" argument.

(Edited for quote source clarity.)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. Yes.

Christopher Hitchens asked, "Show me one good thing that has been done by a religious person that could not have been done by a non-religious person." So far he has gotten no answers.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. Convince thousands of weak people to send money

Simply by asking for it on TV?

[rrneck]

2. Nope. nt

[daaron]

3. Care to elaborate? nt

[rrneck]

4. It always annoys atheists to say it

but I think atheism could be a religion - just not a very good one.

A religion doesn't need a deity, so not believing in a deity doesn't matter. Any shared experience with a common emotional motivation could be called a religion. As far as I'm concerned communism, baseball, political parties, and book clubs are all religions. It's no big deal.

I was remiss - welcome to DU.

[daaron]

5. Hm. That definition of religion seems a tad loose to me.

I suppose it depends on whether we define religion in everyday language, or take a narrower definition. Even then: which definition? Anthropology or archaeology might have one set of criteria, while say forensic anthropology would, in the U.S. at least, be tied to the legal definition of a religion, which includes a creed, ritual, liturgy, etc. (the trappings of religion).

So if we used the narrower definition? For illustrative purposes, consider the Rastafarians, who have mostly been unable to secure the right to their sacrament, while Catholics may allow their minor children to imbibe small quantities of wine, or some southwestern Native tribes who have met with some success in securing their right to use of their sacrament.

Would such a court that accepts Rastafarianism as a religion, by definition, but forbids the use of a sacrament in ritual, be likely to decide that atheism meets its legal standard?

[rrneck]

13. What does your body say?

Does one's body recognize the difference between a revival meeting and the wave at a baseball game?

Is the idea of God any more of a result of electrochemical processes than any other ideology?

I watched I Robot again the other night. At one point the question is asked, "Why do robots cluster together when stored in the dark?" Does it really matter why people cluster together, as long as they get along?

I haven't seen anything that seems to indicate there is any difference in the physiological responses to a deity and other idea. Some ideas make for better religions than others, but their real world function all seems to be the same.

[daaron]

17. Heheh. I admit I don't listen to my body.

It's not much of a temple, either. I know what you're saying, though... cheekiness aside.

I would propose that biochemically, religion or the idea of God is no different from idea to idea, but the political and social implications of all that neural activity are qualitatively different. It's that aspect that shapes the function from individual to collective action, and back to individual response. In other words, its just more revealing about humanity to look at beliefs in collective context, rather than isolated to the individual brain.

So without reference to the non/existence of any deity, the social and political implications of belief are real, and in that respect the idea of God seems different from the wave.

[rrneck]

28. To paraphrase the bard

"There is nothing good or bad,
but that thinking makes it so."

I agree, culturally they're different. I would like them to become not so.

[AlbertCat]

14. A religion doesn't need a deity

That would be a philosophy.
A religion needs the supernatural. A deity is a good place to start.

[rrneck]

15. People tend to gravitate toward an emotional infinity

as much as an anylitical infinity. Every God I ever heard of related to the expansion of human traits toward some sort if infinity - much like a "thousand year Reich" or the "grand ole' flag, forever in peace may she wave."

Quantifying supernatural beliefs is like juggling spaghetti.

[daaron]

32. Hm. VERY interesting observation.

You've got something there. I have a most excellent little book entitled, "The Unimaginable Mathematics of Borges' Library of Babel," that explores 'ad infinitum' ad naseum. Never mind the minds that have bent themselves to breaking infinity's stranglehold on the human imagination - Bertrand Russell jumps out. Similarly integration, i.e., the limit of Riemann sums over increasingly fine partitions, seems bent on taming infinity.

Maybe it's just the Big Five, the Abrahamic plus Buddhism and Hinduism - the Old World religions - that truly obsess over infinity as a perpetual source, or an eternal well, or maybe you're right. All I know is that since I was a kid, I love thinking about all things infinity. I'm not sure it is the be-all-end-all source of cupidity for the supernatural, but it's certainly a powerful idea that informs both religious and scientific views of the cosmos.

[MrModerate]

79. We've already got a perfectly good word for what you describe . . .

and it's "anything." Why bother trying to drag religion into the discussion?

[rrneck]

80. Not "anything"...

just "half".

[OriginalGeek]

6. It's not so much that they call it a religion...

...that makes as much sense as calling atheism a cheese blintz and I couldn't care less about that...it's the smug way they say it like they are thinking "ha! You believe crazy shit too!" and expect you to just take that and believe they gotcha.

[dimbear]

7. I think I hear it sometimes said in the spirit that 'nobody can escape religion.'

Like death, or taxes.

That makes me sad, since I try so hard to.

Meh.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Only if it's said as an attack

If someone talks about the different religions- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., and includes 'atheism' as one of them, it wouldn't bother me.

If it's used as ammunition for saying that atheism is a danger to the state, just like religious extremism, then it would bother me.

Actually the one I've mostly heard IRL is not 'atheism is a religion' but 'science is just another religion', and that one does annoy me!

[mr blur]

9. Any sign of wilful ignorance pisses me off.

[TBF]

20. +1 nt

[Ultraviolet Cat]

10. Atheism is not a religion . . .

While "pissed off" might be a bit strong, I do get irritated by this claim. Atheism is simply a position on the existence of gods and nothing else. I should point out that I also don't believe that Theism is a religion either. Neither of these two positions imply anything about any other fundamental beliefs or how the person holding this view will or should behave. If you think about it, what can you say about someone who makes the statement, "I believe god(s) exist"?

Both atheism and theism can be the core of recognized religions, though (atheism - humanism, some forms of Buddhism and theism - well, pretty much everything else). I think this is where the confusion comes from - we conflate the belief statement with the structure and organization.

[trotsky]

11. This is it, exactly.

Neither "atheism" nor "theism" is a religion.

[dmallind]

12. No - it tells me a)I'm dealing with an idiot and b)the idiot has no sense of irony

I've never seen that claim made by a non-religious person. (Some atheists famously want to adopt aspects of religious experience, mostly the community angle, but that does not mean they think atheism is or even should be a religion)

I've never seen that claim made as a way to celebrate or compliment atheism (Nobody ever said "I admire the way atheism seeks to inspire people as a true religion should&quot

So basically it's only used seriously by people who have a religion, who don't know what one is, and who think it's an insult to have one.

I'm certainly aware better-informed believers use this canard, but only trying to bolster religious idiots like the above, and/or annoy atheist idiots who buy it.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. Yes.

[Rob H.]

18. Dunno about pissed off, but it's definitely irritating

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't believe in God. That's it. I don't need any rituals or rites or holy books.

Atheism nowadays does indeed require a lot of devotion as it’s on the way to becoming a religion. The title of Alain de Botton’s new book heralds it: Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion. He even wants to build temples because “it’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals.”

Apparently the good rabbi doesn't realize (or maybe he does, and hopes that readers won't do any further research) that a lot of atheists view de Botton as an accommodationist nitwit who thinks that atheists and atheism would be more accepted if we weren't such horrible meanies to all those Christians out there. (Note to de Botton: when even saying something as inoffensive as "I'm an atheist" makes some religious people's heads explode in righteous indignation, that should be a sign that the fault doesn't lie with atheism.)

And atheist churches? There are already existing structures that are close enough to such things, imo--they're called libraries and museums.

[Ron Obvious]

19. Certainly it annoys me

As well as its companion "everyone believes in something". It's truly nonsensical in my opinion, as well as irritating.

I think that the religious believers don't understand the concept of withholding belief in something until there's evidence to do so, and that therefore there is a difference between "I don't believe A" (because I've no reason to) and "I believe not A" (because I have evidence to the contrary) and that all beliefs are provisional.

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Calling that a faith however is a misapplication of that word.

[truebrit71]

21. Yes it does. It is the total LACK of religion.

...on every level..

[ZombieHorde]

22. Depends on how it is used. If it is used for a fallacious argument, then it annoys me.

If it is used more innocently, then no. For example, a good friend of mine seems to think any organized way of thinking is religion. I strongly disagree, but it is innocent on his part. I have not seen him use that definition for arguments.

[RebelOne]

23. My son is embarrassed that I am an atheist,

so whenever I am at a gathering at his house, he always says not to say anything about my religion. I can't get it into his head that atheism is not a religion.

[Curmudgeoness]

24. That is the most asinine argument for calling it a religion

that I have ever read. It just makes the religious people feel superior when they classify atheism as a religion.

The argument includes:

"These include community building, group accountability, motivation to action, and other social phenomena that are central features of many church or temple environments."

The rebuttal would be that this means book clubs, the anti-war movement, communism or capitalism, the American Medical Association, and every other social gathering is a religion. Sorry folks, but there is more to religion than just having something in common.

My response: Get over yourselves!!!

[daaron]

25. Wish I coulda done a Poll.

But no star for me! It's interesting though... I picked "piss off" rather off the cuff, but note that many/most folks who've responded so far have said, "No, but (insert qualification)," with a batch preferring the terms "irritate" or "annoy".

Given that "Atheism is a religion" is one of the biggest canards there are, I am now curious to know, if not this misconception, then are there any misconceptions about atheists that DO piss any of you off?

It's interesting, because so far the angry atheist crowd here seems pretty mellow, with more reasoned responses than knee-jerk.

[sakabatou]

26. It makes me exasperated rather than anger.

[Iggo]

27. Pissed off? No.

Just frustrated, and a little sad.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

30. You have to consider the source,

they probably aren't too bright!

[Starboard Tack]

31. No. On the contrary.

It is one of the more interesting debates. Is non-belief a form of belief? It must be, unless there is definitive proof, one way or the other. However, as Trotsky said up thread, neither one is a technically a religion.

[daaron]

33. It IS an interesting debate.

What distinguishes a "belief" from a "thought" or an "emotion" or "instinct"?

[Starboard Tack]

34. Good question

A belief is the result of combining thought, emotion and instinct, with a splash of imagination and a sprinkling of hope. Soul food.

[daaron]

35. Hm. That's pretty specific.

Then wouldn't non-belief just require removing one of the elements? In which case it seems to me that non-belief couldn't possibly be a belief.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Depends what one means by non-belief

If one means lack of belief, then yes; but if it means believing something does not exist because it hasn't been scientifically proven, then that type of non-belief is as much a belief as any other.
All conscious activity is based on belief to one degree or another.

[daaron]

38. That's why I was hoping for the sake of conversation we could agree on ONE definition of 'belief'.

Otherwise, how can we define 'non-belief'. If it's all just subjective woo, then there really isn't anything to talk about, and there's no truth value that one can attach to your statement that non-belief is a type of belief.

[Starboard Tack]

39. OK. Atheism is a belief system, not a religion

Some atheists are so dogmatic in their beliefs that I would describe them as religionists. I do not believe in a god. That is not the same as believing there is no god. He who believes no gods exist is what I would describe a religious atheist, because he is bound by his beliefs. Beliefs are not provable, but are based on subjective reasoning.

[dmallind]

40. Taking your own definition though, with which I certainly agree

How does not believing in a god (as opposed to believing there are no gods) qualify as a belief system at all?

[Starboard Tack]

41. It doesn't.

Not believing in something is a lack of belief. Believing there isn't a god is the flip-side of believing there is one; ie. both are belief systems.

[dmallind]

43. So how then is atheism a belief system?

Since simply not beliving/lacking belief is the only necessary, and majority applied, definition thereof?

[Starboard Tack]

44. I think we agree, but to clarify

Believing no god exists is a belief system and therefore falls under the category of religion.
Not believing a god exists demonstrates a lack of belief and lack of religion, unless one believes in a godless religion like Wikka.
Some self described atheists believe in the absence of a deity. These are the religious atheists.
Other self described atheists, including myself, do not believe in either the existence or the absence of a deity, except in the minds of others.
I might add that I do believe in the probable existence of other scientifically unexplained phenomena. I keep an open mind with a healthy amount of skepticism.

[laconicsax]

45. When you say that "atheism is a belief system"

You're categorizing all atheists as possessing a single belief system yet your words here clearly indicate you know that all atheists don't even come close to possessing a single belief system.

Why then do you say that "atheism is a belief system" if you know it to be false?

[cleanhippie]

46. Its passive-aggressive bullshit.

I've stopped responding to it because its not worth the trouble.

Besides, it's really fun reading when you know what he is doing.

[laconicsax]

48. It's better than the Stalin schtick. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

49. A belief system necessitates belief in something

If you believe no god exists, that is a belief. I do not believe a god exists. Not believing something is not a belief. I hope I am I being clear.
There is a huge difference between the lack, or absence of a belief, as in my case, and the belief that many so-called atheists hold, that no god exists.
I have no idea whether a god exists, nor do I care.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Those who subscribe to the bold definition hold beliefs that no deity exists. Their position is a belief system.

[laconicsax]

50. Yes, and when you say that "atheism is a belief system" you are using a very broad brush.

According to what you have posted:
-Atheism is a belief system.
-You are an atheist.

Therefore, you share the atheist belief system.

I'm not sure if you don't understand this or are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

[Starboard Tack]

51. OK. I'll give it one more try.

There are 2 types of atheist; those who believe there is no god and those who don't believe in any god.
The first type are engaged in a belief system.
The second are not. I fall into the second group.

I am not trying to be contrary. I'm trying to explain 2 different states of mind. Believing god exists or not is an active thought process. Not believing in the existence of god is not a thought process, because the mind doesn't even entertain the question.

[laconicsax]

52. If you know "atheism is a belief system" to be false, why did you say it?

[Starboard Tack]

53. It is a belief system to those who believe a deity does not exist.

It is not a belief system to those who have no belief in the existence of a deity.
Please tell me what you don't understand about that. I cannot explain this more clearly.

[laconicsax]

54. Your statement was a generalization about two different groups.

Do you not realize that "atheism" encompasses both those who believe that no gods exist and those who simply do not believe in the existence of one or more gods?

By saying "atheism is a belief system," you are assigning that belief system to those who do not share it.

An analog to this would be the claim that "Christianity holds that when blessed, wine turns into the blood of Christ and a cracker into his flesh." That statement would doubtlessly be challenged as an untrue generalization as only Catholicism, a subset of Christianity, includes the transubstantiation among its dogma.

[Starboard Tack]

55. I am not generalizing, but being specific.

My statement was specific to those who believe a deity does not exist. For those who lack that belief it is not a religion.
Your analogy contains the key word dogma. Those who believe engage in dogma. Dogmatic Catholics believe in the wine turning to blood. Dogmatic atheists believe no god exists.
Dogma is an essential ingredient of any religion, for it allows no interpretation.

[laconicsax]

56. Your statement was not specific

While you clarified that not all atheists adhere to the belief system you described, the statement that "atheism is a belief system" refers to all atheists just as "Christianity holds that when blessed, wine turns into the blood of Christ and a cracker into his flesh" refers to all Christendom.

[Starboard Tack]

57. What do you believe or not believe?

Maybe we can arrive at some consensus of where we stand instead of running around chasing our tails.
Religion and how we define it is extremely subjective. So we can play semantic games ad infinitum.

[laconicsax]

59. No. I'm not going to let you try to change the subject.

You made the general statement, "atheism is a belief system." That statement is false. Individual atheists may have a belief system concerning their atheism, but it is incorrect to say, as you did, that all do. You have continually demonstrated that you understand this, so I just have a simple question for you:

Why did you say that "atheism is a belief system" when you know that to be false?

[Starboard Tack]

60. Then let me clarify once again.

Atheism is ONLY a belief system for those who believe no god exists.
Atheism is NOT a belief system for those who have no belief in a deity.
I do not see that as a general statement.

I'm curious as to which category, or otherwise, you identify with. If you don't want to engage in a conversation, that is your choice.

[daaron]

62. Hi all. Just watchin'. Thought I'd pitch some thoughts into your dialectic.

Not to get overly analytical, but I find logic sometimes reveals hidden variables. Since I didn't see any other definition of "belief" than the one at the top of the thread, I'll use that. My first point revolves on the way belief was defined. If a belief must have the qualities listed (loosely), then our definition is set-dependent. That's cool - most classification schemes use attributes defined in this way. What it does mean is that the elements in the "belief" set form a key - one can identify a belief by no less than at least these attributes.

Put another way, remove even one of these attributes, and we get a "non-belief" by definition, even if the phenomenon in question has all the other attributes plus any additional arbitrary non-key attributes. So we could tweak the definition of "belief" and get different results in some hypothetical model of a generic belief-system. I would argue that the definition that gives the most accurate model of a sampling of belief-systems would be the choicest definition of "belief". Lacking such an empirical assessment, we go with what we can agree upon.

The second thought I'd like to pitch into the mix pertains to how atheism was defined in two ways, as either a belief system or not, using the above definition of "belief" and "non-belief". To be honest, after pondering and starting a couple times, I don't think the given definition of "belief" is nearly precise enough to make any truth statements about whether or not some atheists secretly harbor belief-systems. Perhaps a well-defined concept of "belief" is needed after all.

[laconicsax]

63. The question isn't what you meant but why you said it.

You've adequately explained what you meant several times.

The question is why you applied the former to the latter (ie why did you say "atheism is a belief system" when you neither believe it to be generally true nor meant it as such).

[Starboard Tack]

64. I believe it to be true for those who express a belief that no god exists.

The moment one asserts a shared belief in something, then they subscribe to a belief system. I have no idea whether this is generally true of atheists, but from several of the posts I see here, it would appear that some subscribe to a dogmatic form of atheism, based on a strong belief that there is no god, no soul, nothing supernatural and no spiritual component to life. However, I am not sure that those members represent the majority of atheists. Most atheists I know personally, don't give a damn what anyone's personal beliefs are, and bear no animosity toward people of faith.
It really boils down to this. Believers of any ilk use their beliefs to close their minds to ideas beyond those beliefs.

[laconicsax]

65. You said that it was true for all atheists.

"Atheism is a belief system" is an untrue statement as atheism, as a whole, has no belief system. Atheism may contain a belief system that is shared by some atheists, but that belief system is in no way shared by all atheists.

You have posted several times that you do not believe that all atheists share a common belief system so why did you say that they do?

Unless I've miscounted, this will be the tenth post in which I have asked you this very simple and straightforward question. Will you actually answer it this time?

[Starboard Tack]

66. I'm sorry. I can't help you. I've tried.

Maybe someone else can explain it to you. It isn't that complicated. Be well.

[laconicsax]

67. I understand every word you've said. It's just that none of it has answered my question.

Every time I've asked why you said "atheism is a belief system" even though you know it to be false, you have answered by stating that for some atheists, it is a belief system and for others it isn't.

That isn't an answer to what I asked by a long shot, in fact, that answer has formed the premise for my question.

It is quite plain that I've failed to make myself clear. Either that or you have been trying very hard to not get the point. I will try now for a final, eleventh time. Please follow carefully:

You have stated some atheists believe that there are no gods (this is what you meant by belief system) and that not all atheists share this belief. Because of this, a generalization about a universally shared belief system central to atheism cannot be made, yet by saying that "atheism is a belief system" you unequivocally did. My question, which you have yet to answer now follows:

[font size="5" color="red"]Why, while acknowledging that atheism does not a contain a universally shared belief system, did you say that it does? [/font]

Please keep in mind that simply repeating the premise to this question (ie the words you have said that led to this question) is not an answer to this question any more than "Washington DC is the capital of the United States" is to the question "Where in Washington DC does the President live?"

[Starboard Tack]

69. OK. Very simple and obvious from my previous responses

This is your question

Why, while acknowledging that atheism does not a contain a universally shared belief system, did you say that it does?

I don't. Only some atheists believing something is not UNIVERSAL, a word I never used.

[laconicsax]

70. Except that you said, and I quote: "Atheism is a belief system, not a religion"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12306908#post39

I've been asking why you made such a general statement you believe to be false and the closest you've ever gotten to answering the question is to deny having said it in the first place.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Yes, and I defined what I said in order to clarify.

I say lots of things. They aren't written in stone. That's why we have conversations, to clear up confusion. Hopefully you are no longer confused.

[laconicsax]

72. Your clarification was a falsification of the original statement!

"Atheism is a belief system" implies a single belief system shared by all atheists.

All I want to know is why you said it when you know better.

BTW: I think you're nearing the record for evasion.

[Starboard Tack]

73. I think I've made it pretty clear

I never said the definition was a single belief system shared by all atheists. That is very apparent from my clarification. You can call your confusion and lack of comprehension my "falsification" if it makes you feel better. I can see how my response to daaron may have caused you to believe I was including all atheists, but by now, it should be quite clear that I was only referring to those who believe no deity exists.
No evasion necessary. Why would there be? You appear to be obsessed with my reason for the original statement, which was in response to daaron, in an effort to come to a consensus on the meaning of belief. It doesn't really matter how we word things, as long as we understand what the other is trying to say. This discussion board is for the exchange of ideas, not a place to relentlessly question and attack another member's reasons for using certain words, especially when the message has been delivered quite clearly several times.

[laconicsax]

75. Oh, so now I'm attacking you?

Believe me, Starboard Tack, if I were attacking you it wouldn't come in the form of askin you the same question a dozen times in the hopes of a straightforward answer.

The question is about your choice of words, not what you meant. You made it clear what you meant a long time ago. I'm asking about your choice of words and find it astonishing that you either cannot or will not just give a straightforward answer.

[dmallind]

36. Not really

I think the "need" to define beliefs for a discussion like this comes from a common misperception of atheism.

Consider an analogy. You want to sell me a $50k car. I say I will write you a check. Assuming no competing buyers etc do you:

a) believe the check will clear and hand me the keys?
b) believe it's impossible that the check will clear and tell me to get lost?
c) wait until the check clears and then give me the keys?

The trouble with "non-belief is a belief" folks is that they forget c is even an option - and that it is the de facto position of the majority of atheists in regard to god-belief. I don't believe that no gods exist. I'm just waiting for any claim that they do to be supported with either evidence or convincing argument.

And no, that's not agnosticism. That refers to how and whether we can know, not whether we believe

[Starboard Tack]

42. That's pretty much how I think too.

[deucemagnet]

58. Make the buyer a rather sketchy looking character with an out-of-state check

from a third party, and you have a pretty good analogy!

[Johnny Rico]

47. "Piss you off" is rather strong for how I feel. "Roll my eyes in annoyance" would be more accurate.

I'll certainly call someone on it in an online argument, but it's not that big a deal.

I simply know that I'm right, and they're wrong (as usual).

[Trajan]

61. I don't get 'pissed off' by it ...

That would give ignorant theists too much power .... They cannot make me feel tense and angry by such unfounded commentary ....

Devotion to a non-theological subject does not constitute religious belief ...

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Yeah. Then i ask them which N'SYNC song is their favorite.

To which they say, "i cant fucking stand N'SYNC*"

And i say, "oh, okay, I cant fucking stand N'SYNC is your favorite N'SYNC song! See, I knew you had one"



*kids, im old. Replace this with something that equally sucks, today.

[BiggJawn]

74. Yes.

Just like "bald" is a hair colour, dontchaknow?

[JoeyT]

76. I don't get pissed off

Instead I'm usually amused by it. It's basically the person making the claim admitting that faith and religion in general are such utter garbage they have to tar people that don't have either with them just to stay afloat in an argument.

[laconicsax]

77. Win.

Funny, isn't it? Religionists will go on and on extolling the virtues of religion and then attack atheism by calling it a religion.

[MrModerate]

78. Since almost all discussion around the topic of religion . . .

is steeped in nonsense, it neither surprises nor bothers me that people who are capable of believing in imaginary beings are un-able to believe that the rest of us don't — and consequently feel a need to project their religious bent on others.

It's a head-shake moment (or facepalm, perhaps), that both makes me feel superior to and dismissive of believers. Saddening, but not piss-offing.