and yet, still a spade . . .

Mike,

I will return to my regularly scheduled rebuttal shortly, but I was passing by and saw this post and I couldn't resist offering a response. I should be working on, well, a dozen other things, yet here I am. This started as a comment on your post, but it's too long, so now it has a life of it's own.

Your post should be called, "why atheism isn't an organized religion," and that would make the response more fitting. True, atheists don't necessarily have holidays or organization, although it's tough to say that there are no dogmas or doctrines, or that there are no holy men. 'Holy' is the wrong term, although I find it terribly funny to refer to men like Hitchens and Dawkins as "patron saints" of atheism (funny in the tongue-in-cheek sense, not that I am intentionally poking fun at your expense). But all the same, there are some distinct similarities between atheist organization and any other religious organization, even if they are tenuous at best.

In truth, though, this really does come down to definitions, and as usual this is where we start getting into trouble. While you may be a 'hard' atheist and have come by your beliefs honestly, the fact is that you have to incorporate some amount of faith to get to the point where those beliefs become a call to action. Being atheist is just that - the act of not believing, or better yet the act of believing that nothing exists. Having a belief in God one way or the other requires some amount of faith - regardless of whether you are starting from zero belief or full-on Jesus freak.

Bottom line - a religion is a system of beliefs that result in a call to action. However you want to describe the details within this definition is fine - call me an atheist against the Wiccan gods if that helps sort out the specifics. For the record, though, I have no problem believing in other gods, call them 'lesser gods,' for several reasons that I don't need to take up space with here.

All the same, sort the details as you like; atheism is still a religion - a belief regarding the supernatural that results in a call to action. This does not fit the definition of an organzied religion, at least not very well, I will grant. But I never claimed that atheism proper was an organized movement of like-minded individuals led by some specific individual or group who is/are their central authority. I only claim that atheism requires faith (belief) in the supernatural (in this case that it doesn't exist) and as such fits the definition of a religion.

And for the record, I have nothing against Mr. Dawkins - he seems like a bright, polite man. I happen to think his logic is seriously flawed and therefore his conclusions are assinine, and I have, in the past, called him the "stupidest smart person alive." But that says nothing of the character of the man. Bill Mahar, on the other hand, is both fundamentally flawed and a complete ass. I agree with you there. Hitch, I can't speak to him as I have not paid him much attention. I understand he and his brother are quite at odds, though, and that there is supposed to be some big debate between them in the coming months. Ah, sibling rivalry.

I bring this up to point out that I, too, don't agree with everything the Christians get wrapped up in, or all of what they say. Even within my own Church, I have disagreed with certain ideas and actions. The beauty of Chrisitanity, to me, is its focus on agency - I am perfectly free to accept or not to accept as I see fit. The consequences, of course, are another matter. But the physical world is no different. I can disbelieve in gravity all I want, but as soon as I walk off the end of a pier, gravity is going to remind of the consequences of my disbelief.

However, just as disliking Mahar or Hitchens doesn't make you less atheist, disagreeing with, say, Brigham Young on certain things doesn't make me less Christian.

This is a side note I could continue discussing for days, so let's just wrap it up here. I am not convinced that atheism is not a religion, only that it is not an organization. I realize the position it puts you in to accept my point of view on this matter, and I know you will argue with me til the end of days about this point. But I have gone these rounds countless times and I have yet to hear the rational argument to refute my position.

Look on the bright side: you get the protection offered by the 1st amendment this way.

~Cory