# Atheism is now legally a religion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811 "2014-11-05T22:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/221 "2014-11-07T19:12:01Z")
Also, in real life (that is, not on debating message boards) nobody cares about the First Cause god, nobody worships it, nobody writes laws based upon books dedicated to the Great First Cause. It’s a totally useless concept, adds nothing, provides no guidance. And, it has nothing to do with whether the absence of belief in gods is a belief somehow. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/222 "2014-11-07T19:36:19Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Oh, sure, in a meaningful way. They believe there’s no god or gods, and they get obnoxious and smug about it, and _you’d better believe that too_ or you will be ridiculed. > > For the record, no, I’m not dogmatic about vampires. I’m certain they don’t exist, but I’m not a dick about it if somebody else thinks they do. I suspect we’re using the word in different ways. You’re dogmatic about vampires in that you think “vampires don’t exist” is undeniably true. I think the problem is that religion is given special status. Saying religion is wrong is seen as “obnoxious” or “smug”, but there’s nothing obnoxious or smug about fighting ignorance, it just seems that way because people think it’s wrong to criticize religion. But religion a set of claims about the universe, just like the claim that gravity can be reversed, or that the Earth is flat, and so can and should be challenged. If someone claims the Earth is flat, and refused to listen to reason and the evidence against their claim, how far can one go in challenging them before becoming obnoxious? What if you had spent your life studying the Earth and had seen countless photographs, as well as other evidence, showing it to be round? Would you not feel entitled to defend the truth against such an uninformed assault with some force? Do you think erroneous and potentially harmful religious claims should be challenged any less strongly than the claim that the Earth is flat? What if you’re a biologist, or geologist, or physicist, have spent 40 years studying your field, and then someone tells you the Earth is 6000 years old? Because really, it’s the one making erroneous claims there that is being an obnoxious dick. It’s incredibly insulting. Personally, I think if someone knows another person holds an overly erroneous view - such as belief in vampires, a flat Earth, or gods - choosing not to challenge it is a mixture of pragmatism and cowardice; most of the time it’s not worth making the effort to challenge ignorance, and often it will just damage relationships. It’s not some form of niceness or anything that could be considered the opposite of being obnoxious, smug or a dick. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/223 "2014-11-07T19:54:06Z")
> [@GrumpyBunny](#): > > Great. I’m going to declare myself a non-profit and avoid taxes! This is an excellent point. Whether or not we atheists agree about atheism being a religion, surely we can agree that this ruling offers some opportunity to make some bucks! ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/224 "2014-11-07T20:41:46Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Dawkins asks for evidence on whether religious claims are true, i.e. the claims that the religious make _themselves_. And they are mighty big claims. > > Theology, if it is anything, is a means of ensuring such claims never get tested on a true/false basis. It is an exercise in hand-waving and circular reasoning. It has to be because it dare not make any more testable claims now that Newton, Einstein, Mendel et al dared to think and test and question. > > Of course the arguments of atheists are not respected by the religious. Theology does not do straight questions, straight answers or evidence. They wouldn’t know an insightful argument if it smote them verily. I am aware of Dawkins’ arguments. Do you have some examples of relatively prominent theological works that fit your description? I said religious studies scholars in American universities, not religious people or theologians. Many atheists and “nones” (To use a polling phrase) are included in this group, and many are studying religions that are not their own. Well-known departments and committees are at the Ivy leagues, Georgetown, Santa Barbara, Berkeley, and of course Chicago. There is a ton of impressive scholarship being done at many other places too and through interdisciplinary work. Europe, meanwhile, has even more fantastic departments, especially in France, Germany, and England. If you think none of these people would know an insightful argument, well, that’s also pretty ballsy. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/225 "2014-11-07T20:42:56Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > This is an excellent point. Whether or not we atheists agree about atheism being a religion, surely we can agree that this ruling offers some opportunity to make some bucks! I am Atheism’s Non-Prophet™. Give unto me thy duckets and you will sit at the right hand of No-One after your death. All major credit cards accepted. Personal checks must clear before I do whatever is I do for you. Not valid in Utah. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/226 "2014-11-07T20:48:47Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But without any further explanation, definition or description you can answer the very simple question “do you have a belief in Thrackerwags” and that answer is “no” Actually, the answer is, I don’t know if I have such a belief, because I don’t know what you mean by Thrackerwags. If that’s a type of pizza, I absolutely have such a belief. What you call something doesn’t change the status of my belief in it; it’s the referent, not the word, that I either believe exists or believe doesn’t exist. If you say the default answer is “no,” how do you answer this question: Does itszel flibble korvak the nabonambles? If this question is unanswerable, but “do you believe in Thrackerwags” is answerable, why the difference–what level of nonsense is necessary before you say that a question is unanswerable? > [@](#): > > That is precisely the position I take in relation to god/gods etc. So I’m an atheist. I’m an atheist not because I lack understanding of what theists believe in, but because I do understand what they mean, and because I think many conceptions of God are logically impossible (the omnipotent omniscient being who knows what He’s gonna do and can’t surprise Himself, to take a cheap example), others are poetic descriptions of objective facts (God is immanent in all of us is a lovely way of expressing the speaker’s value of all humans, not necessarily a statement of a supernatural being), and still others are coherent, but I think a universe containing these beings is a lot less likely than a universe not containing these beings, given what I know (Thor? really? no) My atheism is distinct from my coffee mug’s “atheism.” Whereas my coffee mug doesn’t believe in gods, nor does it believe in an absence of gods. I believe that there is a universe, and that this universe is probably free of gods. This is the best conclusion I can reach given the evidence I have. My coffee mug hasn’t reached that conclusion yet. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/227 "2014-11-07T20:54:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Actually, the answer is, I don’t know if I have such a belief, because I don’t know what you mean by Thrackerwags. If that’s a type of pizza, I absolutely have such a belief. What you call something doesn’t change the status of my belief in it; it’s the referent, not the word, that I either believe exists or believe doesn’t exist. > > If you say the default answer is “no,” how do you answer this question: Does itszel flibble korvak the nabonambles? > > If this question is unanswerable, but “do you believe in Thrackerwags” is answerable, why the difference–what level of nonsense is necessary before you say that a question is unanswerable? > I’m an atheist not because I lack understanding of what theists believe in, but because I do understand what they mean, and because I think many conceptions of God are logically impossible (the omnipotent omniscient being who knows what He’s gonna do and can’t surprise Himself, to take a cheap example), others are poetic descriptions of objective facts (God is immanent in all of us is a lovely way of expressing the speaker’s value of all humans, not necessarily a statement of a supernatural being), and still others are coherent, but I think a universe containing these beings is a lot less likely than a universe not containing these beings, given what I know (Thor? really? no) > > My atheism is distinct from my coffee mug’s “atheism.” Whereas my coffee mug doesn’t believe in gods, nor does it believe in an absence of gods. I believe that there is a universe, and that this universe is probably free of gods. This is the best conclusion I can reach given the evidence I have. My coffee mug hasn’t reached that conclusion yet. Your coffee mug is still ahead of Ken Ham in the game. As for the Thrackerzog (or whatever) tangent, the point of that is, belief is an active thing. If you’ve never thought about something or ever heard of it, you don’t believe in it. True, if it turns out that Thrackerzog (or whatever) is a type of Croc sandal, then sure you believe in it. But before you find that out, you, like an infant, had no active belief in its existence. Every single baby is an atheist, not for intellectual reasons, but simply because they don’t have the conception of a God so they can’t take the affirmative step to switch on the belief light. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/228 "2014-11-07T20:56:29Z")
[QUOTE=Lobohan] Give unto me thy duckets and you will sit at the right hand of No-One after your death. [/QUOTE] And thus, I testify, He truthfully did say for lo, he then had a Cuppe of Coffee and wenteth on with His day. Is it not said that him whom of or to various Deities fucks are not given, verily his soul doth be blessed every day of his life ? Doth the goldfish careth about yon dragon ? This, no more, nor less, I can tell to thee, for verily I was baked and do not remember. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/229 "2014-11-07T21:01:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Your coffee mug is still ahead of Ken Ham in the game. > > As for the Thrackerzog (or whatever) tangent, the point of that is, belief is an active thing. If you’ve never thought about something or ever heard of it, you don’t believe in it. > > True, if it turns out that Thrackerzog (or whatever) is a type of Croc sandal, then sure you believe in it. But before you find that out, you, like an infant, had no active belief in its existence. > > Every single baby is an atheist, not for intellectual reasons, but simply because they don’t have the conception of a God so they can’t take the affirmative step to switch on the belief light. The thing is, I think there’s a crucial difference between reflective disbelief and nonreflective lack of belief. Repeating lines about how every baby is an atheist misses this crucial difference, and I don’t think it illuminates the issue at all. By this standard, of course, every baby is a flat-earther and a solipsist. Babies don’t believe in internal combustion, microorganisms, satellites, or tiger sharks. The reason babies don’t believe in God is much closer to the reason they don’t believe in germs than it is to the reason I don’t believe in God: it’s because babies are ignorant. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/230 "2014-11-07T21:01:41Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > And thus, I testify, He truthfully did say for lo, he then had a Cuppe of Coffee and wenteth on with His day. Is it not said that him whom of or to various Deities fucks are not given, verily his soul doth be blessed every day of his life ? Doth the goldfish careth about yon dragon ? This, no more, nor less, I can tell to thee, for verily I was baked and do not remember. Dave be not present, brother. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/231 "2014-11-07T21:10:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The thing is, I think there’s a crucial difference between reflective disbelief and nonreflective lack of belief. Repeating lines about how every baby is an atheist misses this crucial difference, and I don’t think it illuminates the issue at all. By this standard, of course, every baby is a flat-earther and a solipsist. Babies don’t believe in internal combustion, microorganisms, satellites, or tiger sharks. The reason babies don’t believe in God is much closer to the reason they don’t believe in germs than it is to the reason I don’t believe in God: it’s because babies are ignorant. Well yeah, I agree with that. I think it just goes to say that indoctrination is what causes the transition. Well, I guess a couple of ape-men a long time ago were sitting around a fire and wondering why it rained, and came up with the concept of Gods themselves, but pretty much everyone since then has taken belief via instruction. You learned about germs and it became a belief for you. Bricker learned about Jesus and His sacrifice and it became a belief for him. As it happens, germs are way better documented, but some people got real weak standards of evidence. I do agree that it’s not illustrative of much at all, except to further the point that we all start out with no belief in God (or germs) and must have it given to us. Like herpes. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/232 "2014-11-07T21:12:08Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The thing is, I think there’s a crucial difference between reflective disbelief and nonreflective lack of belief. Repeating lines about how every baby is an atheist misses this crucial difference, and I don’t think it illuminates the issue at all. By this standard, of course, every baby is a flat-earther and a solipsist. Babies don’t believe in internal combustion, microorganisms, satellites, or tiger sharks. The reason babies don’t believe in God is much closer to the reason they don’t believe in germs than it is to the reason I don’t believe in God: it’s because babies are ignorant. When I have kids there are going to be some hard years sharing a house with anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/233 "2014-11-07T21:13:48Z")
> [@nani](#): > > When I have kids there are going to be some hard years sharing a house with anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. Anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines don’t work. Truthers believe that 911 was an inside job. Birthers believe that Obama goes home at night and does the Shaka Zulu dance with a bone in his nose. Those are beliefs, not the lack of belief suggested by atheism. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/234 "2014-11-07T21:20:05Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines don’t work. Truthers believe that 911 was an inside job. Birthers believe that Obama goes home at night and does the Shaka Zulu dance with a bone in his nose. > > Those are beliefs, not the lack of belief suggested by atheism. A baby does not have a belief that vaccines work. A baby does not have a belief that 9/11 happened according to the consensus explanation. In fact, to find out about these things, they’d have to Just Ask Questions. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/235 "2014-11-07T21:21:22Z")
> [@nani](#): > > A baby does not have a belief that vaccines work. A baby does not have a belief that 9/11 happened according to the consensus explanation. In fact, to find out about these things, they’d have Just Ask Questions. Yes, which is why your previous comment was so silly. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/236 "2014-11-07T21:29:22Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Yes, which is why your previous comment was so silly. If someone told me that they didn’t believe vaccines worked, or that they didn’t believe the terrorism story of 9/11, I wouldn’t have any trouble calling them anti-vaxxers or truthers, regardless of whether they also thought vaccines caused autism or if 9/11 was an inside job. That’s actually one of most annoying parts of talking to many conspiracy theorists - they pick at the “official” story but are extremely slippery about staking out a substantial alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/237 "2014-11-07T21:41:50Z")
> [@nani](#): > > If someone told me that they didn’t believe vaccines worked, or that they didn’t believe the terrorism story of 9/11, I wouldn’t have any trouble calling them anti-vaxxers or truthers, regardless of whether they also thought vaccines caused autism or if 9/11 was an inside job. That’s actually one of most annoying parts of talking to many conspiracy theorists - they pick at the “official” story but are extremely slippery about staking out a substantial alternative. If I go to a tribesperson from New Guinea and point at a vaccine (presuming he’s never seen or heard of them) and say, “Do you think that thing can ward off Malaria?” He’d probably say, “I dunno.” or “maybe” or “fuck it, worth a try.” He doesn’t believe in vaccines. Or disbelieve in them. He has no idea. Similarly, he doesn’t actively believe that vaccines cause autism, if he even knows what autism is, their population is so low he may never have encountered it. ---
**Author:** ![nani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/58956e/32.png) [@nani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nani)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/238 "2014-11-07T21:58:56Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > If I go to a tribesperson from New Guinea and point at a vaccine (presuming he’s never seen or heard of them) and say, “Do you think that thing can ward off Malaria?” He’d probably say, “I dunno.” or “maybe” or “fuck it, worth a try.” He doesn’t believe in vaccines. Or disbelieve in them. He has no idea. > > Similarly, he doesn’t actively believe that vaccines cause autism, if he even knows what autism is, their population is so low he may never have encountered it. Don’t shift the goalposts. The question as you asked was “Do you believe in \_\_\_\_\_”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/239 "2014-11-07T22:11:31Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes. But when we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory, we use scientific principles to try to grasp this new territory. Whether it’s traveling to the moon, contemplating deep space travel, or trying to understand what goes on at the deepest, darkest recesses of the ocean, we assume that certain principles will still apply. Top among them is causation. The events are caused by preceding events. Another of them is that time is immutable. Yet when we moved to realms of movement at speeds approaching c that immutable thing went away. The early universe is far more different from our experience than relativistic travel is. Arguing for a cause just because everything we see has one doesn’t work. Not to mention that causes at the quantum level are a bit more difficult to discern than causes at the macro level. What is the cause of a particular uranium atom splitting at a given time? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/240 "2014-11-07T22:11:59Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Don’t shift the goalposts. The question as you asked was “Do you believe in \_\_\_\_\_”. You’re the one shifting around in a doomed attempt to suggest that people don’t inherently not believe in God. Does the tribesperson believe in vaccines? No. Does he believe that vaccines cause autism? No. Your position is just rubbish. Nevermind the previous goof about how a practicing Jewish person who doesn’t believe in God still counts as a believer because he practices the social aspects of the religion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=13)