>> The word ‘theism’ is an abstraction about an abstraction ‘religion.’

‘Theism’ is an abstract noun which collectively refers to every religion (another abstract noun) which espouses the existence of at least one god, usually one having a personality, which interacts meaningfully with human beings.

The set of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship. These are non-theistic religions.

Theist and atheist alike can agree about which religions are theistic. Religions are reasonably well-defined “objects” which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me “the salt which never loses its savour.”

Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any theistic god whatsoever exists. For the so-called Big-3 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God, Yaweh, and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional figures have no greater status than Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman.

Let’s be clear. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion either.

>> A religion is a praxis.

One defining characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. (Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts is not a religion. It is a voluntary association.)

Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no affirmations, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. (Atheism is not a voluntary association. Of course, there are voluntary associations which espouse atheism.)

Having an opinion that gods do not exist can not mean that one has an opinion “about” gods. There is nothing, according to the atheist, about which to have an opinion.

One of the great clarifications within Logic is to distinguish an existence claim from a claim that some existing thing has a property. (”Existence is not a predicate.”)

>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.

I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a mythological being named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’

All I can know about these characters is what I read in pages devoted to them. I can no more find the synoptic “God” by doing astronomical research than I can find “Hamlet’s bones” by excavating in a chapel at Elsinore.

No interpretation of Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” makes someone called ‘Hamlet’ more likely to exist. No interpretation of the synoptics of the “New Testament” makes some being called ‘God’ more likely to exist. Theology is so much fan fiction.

Bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

There’s many things we mislabel on a constant basis. Someone on a forum recently pointed out how the phrase “emptied the clip” isn’t accurate, as they’re nearly always referring to a magazine, not a clip. Or how about the number of people who refer to their computer tower as their hard drive or their CPU? How about how nearly every person on earth refers to the vulva (the collective term for the external female genitalia) as a vagina (the first two to three inches inside, which is rarely visible, and therefore rarely referenced)?

The fact that a term is commonly misused does not make it factually accurate. Black is not a color no matter how much any of us refer to it as one. So atheism, by his logic, can indeed be called a religion by lazy people who don’t understand or care about the difference. But laws should be above poor English or laymen terms.

Atheism is not a religion, it’s a complete lack thereof. I hold no belief in anything I cannot prove, unlike religion. The closest they can come is the fact that I believe there is no god without proof there is no god. But without proof (or even evidence), why should I even entertain the thought? By that same logic I should, in fact, refer to myself as a schizophrenic because while a schizophrenic hallucinates, I cannot prove that I am NOT hallucinating, therefore I should accept the possibility that I may be hallucinating at this moment and simply don’t realize it. Because apparently, to derail one of their favorite quotes, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything important whatsoever since I should just take their word for it and accept that I may be wrong no matter how outlandish their claims simply because I can’t disprove them.

Don’t you just love arguing with the equivalent of a four-year-old with her fingers in her years yelling, “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you!”?

Therefore by his own arguments, Atheist groups should also get the same tax-exemption privilages as churches. I have a feeling that he would not be too keen on this.

It’s right there in Bible.. so.

I do notice that you’re not on the atheist blogroll yet… :-)

A pretty telling statement by McGinnis, I thought: “When the State prohibits free discussion of God in the classroom, that is establishing the religion of Atheism.” They’re so transparent – but effective, sadly.

Love the Starbucks comparison. Another favorite is, Atheism is a religion in the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Great blog!