Wow, you don't half get some mileage from that one comment.

• The word 'theism' is an abstraction about an abstraction, religion.

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

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

Theist and atheist alike can agree about which religions are theistic. Religions are reasonably well-defined "objects" (associations) 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 god whatsoever exists. For the Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional characters have no greater status as existing entities than Gilgamesh and Zeus, Sherlock Holmes and Batman.

• A religion is a praxis.

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

One defining characteristic of 'religion' is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common cultic practices, mythological and ideological commitments, corporate action, identifiable from within and without.

Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts of America is not a religion. It is however a voluntary association. Of course, there are voluntary associations, like the BHA, which espouse atheism.

Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no creeds, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. Atheism is not even a voluntary association.

To call atheism a religion simply commits an elementary category mistake.

I may revisit this later. Doubtful though. The original post was ages ago, I probably shouldn't have commented on it at all, but I just couldn't stand to see blatent misrepresentations (and various fawning suppliants) go unanswered.

Still, I'd be tempted to revisit and goad occasionally……..

As for the bigots, if one's talking about the hard-core elements of the various abrahamic religions, then it's probably shrewd to consider that they each have the a common core in bronze age desert goatherd mythology, despite the extra "fluff" they added later (i.e. meek baby Jesus for the christians, ball crusher Mohammed for the muslims).

Ironic really, considering that the ideas often being thrown around by religious bigots is heavily supported by islam (eg. homosexuality)