I think when people say that “atheism is a religion” they don’t usually mean to say that atheism is a religion in some technical sense. Rather they want to say that if there is something bad about their religion, that bad thing will apply to atheism too. And this may be either true or false, depending on what that bad thing is and which atheism you are talking about, but it will very often be false.
But calling atheism a religion in this way is a rather uninteresting attempt at self-defense. Note that it never happens in a positive sense, i.e. no one says “my religion is good, atheism is religious too, so it has some good aspects.” In reality, though, instead of talking about “religions”, where is it clear in an objective sense that atheism is not a religion, you could talk about religious instincts, and in this case it would be reasonable to say that atheists have religious instincts just like theists do, because these instincts have evolved to become a part of human nature. This could also be related to the sorts of comparisons mentioned. For example, even if no one thinks that cryonics offers eternal life, this does not necessarily mean the desire to use cryonics to overcome death (for at least a while) is not related to the desire of religious people for eternal life. And such similarities could be either good or bad, depending on the particular feature of human nature in question.
Even religious people have a concept of “bad religion”—the religion of their enemies. What they worship is not some abstract concept of religion in general, but one specific religion. Other specific religions are wrong.
Saying “atheism is a religion” is reducing a new enemy to a subtype of the old enemy they already have millenia of experience fighting against. It’s not suggesting that atheism is equivalent to e.g. Christianity (something high status), but rather that it is equivalent to Baal worship (something low status).
And, in particular, I think that when someone says “atheism is a religion” they’re (almost?) always saying it for rhetorical effect rather than as a carefully considered statement they’d be prepared to explain the exact meaning of and give justification for. Which means, I think, that it’s reasonable to respond in a way optimized for rhetorical effect (e.g., with the sort of comparison HalMorris posted upthread—I don’t really think it’s a “rationality quote”, but I think it’s a perfectly good response to “atheism is just another religion”).
If the person who said “atheism is a religion” then follows up with something more carefully considered that isn’t refuted by likening atheism to turning the TV off, or being bald, or not playing any notes on the piano, or whatever, that’s a good outcome: you’ve got something actually worth discussing. If they just drop the subject, that’s a different kind of good outcome: a silly rhetorical trick has been neutralized by a less silly rhetorical trick. (Less silly because I think the response is more defensible than the original provocation.)
I think when people say that “atheism is a religion” they don’t usually mean to say that atheism is a religion in some technical sense. Rather they want to say that if there is something bad about their religion, that bad thing will apply to atheism too. And this may be either true or false, depending on what that bad thing is and which atheism you are talking about, but it will very often be false.
But calling atheism a religion in this way is a rather uninteresting attempt at self-defense. Note that it never happens in a positive sense, i.e. no one says “my religion is good, atheism is religious too, so it has some good aspects.” In reality, though, instead of talking about “religions”, where is it clear in an objective sense that atheism is not a religion, you could talk about religious instincts, and in this case it would be reasonable to say that atheists have religious instincts just like theists do, because these instincts have evolved to become a part of human nature. This could also be related to the sorts of comparisons mentioned. For example, even if no one thinks that cryonics offers eternal life, this does not necessarily mean the desire to use cryonics to overcome death (for at least a while) is not related to the desire of religious people for eternal life. And such similarities could be either good or bad, depending on the particular feature of human nature in question.
Even religious people have a concept of “bad religion”—the religion of their enemies. What they worship is not some abstract concept of religion in general, but one specific religion. Other specific religions are wrong.
Saying “atheism is a religion” is reducing a new enemy to a subtype of the old enemy they already have millenia of experience fighting against. It’s not suggesting that atheism is equivalent to e.g. Christianity (something high status), but rather that it is equivalent to Baal worship (something low status).
Right.
And, in particular, I think that when someone says “atheism is a religion” they’re (almost?) always saying it for rhetorical effect rather than as a carefully considered statement they’d be prepared to explain the exact meaning of and give justification for. Which means, I think, that it’s reasonable to respond in a way optimized for rhetorical effect (e.g., with the sort of comparison HalMorris posted upthread—I don’t really think it’s a “rationality quote”, but I think it’s a perfectly good response to “atheism is just another religion”).
If the person who said “atheism is a religion” then follows up with something more carefully considered that isn’t refuted by likening atheism to turning the TV off, or being bald, or not playing any notes on the piano, or whatever, that’s a good outcome: you’ve got something actually worth discussing. If they just drop the subject, that’s a different kind of good outcome: a silly rhetorical trick has been neutralized by a less silly rhetorical trick. (Less silly because I think the response is more defensible than the original provocation.)