>>512772043>those are just atheists, not atheismthis distinction is philosophically bankrupt. a semantic dodge that ignores how worldviews manifest in society.
religions aren't abstract voids, they're defined by practices and communities and doctrines.
as daniel dennet argues in "breaking the spell," religion arises from shared rituals and identities, supernatural or not.
atheism, far from a passive negation, has evolved into a positive framework (naturalism, scientism, humanism) complete with institutions.
the behaviors i cited are atheism in action.
churches like "sunday assembly" provide atheist congregations,
monuments counter other religious displays,
symbols (atomic A) foster identity,
rituals (debaptism) affirm belonging,
holidays (darwin day) mark observances,
texts (the god delusion) serve as manifestos,
proselytizing debates evangelize,
ethical codes (humanist manifesto) guide morality,
movements (new atheism) build collectives.
crucially, the US courts treat atheism as a religion under the first amendment, granting it religious protections, if it's just "disbelief" why such parity?
your minimalist definition reduces atheism to etymology, blinding us to its sociological reality.
atheism is not a vacuum, it's a belief system quacking like a religion because it is one by virtually every definition.