"Saying that Atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour"
I've heard this stupidity repeated so many times by the citizens of the Internet that I have to say this:
Bald isn't a hair colour. It's a hair style.
Sometimes voluntary, sometimes at the will of your genes.
Short hair isn't a hair colour either. If I tell someone I have short hair, that doesn't automatically give them the image of me being a redhead.
Neither is long hair. Those are all hair styles.
I don't know who was the witty rebel teenager who figured that would be the most clever analogy to show those pesky conformist religious sheeple how wrong they are about everything. Out of arguments? I'll just use a bad t-shirt slogan and a link to an online dictionary and that'll show 'em.
Bald people have to go through a different routine of personal hygiene than people with long hair, dreadlocks or a perm have to.
But no, you're not part of any group. You've just figured life out all by yourself from the comfort of your own bedroom, and there's no one else who thinks like you. And if there is, it has to be just a coincidence cause when was the last time you even had any form of human contact that didn't involve a keyboard?
Bald isn't a hair colour. It's a hair style.
Sometimes voluntary, sometimes at the will of your genes.
Short hair isn't a hair colour either. If I tell someone I have short hair, that doesn't automatically give them the image of me being a redhead.
Neither is long hair. Those are all hair styles.
I don't know who was the witty rebel teenager who figured that would be the most clever analogy to show those pesky conformist religious sheeple how wrong they are about everything. Out of arguments? I'll just use a bad t-shirt slogan and a link to an online dictionary and that'll show 'em.
Bald people have to go through a different routine of personal hygiene than people with long hair, dreadlocks or a perm have to.
But no, you're not part of any group. You've just figured life out all by yourself from the comfort of your own bedroom, and there's no one else who thinks like you. And if there is, it has to be just a coincidence cause when was the last time you even had any form of human contact that didn't involve a keyboard?
Comments496
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
"Saying that Atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour"
"Bald isn't a hair colour. It's a hair style."
Well no fucking shit, that's the point of the analogy!
Do you even know what an analogy is, before crying about it on the internet?
"Bald isn't a hair colour. It's a hair style."
Well no fucking shit, that's the point of the analogy!
Do you even know what an analogy is, before crying about it on the internet?
You know how you said that bald isn't a hair color? That's the fucking point! You are calling atheism a religion, when it mostly consists of people who are rejecting religion. It's completely nonsensical. And for the last bit, they aren't saying their not part of a group, they're saying they aren't part of a RELIGION. There is a difference, and if you don't know that, then you need to figure out what religion and atheism means, because you're confused. Not every group is a religion. Rejecting religion is not a religion.
Atheism is a religious belief, not a religion. there is no dogma, rule or requirement to be an atheist
While this may or may not be true, it is true that if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck it's a duck, no matter what other name you try to stick on it.
I don't disagree with that.
I'd love to see your reaction to people saying literally any metaphor ever.
Gotta find at least something to pick on, right?
again, what the fuck are you talking about. speaking of angsty teenagers....
Atheism has no system.
Atheists have no hair.
I don't think I've heard anyone says "hair color". I have heard "hair due/hair style" which is valid because its not really a style of wearing hair as you can't really wear what isn't there. Though the more common comparison I see is comparing atheism to having a hobby of not stamp collecting.
The more accurate thing is atheism is a potential branch into a religion but can't be a religion in itself kinda like theism, deism and agnosticism are not religions either but can be aspects of a religion. For example Buddhism is technically an atheist religion even though some morons deny Buddhism is a religion on the basis it does have that lack of certain belief. The thing is religion is quite complex but the nowhere is its defining factor belief in God therefore atheist religion can and do exist.
The more accurate thing is atheism is a potential branch into a religion but can't be a religion in itself kinda like theism, deism and agnosticism are not religions either but can be aspects of a religion. For example Buddhism is technically an atheist religion even though some morons deny Buddhism is a religion on the basis it does have that lack of certain belief. The thing is religion is quite complex but the nowhere is its defining factor belief in God therefore atheist religion can and do exist.
a major point of that metaphor is that hairstyle and hair color are two different things. Atheism cannot be a religion because it doesn't fit the difinition of what a religion is on its fundamental meaning. Another analogy is that Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex-position.
Atheism is one position on one issue, religion is a system of belief. The two are simply different things.
Atheism is one position on one issue, religion is a system of belief. The two are simply different things.
"Bald isn't a hair colour. It's a hair style."
Well technically that's still incorrect, as there's no hair present to style. It's just a lack of hair. If you had a dropdown list of different hairstyles, selecting "none" would basically equate to bald. Same principle applies to atheism, it would just be the "none" in a dropdown menu of religions.
I think maybe you're over-complicating the analogy and placing too much emphasis on the wording rather than the actual message behind it (because I'm sure you understood what the analogy is suggesting). Maybe the person who came up with the expression could have done a better job of presenting the idea, but the message is still the same.
Well technically that's still incorrect, as there's no hair present to style. It's just a lack of hair. If you had a dropdown list of different hairstyles, selecting "none" would basically equate to bald. Same principle applies to atheism, it would just be the "none" in a dropdown menu of religions.
I think maybe you're over-complicating the analogy and placing too much emphasis on the wording rather than the actual message behind it (because I'm sure you understood what the analogy is suggesting). Maybe the person who came up with the expression could have done a better job of presenting the idea, but the message is still the same.
personally i dont consider Atheism a religion but i do consider science to be a religion. religion is a belief in something and religions purpose is to supply mankind with a purpose. science give the purpose of discovery and perseverance. the belief in god often gives the idea of living so that after words you may find something better.
these are simply my thoughts on the subject. and i simply think that atheism is simply living because you live.
these are simply my thoughts on the subject. and i simply think that atheism is simply living because you live.
Religion defined [link]:
"a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
Science defined [link]:
"Definition of SCIENCE
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5
capitalized : christian science."
Clearly science cannot fall under religion. One cans rude religion by using the scientific method, but that does not make science religious.
"a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."
Science defined [link]:
"Definition of SCIENCE
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5
capitalized : christian science."
Clearly science cannot fall under religion. One cans rude religion by using the scientific method, but that does not make science religious.
Being an "atheist" doesn't mean the person in question doesn't have any beliefs of any sort. Just that they don't believe in certain specific things (The existence of gods). That's it. That's all there is to it and everything else is wide open.
An atheist my be a free thinker, or may dogmatically believe in some ideology. An atheist may be religious (Excluding theistic religions) or irreligious. An atheist may be a naturalist or may believe in the supernatural (except for gods). An atheist may believe in the absence of gods, may believe it is unknowable whether they exist, may believe that it is knowable, but not know, may consider the idea of gods too ill defined to have a truth value, or may simply have never encountered the idea or not care enough to think about it.
That's the point the "bald" analogy is trying to make. Complaining that it doesn't make your point for you is ridiculous. You are making what amounts to a circular argument for the invalidity of an analogy. You are essentially saying that because atheism IS a religion, any analogy that doesn't group the analog of atheism within the analog of religion must be wrong. The point being argued though is whether atheism IS a religion. You could argue that it's a bad analogy on other grounds. For instance, a better analogy would be to say that atheism is like "not-red" as a hair colour. There are non-redheads who have hair of some other colour, and non-redheads who are bald and therefore have no hair colour.
Atheism doesn't imply a claim to any special knowledge or that we have figured everything out. Given the wide open definition, there are some people who do make such claims who are atheists, but it's not because they are atheists or implicit in being atheists. Joseph Stalin was an atheist, but he had very little in common with someone like James Randi other than not believing in gods, and having some impressive facial hair. Stalin was every bit as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist theist and would have hated a free thinker/skeptic like Randi.
If you want to argue with specific claims or actions of someone or some group that happens to be atheist, you'll have to be specific about them, and don't expect everyone who happens to not believe in gods to agree with them or feel responsible for the actions of anyone else who also happens not to believe in gods.
An atheist my be a free thinker, or may dogmatically believe in some ideology. An atheist may be religious (Excluding theistic religions) or irreligious. An atheist may be a naturalist or may believe in the supernatural (except for gods). An atheist may believe in the absence of gods, may believe it is unknowable whether they exist, may believe that it is knowable, but not know, may consider the idea of gods too ill defined to have a truth value, or may simply have never encountered the idea or not care enough to think about it.
That's the point the "bald" analogy is trying to make. Complaining that it doesn't make your point for you is ridiculous. You are making what amounts to a circular argument for the invalidity of an analogy. You are essentially saying that because atheism IS a religion, any analogy that doesn't group the analog of atheism within the analog of religion must be wrong. The point being argued though is whether atheism IS a religion. You could argue that it's a bad analogy on other grounds. For instance, a better analogy would be to say that atheism is like "not-red" as a hair colour. There are non-redheads who have hair of some other colour, and non-redheads who are bald and therefore have no hair colour.
Atheism doesn't imply a claim to any special knowledge or that we have figured everything out. Given the wide open definition, there are some people who do make such claims who are atheists, but it's not because they are atheists or implicit in being atheists. Joseph Stalin was an atheist, but he had very little in common with someone like James Randi other than not believing in gods, and having some impressive facial hair. Stalin was every bit as dogmatic as the most fundamentalist theist and would have hated a free thinker/skeptic like Randi.
If you want to argue with specific claims or actions of someone or some group that happens to be atheist, you'll have to be specific about them, and don't expect everyone who happens to not believe in gods to agree with them or feel responsible for the actions of anyone else who also happens not to believe in gods.
And I'm not a teenager, the older I get the less I believe.
Why do non-believers even have to be grouped? Some people can live on this planet without religion. Maybe they are stronger in spirit and don't need to belong to any group. They can find their own path by themselves without the need to be taught or guided by others. Believers just can't stand free thinkers and want to shackle them to outdated belief systems.
Isn't it natural to group people who have something in common though? Maybe you don't like the word "group", but a multitude or beings or objects that share at least a common feature.
What free thinkers are you talking about?
What free thinkers are you talking about?
Of course Atheists don't want to be seen as part of a religious group! Don't you know? Their shit don't stink!
Or, you know, maybe they don't even shit at all.
Or, you know, atheism on its own doesn't fit the definition of what religion actually is.
Or, you know, not believing in a god might just not qualify as a religion.
Well if someone believes atheism is not a religion (but rather a way of thinking, etc), then this analogy is true, because it's not a hair color. It's not the best-written analogy in the world but when viewed through this lens it works.