Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all hav

Trying to steel man David Foster Wallace here, I would say his point is that, if you define "religion" instead as a sort of personal philosophy, then we all have one. And because we all have a philosophy of some sort, we all have desires, rules, and some sort of ethical principles, we don't have atheists. The point he has relies on a faulty premise. When people talk about religion and atheism, they aren't using the definition of Wallace. They're using the strict definition - non-theist. Not a theist. They don't believe in god. they are saying absolutely nothing about the rest of their philosophy. He RELIES on changing the definition of religion into something it very clearly isn't. And he does this in order to provide evidence that people, who obviously exist, must not according to his definition. It's like saying "Homosexuality doesn't exist, because all homosexuality is is is rejecting the beauty of certain genders. But we all recognize the beauty of our mothers and brothers and fellow humans, and the grace they give and the home they provide. No human would be human without loving thy neighbor". It's insulting. And other than that, it has absolutely no value, intellectually, morally, or otherwise.