Is Atheism a Religion?

[John 6:29]

Well, there's another post on this, however, someone suggested making it a poll and so this is what I am doing.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Using the traditional definition of religion that in the thread you're mentioning most adhered to, myself included, atheism is not a religion.

[Doodle.]

I don't class Athiesm as a religion myself.

[PhoenixAlive]

I voted maybe, because certain religions (like Satanism, Buddhism, etc.) do not have a deity, but they are still classified as religions.

[Arcenciel]

Atheism is a religion. Sometimes I think they have more faith than some Christians.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by ForeverChanged

Atheism is a religion. Sometimes I think they have more faith than some Christians.

A vocal minority, maybe. They don't speak for the rest of us any more than Fred Phelps and his ilk speak for Christianity.

[Just Peachy.]

Sometimes i think that atheism..because it's a belief in nothing.
But then again Athiests don't practice anything.
Definition:
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Athiests don't do devotionals, rituals.
So Idk. I'm kinda on the fence about this..

[~Jess~]

Yes it is because it is the belief that there is no God.

[DanielR]

Atheism is not a religion. Being Atheist means you DON'T believe in religions.
So, I voted no.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by Lyndsee

Sometimes i think that atheism..because it's a belief in nothing.
But then again Athiests don't practice anything.
Definition:
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Athiests don't do devotionals, rituals.
So Idk. I'm kinda on the fence about this..

However, it is "esp." and "often" containing those things -- it is not EXCLUSIVE to those things. Certainly certain beliefs require more of a"practice" so to speak, however, a practice is not NEEDED to define religion. Religion is: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." That's it. If you contain a set of beliefs concerning to cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, you are religious. Perhaps some will disagree saying, "But certainly not everyone belongs to a religion." I disagree. Everyone, no matter who you are has a belief regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Even one who says, "I don't know my belief regarding the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," has a belief regarding it. What is ones belief? It's that they don't know. It's a subcategory, yet even a lack of knowledge is a belief. Let me show you what I mean...

I hold up a picture of the color green. I ask one person, "What is the color of this picture?" They respond, "Green." I ask another and they respond, "I don't see a color to the picture." These two both disagree about the color of the picture. One says green, the other says he does not see a color. They have a belief concerning the paper, one believing it's green and the other believes there is no color and therefore it is a belief. I ask another, they respond, "I am uncertain about which paper you're holding and the color of it." This person has a belief. However, it's a belief of uncertainty. This is a belief that they don't know and is neutral, yet still a belief.

Another example:

I tell 3 people my name is Mike. The first person says, "I believe your name is Mike." The second says, "I don't believe your name is Mike." And the third says, "I am uncertain if your name is Mike." We will ignore the first 2 and talk about the third. This person says, "I am uncertain if your name is Mike." What is their belief? They believe they are uncertain. Uncertain about what? If my name is Mike. They have a belief of skepticism. Therefore, someone who does not know is still holding a belief, and in fact I would even lean more to saying one which does not know is more qualified to not believing. By this I mean many agnostics will say, I am agnostic/atheist. Meaning they do not know and since they do not know they don't believe. Therefore, not knowing is more qualified in a group of disbelief.

Regardless, every person has a belief concerning "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Therefore, this qualifies them into a religion, though they may not be practicing certain things within their religion. Yet simply exercising belief in something is in essence a practice.

Some may say, "Atheist base their beliefs off science and evidence." Yes, okay. I'll accept this. Yet you're assuming that data to be correct. Many scientists have been wrong in the past, certainly knowledge is growing you may say. I agree. But is knowledge full grown and if not how can you put your faith completely into "science." Another problem is you can have several people analyze a certain particular bit of evidence and come up with two completely different views of what that evidence truly portrays. By this I mean whoever you are, you have a particular set of "world lenses" so-to-speak. Therefore, when examining data you will see what you believe evidence tells that fits with your lenses, while another will see different data which fits with their lenses. One can interpret a fossil to be 6,000 years old, another can interpret it millions of years old... it all depends on your lenses. You may say you believe that evidence should be interpreted without biases yet in exercising a such belief you are holding a belief about how it is to be interpreted and therefore it is inevitable to hold a bias. Regardless, this philosophy is difficult to explain and does not serve much purpose to this thread.

The point is that you are exercising a belief in science and in doing so you create a belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the earth. A religion.

You may say, "I do not."

Well, in saying so you just admitted that you have a religion because you "do not exercise belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe," which is in fact saying you do hold belief in these in that your belief is you do not hold a belief in these, therefore you are a religion. Despite this might I ask, then what do you do? How do you think the universe got here? What is the purpose of the universe? What is the nature of the universe?

You may come up with your own answers for these or may say it's relative, or perhaps you may say you do not know. In each case you are answering the questions and therefore are qualified as a religion.

Lastly, according to world net daily a court in Wisconsin ruled atheism to be a religion. You can view that here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_id=45874

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

However, it is "esp." and "often" containing those things -- it is not EXCLUSIVE to those things. Certainly certain beliefs require more of a"practice" so to speak, however, a practice is not NEEDED to define religion. Religion is: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." That's it.

I've said this a few times, as have others but you seem to re-use the same argument over and over. So, first, the definition you're adhering to says "a SET of beliefs". Does atheism have a set of beliefs? No. Hence, for that, it cannot meet your definition. But ignoring this problem, does atheism say anything about the nature, purpose or cause of the universe? No. Why? Because these are inferences on one's belief system and by saying one doesn't believe in god, then one says whatever caused the universe was not god. You can argue this to be part of your definition but you cannot argue for a disbelief in god as an explanation for the purpose of the universe, just as theism cannot. The specific belief systems and morals and such one adheres to determines the purpose of the universe but atheism alone cannot. As for the nature of the universe, well, this is hard to say but likely it does not say anything about it.

So, to summarize, atheism is a SINGLE belief that can be related to the CAUSE of the universe. It cannot say anything about the purpose as that's an inference that is not described within atheism. As for the nature of the universe, it's debatable depending on what one means by "nature of the universe". If one means the size or expansion of it, then atheism says nothing about that. Hence, the definition you gave of a religion is not met by atheism. Therefore, according to your definition, it is NOT a religion.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Regardless, every person has a belief concerning "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Therefore, this qualifies them into a religion, though they may not be practicing certain things within their religion. Yet simply exercising belief in something is in essence a practice.

True, every person may have a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe but does this make those beliefs religious? By this, you're saying science is religious if one adheres to science for the cause and nature of the universe but anyone who passed high-school science knows science is nothing like religion. So we have a conflict here because your statement is too generalizing and broad.

Furthermore, you haven't shown that atheism is actually a religion by this. You've shown atheism PLUS other beliefs and morals all constitute to be a religion but that does not mean atheism by itself is a religion (see above for refute using your own definition of religion).

Originally Posted by Michael.

Some may say, "Atheist base their beliefs off science and evidence." Yes, okay. I'll accept this. Yet you're assuming that data to be correct.

I'm not going to address the rest of the paragraph because it goes off on a complete tangent on you smearing science and scientists. You can accept the idea that atheists base their beliefs off science and evidence, and in doing so... you include science in their beliefs, which you then say is all part of a religion (i.e. atheism plus science plus any other beliefs = religion). Not true, not possible, see above.

Originally Posted by Michael.

The point is that you are exercising a belief in science and in doing so you create a belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the earth. A religion.

Sadly, science does not fulfill all those. The purpose of the universe is subjective, based on one's morals and any beliefs of a god. Is science subjective and based on opinions? No. It can say the cause but it cannot say the purpose. Why? Because that's like me saying I can use science to figure out the purpose of life in general and the purpose of an individual's life, such as your own. Possible by science? Not a chance. The same applies here and it only works in your argument because you continue to distort what science actually is.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Well, in saying so you just admitted that you have a religion because you "do not exercise belief regarding the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe," which is in fact saying you do hold belief in these in that your belief is you do not hold a belief in these, therefore you are a religion.

Now you're arguing something else. You're arguing the person is religious, not that atheism is a religion. A person cannot be a religion though because a person is not a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by Michael.

You may come up with your own answers for these or may say it's relative, or perhaps you may say you do not know. In each case you are answering the questions and therefore are qualified as a religion.

So by this logic, if you ask me these questions and I do NOT answer, then I'm not religious. Also, a person is not a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Lastly, according to world net daily a court in Wisconsin ruled atheism to be a religion. You can view that here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_id=45874

LOL!!!

This is so adorable because the one thing that's missing is... their definition of a religion. You have no idea if what they consider to be a religion is the same as your definition because it's not given! LOL. Find a source saying what their definition was, otherwise you might as well be comparing apples and staplers. Until then, it's irrelevant.

In psychology of advertising, this is called a bare comparative, where the comparison is unstated and you're guessing at what the comparison is. It's useless really because it's meaningless, just as the links is meaningless here without you showing the exact definition of religion they used in the trial. Show me it is the exact same AND that is equals every single bit of it and I'll eat my words.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

I've said this a few times, as have others but you seem to re-use the same argument over and over. So, first, the definition you're adhering to says "a SET of beliefs". Does atheism have a set of beliefs? No. Hence, for that, it cannot meet your definition. But ignoring this problem, does atheism say anything about the nature, purpose or cause of the universe? No. Why? Because these are inferences on one's belief system and by saying one doesn't believe in god, then one says whatever caused the universe was not god. You can argue this to be part of your definition but you cannot argue for a disbelief in god as an explanation for the purpose of the universe, just as theism cannot. The specific belief systems and morals and such one adheres to determines the purpose of the universe but atheism alone cannot. As for the nature of the universe, well, this is hard to say but likely it does not say anything about it.

I disagree. Atheism does have a set of beliefs. Yet as I will show you later on in this post, atheism accounts for the nature, purpose and cause of the universe indirectly. And even if it does not each person subjects their own. However, when you nullify God from the equation it DOES give a belief regarding the cause and purpose of the universe. You say yourself, one says "What ever caused the universe was not God." Therefore, you are saying the cause was not by God but the cause was by something else. You're saying the cause is by something else and therefore deeming a cause to the universe. You say it does not give a purpose? Well it does. It gives a purpose that is relative to an individual but a purpose none the less, one that is focused on pleasing self. Therefore, the purpose is self-centered. You may say, "Well I do things for the better of society." Great. But in essence you do those things for society because you feel that is the right thing to do and therefore is relative to self and is again self-centered. Now, I'm not saying all atheist are selfish, but that their purpose is self-centered. There is a difference, but I think you see that. If not I'll explain.

Now, as far as having a set of beliefs. It appears you are right, but I will say indirectly it does. If there is no belief in God, then your set of beliefs are merely relative concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and therefore it indirectly gives you beliefs and qualifies as a religion. Though it may be subjective to each individual within the religion it does not disqualify it as a religion because it is still self-focused.

Let me give you an example within Christianity. Instead of self-focusing, our purpose is on Christ, yet in your view this would still be self-focused. Why? Because our subjectivity concerning these questions is a matter of being answered by God, yet these are our relative answers (if you are correct -- though I believe they are objective answers) and therefore still focused on self. However, ignore this for a minute. In Christianity, instead of focusing on self, we focus on Christ (if I am correct about it being objective). Yet in focusing on Christ, He indirectly answers our questions, much like atheism indirectly answers your questions. Regardless, ones purpose is to please Christ within Christianity. One person may be struggling with pornography, another may have struggles with lying. They have a purpose in their Christianity to cut these out because they struggle with them, yet in that purpose it is to please Christ, so indirectly Christ shaped their struggles because they want to please Him, yet their purposes are differing, yet they are still considered a religion.

In atheism, you believe in no God. Therefore, most things are relative and subjective to an individual. No longer is your goal on pleasing others (though it may be), it ultimately is self-centered, if relative to an individual. Therefore, though one person may have a purpose to be a drunkard and another person to be intelligent, they both have answers regarding the purpose. Each different, yet still qualified as atheist. Why? Because they have a similar belief in no God, which in Christianity the similar belief is a belief in God of the Bible. Therefore, one singular beliefs provides a set of beliefs, though these beliefs may differ.

Atheism does not DIRECTLY answer these questions, yet indirectly and therefore is a set of beliefs relative to an individual. Yet if this is true, then the same is true with Christianity because everything is relative. The only difference is you believe in no God, I believe in the God of the Bible and my response differs from yours to these questions because I believe in a God. I do not follow a set of rules because of a religion, I respond to the idea of God correctly. You respond to the idea of no God correctly. Therefore, indirectly we are only responding to a singular belief and hence forming a multitude set of beliefs based on our responses of one belief that unites us with others.

What I am arguing is that atheism does have a set of beliefs.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

So, to summarize, atheism is a SINGLE belief that can be related to the CAUSE of the universe. It cannot say anything about the purpose as that's an inference that is not described within atheism. As for the nature of the universe, it's debatable depending on what one means by "nature of the universe". If one means the size or expansion of it, then atheism says nothing about that. Hence, the definition you gave of a religion is not met by atheism. Therefore, according to your definition, it is NOT a religion.

As mentioned before. My belief is only a singular belief in God and I am responding to it appropriately.

Your belief is only a singular belief in no God and you are responding to it as you see appropriate.

Therefore, one belief gives a set of beliefs indirectly and qualifies atheism as a religion.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

True, every person may have a set of beliefs regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe but does this make those beliefs religious? By this, you're saying science is religious if one adheres to science for the cause and nature of the universe but anyone who passed high-school science knows science is nothing like religion. So we have a conflict here because your statement is too generalizing and broad.

We are talking about defining a religion, not someone being religious.

Let me show you what I mean:
Religion defines the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Therefore, in a sense everyone has a religion of something. Whether we have a direct name for them or not, it does in essence make them religious. But not necessarily religions, just pertaining to a religion.

What makes religious different?
Someone can do something religiously. For example, I can clean my room day to day 24/7 and someone will say, "Michael cleans his room religiously." Or "Michael is very religious in cleaning is room."

You see, you can be religious without having a religion. It's an expression. However, I think where we are getting confused in deeming that if you are in a religion it must be something followed religiously or excessively or have a set of rules. This isn't true. Though we can go to dictionary.com and we can argue with that. I agree with the definitions of dictionary.com but in this case, we must note that religion can be different from religious.

So I will say it makes a person pertaining to a religion but not necessary religious. Though if you want to use someone belonging to religion and defining them as religious, then yes. It is enough to define someone as religion. But I think better put is that one belongs to a religion. Being religious and having a religion I think is different in my eyes. I can stand corrected if you'd like. However, I think you see the point I'm trying to make.

Is it broad? Eh. I guess. Yet everyone I believe is part of a religion though they do not follow a religion religiously. Holding a belief in these questions is religion. Even though it's broad. As I've said, everyone has a religion so of course it seems broad.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Sadly, science does not fulfill all those. The purpose of the universe is subjective, based on one's morals and any beliefs of a god. Is science subjective and based on opinions? No. It can say the cause but it cannot say the purpose. Why? Because that's like me saying I can use science to figure out the purpose of life in general and the purpose of an individual's life, such as your own. Possible by science? Not a chance. The same applies here and it only works in your argument because you continue to distort what science actually is.

Yes, I know science does not answer this directly, but indirectly it does. Let me show you:

I am uncertain, but am guessing you assume natural laws can account for the creation of the universe. Therefore, you exercise a belief in the unbelief of God. Now, being that you accept science accounts for something it indirectly accounts for your purpose in life. You see, if you believe there is no God, than certainly your purpose is subjective. Therefore, science gives you the purpose of subjectivity, you define your purpose because science accounts for everything and there is no divine being to give an account to or live for. This means that even though science does not say, "This is the purpose of life," it gives you means to define your own purpose and therefore science has given you answers to these questions either directly or indirectly.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Now you're arguing something else. You're arguing the person is religious, not that atheism is a religion. A person cannot be a religion though because a person is not a set of beliefs.



So by this logic, if you ask me these questions and I do NOT answer, then I'm not religious. Also, a person is not a set of beliefs.

Excuse me for my lack of explaining this.

I am not arguing that a person is a religion. I am stating that expressing your opinion, whether that be belief in something, lack of belief, or uncertainty, you're still expressing a belief and belong to a religion. A person who has a set of beliefs regarding these topics is deemed to be in a religion. Though we may not have a specific name for each individual belief, each of us are all in essence part of a religion because we all have a set of beliefs regarding these things. If you do not answer it does not mean that you are not part of a religion because everyone has an opinion about these questions. Therefore, you're part of a religion, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not. Religion tries to give reasons and answers behind these questions and as long as you are a concious being you will always have an answer to these set of questions. Whether it's acknowledging them or ignoring them, your consciousness and motive to carry on proves that you have an answer to these questions. Why? Because if you didn't you would find no purpose in your living and therefore kill yourself. Yet then again, even in killing yourself you've proven you have a belief concerning these questions. If you wish me to explain further I can, but I would venture to guess that you see where I am coming from.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

LOL!!!

This is so adorable because the one thing that's missing is... their definition of a religion. You have no idea if what they consider to be a religion is the same as your definition because it's not given! LOL. Find a source saying what their definition was, otherwise you might as well be comparing apples and staplers. Until then, it's irrelevant.

It's on the website I linked you to:
"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
-WorldNetDaily

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

In psychology of advertising, this is called a bare comparative, where the comparison is unstated and you're guessing at what the comparison is. It's useless really because it's meaningless, just as the links is meaningless here without you showing the exact definition of religion they used in the trial. Show me it is the exact same AND that is equals every single bit of it and I'll eat my words.

It's not a guess. It says that religion does not to be based on a belief in a supreme being. I can go in depth to fine a particular case definition, yet I think that this is clear enough. I am not really trying to persuade anyone... just trying to get people to see my reasoning for deeming it a religion.

[TheNumber42]

S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

So, going by that definition, it is NOT a religion. It is a belief, but not a religion.

As to those who said that if Satanism and Buddhism are considered religions when they do not worship a deity, then why not Atheism? Well, first of all, I would not consider Satanism a religion. Satanists do not worship Satan or believe in any supernatural powers. As far as I know, Satanism is a philosophy, a set of guidelines for living your life. Not a religion at all.

Buddhism IS a religion because Buddhists believe in supernatural powers. Karma and reincarnation for example. By definition, a religion doesn't need to be centered around a deity, any type of supernatural power will do.

So, revisiting Atheism, Atheists believe that there is no God and (atleast the vast majority) do not believe in supernatural powers of any sort. Which would make me consider Atheism a belief, but not at all a religion. I'm sure that in casual conversation that distinction is bound to be forgotten more often than not, but technically it is not a religion by definition.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

So, going by that definition, it is NOT a religion. It is a belief, but not a religion.

As to those who said that if Satanism and Buddhism are considered religions when they do not worship a deity, then why not Atheism? Well, first of all, I would not consider Satanism a religion. Satanists do not worship Satan or believe in any supernatural powers. As far as I know, Satanism is a philosophy, a set of guidelines for living your life. Not a religion at all.

Buddhism IS a religion because Buddhists believe in supernatural powers. Karma and reincarnation for example. By definition, a religion doesn't need to be centered around a deity, any type of supernatural power will do.

So, revisiting Atheism, Atheists believe that there is no God and (atleast the vast majority) do not believe in supernatural powers of any sort. Which would make me consider Atheism a belief, but not at all a religion. I'm sure that in casual conversation that distinction is bound to be forgotten more often than not, but technically it is not a religion by definition.

Satanist believe in the supernatural as well so it would be considered a religion.

However, you're simply defining religion off an educational site which contains certain biases already depending on the educational system. However, despite this I will use your definition, though I do not agree with it as it goes against the dictionaries definition and is simply a private interpretation. Therefore, since it's NOT the dictionary definition I will not respond any further to this definition after this post.

If using this definition however, you are only expressing a definition of religion and not relating it back to Atheism. An atheist according to Princeton is: "someone who denies the existence of god." Notice atheism is not a denunciation of the supernatural, only God. If I am not mistaken, I believe Nick is an atheist, yet in a previous thread he said he believes in miracles. Therefore, it is possible to believe in something supernatural while denying a divine being.

According to Princeton religion is linked to faith. Do you have faith regarding the supernatural? Whether atheist or theist you have faith regarding these things. You either have faith they exist or do not exist but either way you have faith regarding these topics. If faith is put in something that cannot be proven either way then each are qualified as a religion because you cannot prove or disprove God to me using natural laws, yet we know that supernatural is anything that cannot be explained by natural laws and therefore God can supernaturally exist. So in essence, natural laws cannot account for everything unless our knowledge is full and complete. Yet knowledge can be wrong or false and therefore knowledge cannot be complete unless our knowledge is infinite, yet we are finite, so because our knowledge is finite, there is a chance there is a God. So, if you acknowledge that things can happen supernaturally there is a chance for there to be a God. Therefore if you deny this, you must have a supernatural knowledge and are contradicting yourself because if you have a supernatural knowledge then the supernatural does exist and to believe that you are right you must exert faith in your supernatural power (which if supernatural knowledge was available, it is certain your knowledge would control your life, and anyone who puts their faith in your knowledge and thus controlling them), hence religion. So if you deny God you are exerting faith in a supernatural knowledge that God does not exist and therefore are within a religion.

Yet either way I would argue that we all agree there is something controlling us, whether God or not that is outside our control that cannot be thoroughly explained and therefore we all must exert some faith in something supernatural that cannot be explained that controls the course of our life. The fact we are within a finite universe is nothing short of a miracle or something supernatural. Why? Because whatever you believe, everything in our known universe is finite. You cannot account for an infinitude of things with an infinite of finite objects because finite can never achieve infinite, therefore we must have faith in something supernatural that is infinite. Therefore, something had to of always been in order to create our universe. Whether you believe that to be God or not is up to you. The question is, where did we come from and how can an finite amount of things continue to exist or even come into existence to begin with? There had to of been something existing outside our universe that was infinite, or the universe itself is infinite and everything in it is finite. So... whether atheist or not, we must have faith in something supernatural that controls us. I can go on to explain this if you want, but it's rather complicated. But to give you a simple analogy, try this: Do you control the color of your hair? Where did the color of hair come from? What about your eyes? Your skin color? Did you control any of these things? Narrow it down till the first living thing or person (whatever you may believe), did these things come by freewill or choice? No. Therefore, something MUST control these things whether natural causes or God, there is something that cannot be explained. It can say, "Well this happened because of this and that because of that." However, it is only a finite answer and does not answer the infinite as to really WHY that color, WHY are we living? It can explain how, or in essence how come, which is answering a simple version of why, but namely gives no purpose to that why. Therefore, there is something that controls us but cannot be explained. The same is with our minds, behaviors, etc. I can explain further again if you wish, yet it gets rather complicated.

Either way, this is a Princeton definition and is insufficient even though a respected university. I can go to another site or educational system and get a completely different definition, so for argument sake I think the one we all agree on is dictionary.com and I suggest reading the post above where I responded to Nick as it refutes some arguments in your post.

Hope this makes sense.

[Magicalisland]

I think you can be a religious atheist in that you believe strongly that there is no God and follow your own moral guidelines religiously e.g. Richard Dawkins. In that case, atheism would be a religion. However, if you just do not believe in God and that's it, then atheism is not a religion. It depends on the circumstance.

[TheNumber42]

Originally Posted by Michael.

Satanist believe in the supernatural as well so it would be considered a religion.

I suppose I was thinking of LaVeyan Satanism, which doesn't believe in any sort of supernatural powers or beings as far as I can tell. Really depends on what variant of Satanism we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Either way, this is a Princeton definition and is insufficient even though a respected university. I can go to another site or educational system and get a completely different definition, so for argument sake I think the one we all agree on is dictionary.com and I suggest reading the post above where I responded to Nick as it refutes some arguments in your post.

Hope this makes sense.

Well, I will agree that the dictionary.com definition is probably less biased and since it's what everyone else is using, I'll go by it. I was just lazy and used Google to look up the definition and Princeton is what came up

I'm not sure I agree with all that you said though. I think that your interpretation of religion is too broad. Say someone's significant other is a soldier away at war. They believe and have faith that their loved one will come back safely, but they can't know. Assuming no faith in a divine power or anything is involved, does that mean that they are of the "believing my loved one will be safe" religion? Or maybe they have faith in their loved one's skills to survive, so does that make them part of a religion centered around their loved one? I personally think that is stretching religion a bit too far, though if I understood your post correctly, that is a correct extension of your reasoning.

Also, just because someone believes in miracles and is an atheist, it doesn't mean atheists believe in the supernatural. Kind of like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. An atheist can believe in the supernatural, but not all atheists do. It isn't so much related to Atheism as to the individual, and as such, has little to do with how Atheism is defined. Though I think this part has more to do with the Princeton definition, which we decided to disregard anyway.

Now, as far as having a set of beliefs. It appears you are right, but I will say indirectly it does. If there is no belief in God, then your set of beliefs are merely relative concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and therefore it indirectly gives you beliefs and qualifies as a religion. Though it may be subjective to each individual within the religion it does not disqualify it as a religion because it is still self-focused.

I also wanted to reply to this. I think that, similar to what I said above about miracles, an Atheist believes there is no God. That is their one belief based on atheism. Individual atheists may have other beliefs, but these are not part of atheism, rather they vary from individual to individual. Since they are not tied to atheism, but to the individual and his/her personal experiences and preferences, I don't see how they can be used to define atheism one way or another. Seems like taking irrelevant data into account.

[Stardaze]

I voted No.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

I suppose I was thinking of LaVeyan Satanism, which doesn't believe in any sort of supernatural powers or beings as far as I can tell. Really depends on what variant of Satanism we're talking about.

I would disagree with this as well. The reason being is because:

"Anton LaVeyan established the first and largest religion-supporting organization, the church of Satan, in 1966 and codified Satanic beliefs and practices in The Satanic Bible in 1969." (Wikipedia)

It is considered a religious-supporting organization and has practices and beliefs. Though I can't really tell you what you believe, I think even with your previous definition, it is qualified as a religion considering religion was linked to organized religion which I would qualify LaVeyan Satanism even though you don't necessarily believe in a deity. Anyways... this is despite the point being made so I won't pick on this.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Well, I will agree that the dictionary.com definition is probably less biased and since it's what everyone else is using, I'll go by it. I was just lazy and used Google to look up the definition and Princeton is what came up

I forgive you

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

I'm not sure I agree with all that you said though. I think that your interpretation of religion is too broad. Say someone's significant other is a soldier away at war. They believe and have faith that their loved one will come back safely, but they can't know. Assuming no faith in a divine power or anything is involved, does that mean that they are of the "believing my loved one will be safe" religion? Or maybe they have faith in their loved one's skills to survive, so does that make them part of a religion centered around their loved one? I personally think that is stretching religion a bit too far, though if I understood your post correctly, that is a correct extension of your reasoning.

In your example it does not qualify as a religion because it is not pertaining to the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe.

I agree in that my interpretation is broad, but not too broad. Why? Everyone is pertaining to a religion and if this is my interpretation than how can it be too broad? Everyone has an answer to the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe. Even if it was individualized and no one shared a common ground, we would all share different answers to these questions and therefore would belong to a religion. Why? Because no matter who we are we have beliefs in things concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe based on our own interpretation of things and therefore we each pertain to a group. Call this group individuality if you wish, in that each person provides their own answers to these 3 questions: What is the cause of the Universe? What is the purpose of the Universe? What is the nature of the Universe.

For a second imagine right now as we know it, there is no Christianity, there is no Atheism, there is no Satanism, there is no Buddhism, there is no organized religion that is known today. Different persons some how have completely different interpretations of those 3 questions pertaining the cause, purpose and nature of the universe. Eventually people would adopt different persons views and we would consider them religious because they share a view of the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe.

Now, bring back the religions. A Christian believes in God and an Atheist believes in no God. Each are beliefs. If Atheism is NOT a religion, then neither is Christianity. Why? Because Christianity provides an interpretation of the world being created by God and therefore responds to their interpretation of the world in that if He is the God of the Bible, we should respond to Him properly. It is not that we are religiously doing things, it's that we want a relationship with God. For example: I'm certain you've heard of honey-do list's. Where a wife leaves a list for their husband to complete, "Honey do this, Honey do that." Is the husband part of a religion just because he obeys his wife and wants to make her happy? Of course not. He is simply responding appropriately to her lists because he loves her. It is the same with Christianity. We listen to God because we love him and in essence He has given us a list to do. You may argue: "But still you are following a set of practices by which you are not even sure if that God is the true God." I disagree. God has revealed Himself to those who obey Him, He has promised this to everyone, therefore I know God exists as much as I know I exist. Despite this, perhaps you argue against that. Say I have no grounds and I have not been revealed by God. I simply have faith that God is real. Well an Atheist simply has faith God does not exist.

Therefore, this brings us to our next point. If an atheist has faith that God does not exist, he is responding to his faith appropriately by following his own beliefs. Now, do you see what has happened? Without God, we are our own gods. We determine our own life. Therefore, though you may not believe in God... you ultimately become god of your own life and you are responding your interpretation of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe by your own beliefs. Your relationship is now between you and those in your life as opposed to between man and God. It is equally a religion as Christianity. It's simply a response to what you believe. However, when we bring in socioeconomic status, behaviors, etc. I can argue that you have NO free will, no choice what-so-ever even if you feel like you have choice and therefore there is something outside of you (even if not God) controlling you and you do not determine anything in your life and thus you are exercising faith in fate perhaps.

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

Also, just because someone believes in miracles and is an atheist, it doesn't mean atheists believe in the supernatural. Kind of like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. An atheist can believe in the supernatural, but not all atheists do. It isn't so much related to Atheism as to the individual, and as such, has little to do with how Atheism is defined. Though I think this part has more to do with the Princeton definition, which we decided to disregard anyway.

Again, if there is no God, we are thus religions of self. The cause, nature, and purpose of the earth is all determined by self and is no longer an objective, but subjective matter and is no less of a religion than Christianity, if Christianity is a religion. However, if you read carefully what I previously said in my last post, you will see that all atheists must believe in the supernatural, if you don't I will re-explain myself.

Yet a belief in miracles is the belief of supernatural:

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."

- Dictionary.com

Originally Posted by TheNumber42

I also wanted to reply to this. I think that, similar to what I said above about miracles, an Atheist believes there is no God. That is their one belief based on atheism. Individual atheists may have other beliefs, but these are not part of atheism, rather they vary from individual to individual. Since they are not tied to atheism, but to the individual and his/her personal experiences and preferences, I don't see how they can be used to define atheism one way or another. Seems like taking irrelevant data into account.

The same is with Christians and other religions. I will venture to guess most people disagree on many doctrines within their religion but it does not nullify that these people have answers to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. For example, some Christians believe in a doctrine called the limited atonement, others do not. Are they both Christians? Yes. So then it is with atheism. Some may believe the earth is flat, another may believe it's round, another may believe that everything is subjective and nothing in this world is real, yet are they still an Atheist? Yes.

There is no difference concerning different experiences, it does not nullify that someone is pertaining to a religion just because they disagree with something.

Let me give you an example by rhetorical question:
A apple is a fruit, correct?
A banana is a fruit, correct?
How can 2 different things be 1 similar thing?

Just because you have different beliefs, doesn't mean you aren't in the same category as someone else.

I just want to clarify, I believe Atheism is a religion, though I can be persuaded otherwise. I am simply begging these questions so I can see why people consider it otherwise and finding flaws with their logic so I can figure out why.

[John 6:29]

To those who voted no, please explain why it is not a religion. Don't say, "Because it is a lack of belief." Well, lack of belief is expressing belief in a lack of belief, so it is a religion of unbelief. Anyways... someone please give thorough reasoning.

[Jack]

Atheism is not a religion because all religions follow certain guidelines or dogma. Every religion from Islam to Christianity to Satanism and Buddhism follow certain precepts and codes no matter their stance on a supernatural being. Atheists have no accepted code of behaviour or worship.

People keep saying "well atheism is a belief, THAT makes it a religion!" well that's simply not true at all. I have a belief in gravity and that my postman will arrive around 11 am tomorrow morning, that doesn't make me a gravitationalist or a postmanitarian. A belief or disbelief in something does not automatically make a religion.

Not to mention that all religions believe in a positive. Eg "This is the way to live" or "This exists" while atheism simply says "I don't believe in the thing you say exist". A, negative, lack of belief in one particular aspect of life is obviously not a religion. The people advocating that religion try to reword the negative disbelief in a deity into a positive believing in the non-existance of a deity.

Similarly all religions make comment about the afterlife. Atheism does not. Atheism does not believe in a God, true and from that you can extrapolate that we think you'll all rot in the ground when you die. But the specific belief of Atheism does not make comment on the afterlife, unlike Christianity or Buddhism which clearly incorporate statements about the afterlife.

[TheNumber42]

Originally Posted by Jack

Atheism is not a religion because all religions follow certain guidelines or dogma. Every religion from Islam to Christianity to Satanism and Buddhism follow certain precepts and codes no matter their stance on a supernatural being. Atheists have no accepted code of behaviour or worship.

People keep saying "well atheism is a belief, THAT makes it a religion!" well that's simply not true at all. I have a belief in gravity and that my postman will arrive around 11 am tomorrow morning, that doesn't make me a gravitationalist or a postmanitarian. A belief or disbelief in something does not automatically make a religion.

Not to mention that all religions believe in a positive. Eg "This is the way to live" or "This exists" while atheism simply says "I don't believe in the thing you say exist". A, negative, lack of belief in one particular aspect of life is obviously not a religion. The people advocating that religion try to reword the negative disbelief in a deity into a positive believing in the non-existance of a deity.

Similarly all religions make comment about the afterlife. Atheism does not. Atheism does not believe in a God, true and from that you can extrapolate that we think you'll all rot in the ground when you die. But the specific belief of Atheism does not make comment on the afterlife, unlike Christianity or Buddhism which clearly incorporate statements about the afterlife.

What would I do without Jack to turn the vague shadows of ideas in my head into full, well thought out arguments? I pretty much agree with what he said, he just explained it a million times better than I tried to

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

I disagree. Atheism does have a set of beliefs. Yet as I will show you later on in this post, atheism accounts for the nature, purpose and cause of the universe indirectly. And even if it does not each person subjects their own. However, when you nullify God from the equation it DOES give a belief regarding the cause and purpose of the universe. You say yourself, one says "What ever caused the universe was not God." Therefore, you are saying the cause was not by God but the cause was by something else. You're saying the cause is by something else and therefore deeming a cause to the universe. You say it does not give a purpose? Well it does.

It doesn't give a purpose by that logic. Let me show you why using really simple math. What is the cause of getting 4 (via subtraction just to keep it simple)? 4-0, 3-1, 2-2 and you can then toss in integers. According to you, because these combinations of numbers produce a difference of 4, their purpose must be just that. But that's false, their purpose is to denote a numerical value of something in the physical world or abstract. The point of this is you cannot simply say that because atheism acknowledges that cause of the universe was not god, then the purpose is given through the cause. The purpose is derived possibly through one's atheistic beliefs but also through other beliefs and life experiences. Atheism is simply the disbelief of a god and so you cannot somehow formulate a purpose from that sentence. If you can, then is whatever you deem the purpose to be based on something else? I can flip this around and ask the same for theism, does the belief in a god inherently give a purpose to the universe for someone? No. Even if the religion states one, the person makes their own by adding in elements, such as life experience.

Originally Posted by Michael.

It gives a purpose that is relative to an individual but a purpose none the less, one that is focused on pleasing self. Therefore, the purpose is self-centered. You may say, "Well I do things for the better of society." Great. But in essence you do those things for society because you feel that is the right thing to do and therefore is relative to self and is again self-centered. Now, I'm not saying all atheist are selfish, but that their purpose is self-centered. There is a difference, but I think you see that. If not I'll explain.

You've lost me as to how you've come to the conclusion of two things: 1) The purpose of the universe is pleasing oneself and 2) The purpose you're telling me is somehow absolutely correct because you're not acknowledging any other beliefs or experiences, you're taking this as fact and as far as I can see... there's no way to get that from the one simple statement of a disbelief in god.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Now, as far as having a set of beliefs. It appears you are right, but I will say indirectly it does. If there is no belief in God, then your set of beliefs are merely relative concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and therefore it indirectly gives you beliefs and qualifies as a religion. Though it may be subjective to each individual within the religion it does not disqualify it as a religion because it is still self-focused.

Nice try but no. See, if I play your game, which I will of saying that somehow the disbelief in a god provides the purpose and such of the universe, then all that stems from ONE belief. The purpose is an INFERENCE from the one belief. This is why your argument it's a religion is still failing because you're taking the one thing to mean several things and then saying that because it means several things, those several things constitute a set of beliefs. Unfortunately, those several things are inferences one makes, not something atheism states.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Let me give you an example within Christianity. Instead of self-focusing, our purpose is on Christ, yet in your view this would still be self-focused.

If atheism is apparently self-focused then I see no reason why theism is any different. You say it is not self-focused so I really don't understand your thinking even here.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Why? Because our subjectivity concerning these questions is a matter of being answered by God, yet these are our relative answers (if you are correct -- though I believe they are objective answers) and therefore still focused on self. However, ignore this for a minute. In Christianity, instead of focusing on self, we focus on Christ (if I am correct about it being objective). Yet in focusing on Christ, He indirectly answers our questions, much like atheism indirectly answers your questions.

Now you're going way into the deep end. You're assuming two very big things: 1) Your answers are indeed from Christ and 2) My answers are indeed from atheism however direct or indirect. You cant simply toss random assumptions around without attempting to remotely back them up and hope someone will follow. So before you begin refuting, back up your assumptions otherwise they're discredited and your strawman argument falls apart.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Regardless, ones purpose is to please Christ within Christianity. One person may be struggling with pornography, another may have struggles with lying. They have a purpose in their Christianity to cut these out because they struggle with them, yet in that purpose it is to please Christ, so indirectly Christ shaped their struggles because they want to please Him, yet their purposes are differing, yet they are still considered a religion.

What's funny about this... is it's an inference about your belief.

Originally Posted by Michael.

In atheism, you believe in no God. Therefore, most things are relative and subjective to an individual. No longer is your goal on pleasing others (though it may be), it ultimately is self-centered, if relative to an individual. Therefore, though one person may have a purpose to be a drunkard and another person to be intelligent, they both have answers regarding the purpose. Each different, yet still qualified as atheist. Why? Because they have a similar belief in no God, which in Christianity the similar belief is a belief in God of the Bible. Therefore, one singular beliefs provides a set of beliefs, though these beliefs may differ.

Ah, thank you for saying it so nicely. One belief (no god/god exists) provides a whole set of beliefs. Notice how the definition of atheism is only about the one belief that you're calling a set because it makes a set.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Atheism does not DIRECTLY answer these questions, yet indirectly and therefore is a set of beliefs relative to an individual. Yet if this is true, then the same is true with Christianity because everything is relative. The only difference is you believe in no God, I believe in the God of the Bible and my response differs from yours to these questions because I believe in a God. I do not follow a set of rules because of a religion, I respond to the idea of God correctly. You respond to the idea of no God correctly. Therefore, indirectly we are only responding to a singular belief and hence forming a multitude set of beliefs based on our responses of one belief that unites us with others.

Thank you yet again, we formulate beliefs through various means all derived from just the one belief. still, you haven't shown atheism is a religion.


I'll respond to the rest when I get back.

[John 6:29]

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

It doesn't give a purpose by that logic. Let me show you why using really simple math. What is the cause of getting 4 (via subtraction just to keep it simple)? 4-0, 3-1, 2-2 and you can then toss in integers. According to you, because these combinations of numbers produce a difference of 4, their purpose must be just that. But that's false, their purpose is to denote a numerical value of something in the physical world or abstract. The point of this is you cannot simply say that because atheism acknowledges that cause of the universe was not god, then the purpose is given through the cause. The purpose is derived possibly through one's atheistic beliefs but also through other beliefs and life experiences. Atheism is simply the disbelief of a god and so you cannot somehow formulate a purpose from that sentence. If you can, then is whatever you deem the purpose to be based on something else? I can flip this around and ask the same for theism, does the belief in a god inherently give a purpose to the universe for someone? No. Even if the religion states one, the person makes their own by adding in elements, such as life experience.

As I've been saying this whole time. The same qualifies theism. My belief in God formulates a set of beliefs. These are not beliefs that are to be performed religiously but out of love for God. I do not follow practices because my "religion" requires it, but because it pleases God. However, my singular belief in God formulates a belief concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the Universe because everything revolves around this single issue of God existing or not. It would be unjust for me to say that it only applies to Atheism being described as being religious, yet Christianity not being religious because they are both concerning a belief in the same object... namely, God. Therefore, if theism is a religion an atheist is also belonging to a religion. My point is simply this: If I am considered religious because I believe in a deity this denies the specific definition of religion. I believe I have a relationship with a living God and therefore it is not a religion. However, if you do not believe in this God and if He is real as I believe He is, your lack of belief does not nullify His existence. You have a relationship as do I, whether you acknowledge that or not. Therefore, in essence, we are in the same relationship but on opposite ends.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

You've lost me as to how you've come to the conclusion of two things: 1) The purpose of the universe is pleasing oneself and 2) The purpose you're telling me is somehow absolutely correct because you're not acknowledging any other beliefs or experiences, you're taking this as fact and as far as I can see... there's no way to get that from the one simple statement of a disbelief in god.

It is a fact. Allow me to elaborate.

If God is an objective being and He is sovereign then everything revolves around this being and not us.

Therefore, if God is non-existence what is the purpose of life? It is left to an individual to determine these things. Why? Because there is no objective purpose to life and is therefore relative for each one to decide these things. In other words, without objectivity there is only relativity defined by a singular individual. Even with intentions of looking out for society, you are defining what "looking out for society" means in your own head and is therefore relative to only you because there is no objective value in purpose.

Let's put it this way: When you take out God, there is nothing but yourself to obey.

You may say, "Well there are laws." Yes, true. But are there really laws? By this I mean certainly government have placed rules down. You on the other hand can decide in your own mind the relativity of whether the law is worth keeping. For example, you're late to school, you might speed 10 miles over the speed limit to get there in time. In essence you decided you had a good purpose to speed and relatively decided that it was acceptable and justifiable to break the law at this point. You may be saddened if you get caught, yet in your mind you believe the speeding was worth it because you were late. Or perhaps you believe it wasn't worth it because now you had to pay a fine. Either way you decided subjectively whether it was worth or not. Thus when God is out of the equation there is only room for self-relative answers. Are there facts of life out there? Yes. There are objective truths but regarding purpose it is only subjective when God is taken out and therefore a disbelief in God does change all of this.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Nice try but no. See, if I play your game, which I will of saying that somehow the disbelief in a god provides the purpose and such of the universe, then all that stems from ONE belief. The purpose is an INFERENCE from the one belief. This is why your argument it's a religion is still failing because you're taking the one thing to mean several things and then saying that because it means several things, those several things constitute a set of beliefs. Unfortunately, those several things are inferences one makes, not something atheism states.

Yes, but you're interpreting me wrong. I am stating this because this is why people consider me religious. My belief in God is the only thing that is different between you and me as far as concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Why? Because my belief in God changes the answers of these 3 questions from your answers as a result of your disbelief in God. You see, my set of beliefs are an inference from one belief. We are actually on the same page. We both are saying neither one of us are religious, while the dictionary deems it differently. All I am making is observations that tough I do not consider myself to be religious, according to dictionary.com I am and so are you. Though if we conclude that because there are simply a result of inferences from one belief, then neither of us are religious and Christianity should no longer be considered a religion.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

If atheism is apparently self-focused then I see no reason why theism is any different. You say it is not self-focused so I really don't understand your thinking even here.

I go on later to explain that theism is the same if your worldview is the correct worldview. I don't mean to put words in your mouth so don't take it that way, and I apologize if you do take it this way. As I've staed before, if there is no God we determine relatively what these answers are. Therefore, if there is no God my theism is just as much self-focused as your atheism because both of us are deriving answers which please us.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Now you're going way into the deep end. You're assuming two very big things: 1) Your answers are indeed from Christ and 2) My answers are indeed from atheism however direct or indirect. You cant simply toss random assumptions around without attempting to remotely back them up and hope someone will follow. So before you begin refuting, back up your assumptions otherwise they're discredited and your strawman argument falls apart.

Eh. I think I was misunderstood again. I believe my answers are correct in coming from my beliefs in Christ and you believe your answers are correct coming from your beliefs. Therefore, if we assume there is no objectivity to the matter, then both of our answers are what we hold to be true and we follow what we believe to be true based on our assumptions on our world view which is derived from theism or atheism. I believe this answers your statement, though I think you misunderstood me and I am misunderstanding you.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

What's funny about this... is it's an inference about your belief.



Ah, thank you for saying it so nicely. One belief (no god/god exists) provides a whole set of beliefs. Notice how the definition of atheism is only about the one belief that you're calling a set because it makes a set.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to see that we are actually on the same page. I cannot be considered religious without atheism being considered religious. I believe you thought I was refuting you, but rather I was showing that either we are both a religion or both are not a religion. Again, though I wish not to be considered part of a religion, I do because I believe that according to definitions given, I am part of a religion. I'll explain at the end.

Originally Posted by !!!YOU'RE$NUCKING$FUTZ!!!

Thank you yet again, we formulate beliefs through various means all derived from just the one belief. still, you haven't shown atheism is a religion.


I'll respond to the rest when I get back.

Namely, it isn't that atheism in itself is a religion, much like I believe Christianity in itself is a religion. Just common grounds of belief concerning God and yet they bring forth a world view that denotes a set of beliefs concerning the purpose, nature, and cause of the universe though these are simply inferences, we still hold views concerning this and therefore are religious. It is because of our world views we are religious, but it is not our world view that makes us religious. Let me show you what I mean...

Say you called me and told me, "Mike in 24 hours I am going to come kill you." Now, if I believe you, I will move, I will call the cops, etc I will prepare for you to kill me and try to avoid it by all means. My singular belief resulting my response in a multitude of ways. If I believe you are lying I will simply go to bed and sleep. A singular belief effects other aspects of your life.

The same is with religion. Our worldview gives us answers to the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe. For you it may be more relative to an individual and therefore these answers are relative, it still makes you part of a religion for having answers to those 3 things. The same is with me. Though I believe these answers are objective, my belief still answers these 3 questions. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. It does not mean that I have a name for my religion, but it does mean that I have a religion based on my theism and you have one based on your atheism.

Again, you see that this definiton is broad but perhaps it gives light on how we truly abuse this word.

Now, I know you're probably thinking that his thread is about atheism being a religion or not so why in the heck am I trying to show through posting this and how are we on similar grounds? Well, my issue is that if Atheism is not a religion, then neither is Christianity. However, personally I believe even though our answers come indirectly from our world view that we are still part of a religion becaue of our core beliefs, though it is not our core beliefs that make us religious. I may have to come back and explain this because I am sounding very contradictory to myself right now. Perhaps you'll understand what I mean, but right now I am tired so if you don't understand I'll come back and explain.

Simply put, if I am religious because of my theism you are religious because of your atheism. But if you are not, then neither am I.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Michael.

If God is an objective being and He is sovereign then everything revolves around this being and not us.

Therefore, if God is non-existence what is the purpose of life? It is left to an individual to determine these things. Why? Because there is no objective purpose to life and is therefore relative for each one to decide these things. In other words, without objectivity there is only relativity defined by a singular individual. Even with intentions of looking out for society, you are defining what "looking out for society" means in your own head and is therefore relative to only you because there is no objective value in purpose.

Let's put it this way: When you take out God, there is nothing but yourself to obey.

I'll challenge you on this, if only because it's actually something a little new in a topic that's been beaten to death.

Even if there is a god, the idea that "there is only yourself to obey" still holds, assuming we have free will. Whether you accept god as a source of absolute morality is as much a personal choice as accepting altruism or any number of other moral systems, or none even, as absolute. Alternatively, accepting god as a legal authority in the same way one accepts a government is also a choice. There is no truly objective purpose to life in any belief system.

Looking at it the other way; if you presuppose that god is somehow an objective authority, there's nothing preventing other things from being equally objective. One could argue - entirely within the bounds of atheism - that the morality of altruism is as much a universal constant as gravity, and that the moral purpose of life is to generate as much good for other beings as possible. Either way you look at it, "objective authority" isn't distinguished between theistic and atheistic systems.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Michael.

So I will say it makes a person pertaining to a religion but not necessary religious. Though if you want to use someone belonging to religion and defining them as religious, then yes. It is enough to define someone as religion. But I think better put is that one belongs to a religion. Being religious and having a religion I think is different in my eyes. I can stand corrected if you'd like. However, I think you see the point I'm trying to make.

I'm trying to piece together what you're saying because to me, you cannot be a scientist without adhering to science just as you cannot be religious without adhering to a religion. You cant be buying something in a mall if you're not in a mall and so forth, so to me it really isn't clicking because if I agree with you, then by that logic, a scientist who doesn't adhere to science is still a scientist. I know there is the common expression of acting religiously as an equivalent of being excessive but that idea I'm tossing out the window.

Originally Posted by Michael.

I am uncertain, but am guessing you assume natural laws can account for the creation of the universe. Therefore, you exercise a belief in the unbelief of God. Now, being that you accept science accounts for something it indirectly accounts for your purpose in life. You see, if you believe there is no God, than certainly your purpose is subjective. Therefore, science gives you the purpose of subjectivity, you define your purpose because science accounts for everything and there is no divine being to give an account to or live for. This means that even though science does not say, "This is the purpose of life," it gives you means to define your own purpose and therefore science has given you answers to these questions either directly or indirectly.

You're wrong here in saying science accounts for everything because it's obvious there are many topics that it doesn't. But besides that technicality, science is purely objective, no two ways around that. A purpose of life or the universe is really something that is subjective because science cannot explicity say it. It can give some bits of information but it's up to the person to arrange them and choose the bits they like. So for this reason, defining the purpose of the universe is subjective and science cannot account for it.

Let me give you an example because this idea of the purpose of the universe is pretty abstract. A baby is born (its sex is irrelevant) and someone asks me then asks you, what is the purpose of the baby's life on Earth? I can say various things, such as to populate it, to create things, etc... but you see, I'm constructing what I think using my opinions satisfies the question. The fact that the baby can make things and populate the world is part of science but I'm choosing to include those, just as I can choose to not include those. So for abstract things, such as the purpose of life or universe, whether you adhere to science or Christianity (or whatever else), it's subjective.

Originally Posted by Michael.

It's on the website I linked you to:
"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
-WorldNetDaily

I read that part but it does not say what a religion should be based on. All it's said is it is not based on this one thing in particular but fails to define the definition of religion. Returning to algebra examples, this is like saying X cannot equal 5 but doesn't answer what X actually equals. X can still be from negative to positive infinity except not 5, which really doesn't help us in answering what X equals. Certainly you can see that here. You're assuming the court was meaning that it is not needed to believe in a supreme being to answer the questions of cause, nature and purpose of the universe but that's not stated anywhere, that's an inference you're making by tossing in your definition of religion.

Originally Posted by Michael.

As I've been saying this whole time. The same qualifies theism. My belief in God formulates a set of beliefs. These are not beliefs that are to be performed religiously but out of love for God.

I'm going to respond to this part mostly because much of your post is just saying the same thing. Not to sound rude but it doesn't matter one bit why you perform your beliefs just as it doesn't matter for me as that's a whole other issue. Your argument of if atheism is religious then theism is or if atheism isn't a religion then neither is theism is one that I don't agree with for one reason, namely the one I feel you're dancing around as much as possible: "set of beliefs". This set in the definition does not state being derived from the belief or disbelief in god but rather that there is a pre-existing set to explain the cause, nature and purpose of the universe within the parameters of belief/disbelief of god. In other words, I'm saying the set of beliefs in theism is present all at once only when we consider specific theistic beliefs, such as Christianity. When we "zoom out" and go more general to just theism as a whole, then you're right, it's the equivalent of atheism in that technically neither are religious. However, when you look at a specific belief within theism, you find it adheres to the definition of a religion but the same is not true for atheism. If you compare atheism to Christianity, you find Christianity has its set of beliefs (i.e. bible). For atheism, when we get more specific, there is still only just the one belief of no god. All other beliefs are derived from elsewhere outside the parameters of theism or atheism, such as science.

So in a way I'm agreeing when we look at it very vaguely but when we get specific, then I disagree. You've brought up the whole thing of it indirectly has a set of beliefs and such but unfortunately, that set comes from sources outside atheism whereas for Christianity, it can come from outside but there is also the Christian set of beliefs.

To put it clearer:

Atheism = no god
Theism = god

Christianity = god is good, god did this and that, etc... .
Specific atheistic belief = no god

Originally Posted by Michael.

You have a relationship as do I, whether you acknowledge that or not. Therefore, in essence, we are in the same relationship but on opposite ends.

Here's where we go off on a tangent. By saying this, you're essentially saying you're right no matter what and I'm wrong but I'm merely ignoring the fact I'm wrong and you're right. You cant tell me I have a relationship with something I don't believe in and expect me to accept that because I think we've gone over this before and it's always ended in you telling me I'm wrong and you keep making the assumption god exists as being factual.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Therefore, if God is non-existence what is the purpose of life? It is left to an individual to determine these things. Why? Because there is no objective purpose to life and is therefore relative for each one to decide these things. In other words, without objectivity there is only relativity defined by a singular individual. Even with intentions of looking out for society, you are defining what "looking out for society" means in your own head and is therefore relative to only you because there is no objective value in purpose.

Even if god does exist, a person can still define what they believe to be the purpose to life outside the realm of theism. There's nothing saying otherwise.

Originally Posted by Michael.

Let's put it this way: When you take out God, there is nothing but yourself to obey.

That is still there even with god existing. You think or believe god wants you to do X so you obey yourself and do X.

Originally Posted by Michael.

You may say, "Well there are laws." Yes, true. But are there really laws? By this I mean certainly government have placed rules down. You on the other hand can decide in your own mind the relativity of whether the law is worth keeping.

Fair enough, so it's subjected to some subjectivity depending on the person and context.

Originally Posted by Michael.

For example, you're late to school, you might speed 10 miles over the speed limit to get there in time. In essence you decided you had a good purpose to speed and relatively decided that it was acceptable and justifiable to break the law at this point. You may be saddened if you get caught, yet in your mind you believe the speeding was worth it because you were late. Or perhaps you believe it wasn't worth it because now you had to pay a fine. Either way you decided subjectively whether it was worth or not. Thus when God is out of the equation there is only room for self-relative answers. Are there facts of life out there? Yes. There are objective truths but regarding purpose it is only subjective when God is taken out and therefore a disbelief in God does change all of this.

This is where you're confusing me and your answers really just say the same thing so I'm still confused, if not more confused than before. According to you, when god is there, beliefs are objective yet when god is gone, beliefs are subjective. The common thing is "belief", which is completely subjective so you cannot avoid subjectivity unless it is factual, which it certainly is not. This returns to the issue you brought up before, the double-standard of atheism in general being non-religious while in general theism is religious. Now, you're making the double-standard saying theism is factual and objective while atheism is subjective and opinion-based. To me, it seems biased because both are subjective and all I can presume is you're devotion to your belief makes you think the beliefs pertaining to god are completely objective and correct while everything else is wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael.

I go on later to explain that theism is the same if your worldview is the correct worldview.

What is the correct worldview? Once again, you're sounding factual and not subjective so I'm curious and confused.

Originally Posted by Michael.

The same is with religion. Our worldview gives us answers to the cause, purpose, and nature of the universe. For you it may be more relative to an individual and therefore these answers are relative, it still makes you part of a religion for having answers to those 3 things. The same is with me. Though I believe these answers are objective, my belief still answers these 3 questions. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly. It does not mean that I have a name for my religion, but it does mean that I have a religion based on my theism and you have one based on your atheism.

Here again I'm confused as to the double-standard of theism being objective while atheism is subjective. Why are they not both subjective?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by DanielR

Atheism is not a religion. Being Atheist means you DON'T believe in religions.

I agree with your opening statement - atheism to my mind is not a religion as well - but I'm not sure about the second one. Being atheist to my mind means you don't believe in God - the religion bit tends to follow by necessity. One of my good friends from university describes himself as non-religious, but still believes in some form of God. He's just not sure what it is or whether any religion gets close to it.

Anyway, as to the actual question I think it depends whether you distinguish between atheism and atheist humanism. Atheism on its own is simply a statement of belief that there is no God, and so while concerning the metaphysical it isn't comprehensive enough to count as religion. Humanism incorporates a wide range of philosophical and moral principles based on a certain world view, so when combined with atheism I'd say that's getting close to being a religion. That said, it's still lacking the ritual elements most people ascribe to religion, and humanism on its own is purely philosophical, so I wouldn't be surprised if that definition is disputed. I'm just throwing it out there for interest's sake.

In any case, for atheism on its own I vote no.

[hopefaithlove]

I feel as though there is a lot of judging going on in this thread toward Atheists. Please understand that everyone has different beliefs (or lack there of) and nobody's belief is better or more correct than anyone else's.

[alysaurus]

This is just my opinion but... Religion doesn't have much to do with any higher power. It has more to do with your beliefs. Athiests don't believe in a god, so that is their religion. Plus, not all athiests are as simple as that. They may not believe in a higher power, but they sometimes might have beliefs that set them apart from just 'not believing in anything'. Even for one that 'doesn't believe in anything', it's still a belief.

[OwlsInTheSky]

Nope. Atheism is defined as the lack of religion. It means that you are not religious and do not believe in a higher power.

[Fictional]

No. Religion is a belief in God, atheism is a belief that God does not exist, or a lack of belief in God. In my eyes at least, this makes the two mutually exclusive.

[Storyteller.]

Originally Posted by Fictional

No. Religion is a belief in God, atheism is a belief that God does not exist, or a lack of belief in God. In my eyes at least, this makes the two mutually exclusive.

Is it, though? Religions don't always have a god. Take Buddhism, for example. No gods there.

And, meaning no disrespect to atheists, I don't think it's a religion. Religions, in my opinion (and that of my high school religion teacher lol) are supposed to attempt to provide answers to life questions ('Who am I?', 'What is the meaning of life?', etc), which I think atheism doesn't do. I think atheism is just not having a religion, which means it can't be a religion in itself. Does that make sense?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by x.Psychic Crisis.x

Is it, though? Religions don't always have a god. Take Buddhism, for example. No gods there.

And, meaning no disrespect to atheists, I don't think it's a religion. Religions, in my opinion (and that of my high school religion teacher lol) are supposed to attempt to provide answers to life questions ('Who am I?', 'What is the meaning of life?', etc), which I think atheism doesn't do. I think atheism is just not having a religion, which means it can't be a religion in itself. Does that make sense?

Worry not; I don't think there's an atheist alive who'd be offended by that. The way you put it might not be the most accurate, but I think it's the most succinctly I've ever seen it described. "Religions attempt to provide answers," is basically true, and the main thing that sets atheism apart.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by x.Psychic Crisis.x

Is it, though? Religions don't always have a god. Take Buddhism, for example. No gods there.

And, meaning no disrespect to atheists, I don't think it's a religion. Religions, in my opinion (and that of my high school religion teacher lol) are supposed to attempt to provide answers to life questions ('Who am I?', 'What is the meaning of life?', etc), which I think atheism doesn't do. I think atheism is just not having a religion, which means it can't be a religion in itself. Does that make sense?

Although I agree with your conclusion, your argument has some pretty big holes. The main issue is you say atheism is not having a religion. Well, unfortunately, that's not what atheism is but rather disbelief in a higher being, which as you kindly showed, disbelief in a higher being doesn't equate to non-religiousness. Your second flaw is circular reasoning and some backwards reasoning in that you say since atheism lacks a religious belief, it therefore is not a religion. A bat does not have wings yet it can still fly; a penguin has wings yet it cannot fly. Your argument of it not being a religion is an assumption, one which you have provided no argument for. As with the bat and penguin, this is meant to show the problem with saying since X does not have Y, then X is not/cannot do Y.

[Algernon]

26 people say no. I love it.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Algernon

26 people say no. I love it.

Good to know that good sense reigns, isn't it.

[Algernon]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Good to know that good sense reigns, isn't it.

I like polls because the results don't lie. It ends debates in way, and I know people don't like to admit it.

[Apollo]

Originally Posted by Algernon

26 people say no. I love it.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

[Batman.]

Well I see Religion as a Belief system involving things such as Worship, Deities, etc.

Atheists believe in things like the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories (i.e. Evolution, instead of creationism), but the idea Atheists don't have a deity or anyone to worship, and don't congregate in a spiritual styling (Church, rituals, etc.) makes it, in my opinion, not a religion.

[Algernon]

Know why I think some Atheists are upset about this? Because they want people to think they are spiritual, and if they don't have any beliefs whatsoever, then they might be cold hearted or unopen the things around them.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by ☣ ArcAngel ☣

Well I see Religion as a Belief system involving things such as Worship, Deities, etc.

Atheists believe in things like the Big Bang theory, and other scientific theories (i.e. Evolution, instead of creationism), but the idea Atheists don't have a deity or anyone to worship, and don't congregate in a spiritual styling (Church, rituals, etc.) makes it, in my opinion, not a religion.

Not all atheists believe in scientific theories but many do, so I'd hardly say that accepting scientific theories is a requirement for atheism.

Originally Posted by Algernon

Know why I think some Atheists are upset about this? Because they want people to think they are spiritual, and if they don't have any beliefs whatsoever, then they might be cold hearted or unopen the things around them.

Huh? Are you actually serious? It could be the more sensible thing that they do not consider themselves religious and hence would not want to be incorrectly labeled, especially if they are against religion. What does having religious or spiritual beliefs have anything to do with being open? I know many Christians, who by definition are spiritual or religious yet mention the word "evolution" and they are more resistant and closed-up than a brick wall. But that shouldn't happen, now should it?

It may come as a surprise but atheists do have beliefs, they do have morals, they do have ethics and here comes the kicker, they can be spiritual yet atheistic.

Why do I recognize this so much as reverting back to Mosh4Jesus?