[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.