[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.