Quote:
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.