Atheism is not a religion.

Welcome to DDO, sir. It is customary to begin a debate with a first round of acceptance, rules, clarifications, and greetings. This serves several purposes: 1) refraining from starting argumentation the first round conserves room for longer arguments in later rounds, as space is not used for other purposes; 2) it prevents an opponent from having a much longer period to refute your main argument, as the challenge period is 7 days; 3) it clears up any discrepancies and allows for the setting of parameters in the debate. "Religion is a very vague term and clearly my opponent has structured the debate in order for it to be semantical as he failed to define this crucial term. " This entire debate rests upon me proving that atheism is not a religion, so naturally my argumentation will take this into utmost consideration. This debate is a philosophical debate on the criteria of religion applying or not applying to atheism. My opponent further commits the tu quoque fallacy by directly using semantics in his definitions to win the debate. More in the next paragraph:Defintions My opponent is trying to use definitions to win this debate. This is called semantics, and attempting to win a debate on it usually equals a loss. "Religion: A positive claim about the origin of the universe. "This definition is not from any known source, has no results in a google search, and does not agree with reason. By this definition, cosmology would be a religion, when we all know it is a science. My case deals with what makes a religion a religion. "Atheism: A positive claim that the universe originated of its own accord without the help of any supernatural power commonly referred to as God. "This also has no known source, has no results in a google search, and does not agree with reason. Atheism, first off can be either a positive statement of disbelief or a lack of belief in a deity. More on that part later. Furthermore, some atheists claim that the evidence points to a continuous universe and continuous time, others think aliens planted life here on earth, other still think other theories. The point is, atheism is not contingent upon what my opponent claims. It is simply not believing in deities. The religion section of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions nine qualifications for religions. The more qualifications out of the nine, the more “religious-like” the belief system is. Belief in supernatural beings (gods). Boom, atheism does not fit the criteria of the most basic requirement of religion: belief in supernatural beings. A basic justification for this is the etymology of the word. Atheism comes from the Greek atheos: a- “without” and theos “a god,” meaning “without god/s. ” [1][2] Consonantly, both positive atheism (affirming the non-existence of god/s) and negative atheism (lack of belief that god/s exist) do not have belief in supernatural beings. [3] I think this one is pretty much laid to rest, so we’ll move on. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. Whereas in Catholic churches water is “holy” and the altar is the place for “sacred offerings,” atheists make no distinction between arbitrary or doctrinal justification for sacred and non-sacred/profane objects. To an atheist, a large, bronze statue of Baal in a sunny park would just be seen as artwork, but to Christians and Jews, the “artwork” would be seen as profane and blasphemous. Then they would complain, start making threats of coercion and legal suits, and the issue would prolong like an open sore. Atheists are free to make their own moral judgments according to a subjective moral compass or objective moral theory to ascertain which objects are morally bad and good, but the important distinction here is that they don’t arbitrarily choose objects as religiously good because they support a desert God or animal spirit. Moving on. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. As we’ve established, atheists don’t have a sacred object like a Pastafarian pasta strainer or a Judaic yarmulke; therefore, they do not have acts that focus on them, because the sacred objects are as non-existent as the gods they are told have “great evidence. ” You won’t see an atheist walking a 200 mile jaunt while flagellating his back on holy day. You won’t see an atheist symbolically eating the flesh and blood of another man in some sort of benign cannibalistic ritual, and there is nothing that doctrinally compels him to do so. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Seeing as though atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief that god/s exist, it is reasonable to conclude that they don’t believe that a moral code exists which is sanctioned by said non-existent god/s. In fact, the moral code presented in religious books resembles more the religious code of ignorant, savage, homophobic, petrified, misogynistic, sadomasochistic, sinister, callous, inane sheep herders than the inspired word of an omnibenevolent creator. The bible sanctions slavery, abortion, animal cruelty, homophobia, genocide, and many other grotesque acts that we deem woefully immoral today. That’s why the moral code of atheism is not that of a particular religion, is not a singular theory, and resembles more of a constellation of ideas about moral action than a particular religion would. Despite this sanctioned moral code, atheists tend to be much more objectively moral human beings: lower crime rates, better marriages, and more accepting of people. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. This is a quadruple cluster of wrong. Atheism doesn’t inspire any such religious feelings any more than not believing in Santa Claus would fill you with wonder. However, that does not leave the atheist without room for spiritual experience, which is another discussion. Again, atheists do not believe in god/s, nor do they have sacred objects or rituals surrounding those objects. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. Ask yourself, “what would be the point of praying, if I strongly did not believe an imaginary being existed. ” Atheism is the disbelief that god/s exist, so prayer and other forms of communication with the gods is inane. Praying only further detaches one from reality, and develops numerous ad hoc justifications that it still is useful. E. g. a woman prays for god to save her husband who has been injured in a toilet-plunging accident in Guatemala; however, doctors fail to save him, and he passes away. She then says, “It was god’s plan. ” If god is going to do his plan regardless of your prayer, then there is no point of praying. .. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. Atheism doesn’t have a world view. Anything people want to believe is fine, as long as they don’t believe in gods, they’re still atheists. If atheism did have a world view, then it’s doing an awful job of letting people know, because atheism subsumes an incredibly vast spectrum of people. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. No world view, so people are free to choose their own paths, purposes, and meanings. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. You are totally free as an atheist to organize your life in any manner you see fit. A social group bound together by the above. As none of the above were achieved through reasoning to be applied to atheism, a social group is not bound by any of the preceding qualifications.