Atheism IS a religion

oint in "Definitional Deductive Syllogisms", I totally agree. I, on the other hand, am not contrasting my argument by this dictionary definition. Like I stated in the previous argument, religion is not merely beliefs in a spiritual god, but likes of opinion about a spiritual god. I will come back to this point later in my rebuttal. Atheists do worship (if I can use that loosely) something or someone. No one can be worship-less state of mind. If an atheist has made no personal commitment to a spiritual god, this question arises: Who do they worship/adore/deify/idolize? If it isn't a god, then who? The question is simple. Themselves. Of course I'm not saying atheists have a personal shrine in which they sacrifice animals and worship themselves. No way, that would be ludicrous. My argument of self-worship/adoration/idolization goes back to the subtle attitude (that we all have somewhat) called humanism. And in no way am I calling the practice of humanism a religion. Even I, as a religious person, have some humanistic views. But what is humanism exactly? According to Wikipedia, "Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism), over established doctrine or faith (fideism)." Now think about that. What kind of attitude would that cause in the mindset and values of a person? Something like this. "Oh, I don't need faith. I don't need religion. We have modern advancements, there is no god. I am a rational human being capable of making my own decisions; I don't need any moral code given by the gods. As long as I obey the law, I'll be fine. Because in the end, with no god to call my own, I can decide what's best for me. Me, myself, and I only." What kind of attitude is presented here? Even if you lack this exact thought process as presented above, does it mean you lack the type of attitude this brings? No, of course not. "Oh I don't need faith. I don't need religion." He has made a declaration that he is totally fine with being god-less, with living for himself. "I am a rational human being capable of making my own decisions; I don't need any moral code (referring to a religious moral code)". What he is saying is that HE HIMSELF knows what's best for him, not any god. Because NO god can tell him what to do with his life. "I can only decide what's best for me." Of course you know I am referring to anything he finds fit, nothing illegal like murder, rape, etc. That entire statement screamed one thing: I am my own god and I don't need a spiritual being to tell me what to do. Yes, he may not have a shrine entitled to himself out of physical worship but having a shrine, church, synagogue etc. isn't necessary for worship. I don't have to go to church every Sunday to worship God. It is what's in my heart, not what I display openly. ___________________________________________________________________ on your counterexample, like I explained to several members in the comments, you cannot use an example of some imaginary creature or something from the figment of your imagination. This is a debate about deities. Yeah, if I believe in Santa Claus, that doesn't make him real. I, myself personally, believe in God. That doesn't make him real. An atheist believes in no god; that doesn't make him nonexistent. Get what I'm saying? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". -Carl Sagan. I like this quote. But I am not here to convince anyone God exists. I fail to read an article or meet an individual who can prove both the Christian's and the atheist's claims. No one. But just because it has failed to be possible to prove that my God exists, doesn't make me any less of a Christian or makes my religion any less prominent. ___________________________________________________________________ "Atheism does not require faith." I beg to differ. Atheism does indeed require faith. Atheists believe in no god, no god at all. If they didn't have faith in their belief, wouldn't that appear to be a tad hypocritical? Or maybe that's why many atheists change their religion/beliefs numerous times. ___________________________________________________________________ I found the "Establishing Con Case" of your argument quite interesting. And do you know what I did? I looked up numerous religions, beliefs, etc. and found several accepted religions that did not meet all the qualifications of this little "test" if we can call it that. For example, the religion of Scientology does not have a stable belief in supernatural beings (gods). And like I argued before, the dictionary definition of what religion is (most likely written by non-religious people) is quite different from what religion ACTUALLY is (being a religious person myself). If I didn't go into detail about this, let me explain. What I believe about God (that he exists, that he loves me, etc.) fuels my Christianity. It's not necessarily what God you believe IN. That's not how religion starts. Yes maybe primitive religions, but not modern ones. What you believe about a deity fuels your religion. What I choose to believe about God is the reason why I am a Christian. A lukewarm belief IN God would never be enough. Atheists have this same viewpoint. Atheists have this opinion ABOUT god, which is how religion starts. Religion starts in a belief ABOUT a deity, and the other details come AFTER. Let us go through the remainder of your list. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. This is a matter of opinion backed by moral reasoning. This can be the same with atheists or anyone. A feminist can find a picture of an aborted baby outside of an abortion center offensive while a Christian can be fully for it. Of course this isn't sacred, but it is a matter of opinion. A statute of Baal would be nothing but artwork to me, although I am a Christian. Matter of opinion. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. Sure, I could see how this could be a solid argument. Although Scientologists have rituals, I fail to find a sacred object. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. Moral codes used in religious practices (in most of them, not all) were usually man-made moral codes, usually used in the controlling and induction of "holy fear" in an individual. A world view or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. Atheists, as all other humans, have a world view. Saying that they do not shows them as robots almost, just living the moment. No matter if they have no god, they have a moral code and world view. Saying a human doesn't is a little irrational. To close my argument, atheism should be considered a religion because it is a solid opinion about god(s), which is how most religions start. Atheism should also be considered a religion because it does indeed require faith. I have faith in the chair I am sitting in as I type this debate. I have faith that this chair will hold me and will not crumble under my weight. Atheists have faith in their belief on no god. On that note, I hope I summed up everything in my argument and it was understandable and clear as a new penny. I have enjoyed this debate greatly.