Atheism is a religion.

Hi! DEFINITIONS Firstly, Con says that I am choosing the best definitions to suite me. But of course I am! Just like you are picking and choosing definitions that means that atheism does not fit into it. So, for the sake of the debate, we need to establish what is the best definition for both atheism and religion. We then need to see whether atheism fits into those definitions of religion. I brought in Theravada Buddhism to show that your first definition of religion was wrong - as they have no such belief or worship of the supernatural, but is still a religion. ( http://www.beliefnet.com... ) (note, Karma is a natural; not a supernatural law). So, we need to establish a better definition of 'religion'. Con has offered a few, so let's go through them. "1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Well for the first statement, I would say that Atheism certainly fits into this definition - as atheism states that no such being as God created the universe. This is a positive statement about the cause of the universe - 'it was not God'. For the rest of the definition, the wording is very important - there is an 'especially', 'usually' and 'often'. This implies that not all religions adhere to the practices, and so a set of beliefs can still be a religion without adhering to them. To give examples: I have already explained that Theravada Buddhism does not concern the "creation of a superhuman agency or agencies". I would consider Quakerism to not adhere to any rituals, but is still a religion. ( http://www.patheos.com...-(Quaker)/Ritual-Worship-Devotion-Symbolism ). Finally, I would think that Paganism, such as particular Folk Religions have no moral code, but are still considered religions. ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) So, I don't think that this definition is sound at all. The 2nd definition that Con gives is this: "2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." Well of course atheism is included in this. Even by Con's definition, all atheists have to lack a belief in God - otherwise, they wouldn't be atheists! Con then gives a 3rd definition: "3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions." Con admits that atheism could be seen to be adhering to a particular set of beliefs in the non-existence of any deity. As for the second part of the deginition, I have already explained that a religion does not have to necessarily adhere to any particular practices in order to be considered a religion. So, I think that this definition is not true either. The final definition Con gives is this: "4. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." I agree with Con when he says that Atheism does not follow this definition. But, I explained in the first definition how a religion does not have to necessarily adhere to a moral code in order to be considered a religion - so this definition is also not accurate. So what is an accurate definition of 'religion'? Well, I would define it like this: "A common set of beliefs that gives answers about the nature of the universe". Every religion follows this definition. Coincidentally, so does atheism. And so, I think that it is a suitable definition for 'religion' - and I hope my opponent agrees with me. THERAVADA BUDDHISM We agree on the fact that Theravada Buddhism is a religion. However, as I explained, Buddhists also do not believe that any such God exists. Does that make them exempt from being religion? Of course not. The same could be said about atheism - sure, atheists don't believe in God. But I guess you could say the the 'practice' of atheism, is to not engage in any religious practices! There is a claim and belief in atheism - as you put it, to 'lack a belief in the existence of God'. But it is a belief nonetheless. If you did not 'lack a belief in the existence of a God', then you would not be an atheist. So in order to be an atheist, you have to adhere to a set of rules. So, just like Theravada Buddhism, atheism is also a religion. RELOGIOUS TENDENCIES OF ATHEISTS I agree with Con when he says that the religious tendencies of atheists alone does not make atheism a religion. Rather, I would say that this is a part of a cumulative argument. 'Sects' within atheism adhere to very religious practices - which fits in the definition of 'A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices'. So, we can see how for some people, atheism really is a religion. This increases the strength of my argument. Sources: http://www.beliefnet.com... http://www.patheos.com...-(Quaker)/Ritual-Worship-Devotion-Symbolism http://en.wikipedia.org...