Atheism is a religion.

Hi Con! DEFINITIONS 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. Con says: "Atheism does not deal with the cause nature or purpose of the universe at all. It merely just claims that a God does not exist. Atheism itself (in it's basic form) holds no theories as to how the universe came about or why we are here And atheists give an answer - it was not a God. " By here's the thing - "it was not God" is PRECISELY a theory as to how the universe came about. Atheists are saying 'God did not create the universe'. That is a positive claim about how the universe came about, the cause of it, and and it's purpose. Merely because it rejects other theories, DOES NOT MEAN that it is not a theory in itself. So, it is entirely possible for atheism to fit in this claim, as I have explained. 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." Con admits that atheism has a common set of beliefs, but asserts that they have no practices. But I guess that it entirely depends on what you consider to be a 'rule' or 'practice'. Because in order to be an atheist, you HAVE to believe that God doesn't exist. Does that count as a rule or practice? It is debatable. I would say so, but I would suspect my opponent would think otherwise. It is most certainly a rule, but I would think that a practice expands to mental practices, and beliefs. For example, a Christian may 'practice' the belief that Jesus is God. I guess it is similar to atheism 'practicing' the belief that God doesn't exist. Regardless, having practices is not essential to being considered a religion, as I explained in the previous round. 3. "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions." I explained in the 2nd definition why atheism could be seen to follow practices. But, it is nevertheless not essential to have certain practices to be a religion. I think that I actually cited Quakerism, not Buddhism in the practices point. Because I would certainly agree that Theravada Buddhism follows a set of practices. However, Quakerism follows no particular set of practices, yet are certainly a religion. That was the point I was trying to make. 4. "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice." I certainly used Theravada Buddhism for many examples, but I believe I cited Folk Religions as a religion that does not follow a particular ethical code. I then gave an appropriate definition for 'religion': "A common set of beliefs that gives answers about the nature of the universe" However, Con said that I "cannot simply invent a definition to suit your argument". But, It was a carefully thought up definition, that is a suitable term that fits into the definitions of every religion out there! He then goes on to say: "Atheism does NOT give answers about the nature of the universe". But this is fundamentally false! Atheism positively asserts that God did not create the universe! I would think that this would be obvious. THERAVADA BUDDHISM I originally brought Theravada Buddhism to show that merely because atheism 'lacks belief in God', does not mean that it is exempt from being a religion. I was not trying to draw parallels between the beliefs and practices of Theravada Buddhism and those of Atheism. RELIGIOUS TENDENCIES OF ATHEISM The main point that I was trying to get across was the fact that Some parts of atheism DO adhere to very religious beliefs, and so, it gives an insight into how at least some parts of atheism can be construed as religious in a very obvious way. It was not an argument in itself. It was a part of a cumulative argument. Here is a link to 'the first church of atheism' (if you believe it or not) http://firstchurchofatheism.com... Finally, Con gives a quote: "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color" I am not sure, I think that it best describes agnosticism; I think that atheism makes a positive claim - 'I don't believe in God', whereas agnosticism does not - so I would substitute 'atheism' for 'agnosticism' in that quote. CONCLUSION It has turned out that the debate has been mainly about definitions. We both have our opinions. However, I would like to stress that Con's definitions result in inaccurate portrayals of religion; there are several examples of how my opponent's definitions fall short. As a result, I provided a more accurate definition that covered the whole spectrum of religion. Coincidentally, atheism fits into this definition. Thank you for a great debate! God Bless Sources: http://firstchurchofatheism.com...