Quote:
Originally Posted by ahammer
did not want to go down this path but it look like it to late to stop
it depends on how you define Religion
like lets at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
does Athiesm met this yes.
what we can say for sure is it is not a organized religion.
what there can be no question about is that it is a belief.
as I see it is not the absence of belief in the existence of deities
but the belief in the absence of the existence of deities
that in and of it self it what make it a religion in my book. |
Athiesm is excluded from that definition of religion by the first three words:
Athiesm is a lack of belief in deities. Simple as that. Athiesm is not the belief in the absence of deities.
Athiesm is as much a religion as not believing in magic slippers is a religion.
Even the (completely wrong) definition of athiesm as a
belief in the absence of deities doesn't qualify it as a religion any more than 'belief in God' is a religion in and of itself.
Let's look at that definition:
Quote:
|
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
|
This excludes athiesm as a religion. There is no set of beliefs or practices agreed upon by athiests.
Quote:
|
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
|
as above
Quote:
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
|
None of those include athiesm either.
That last point relies on there being some kind of 'athiest ethics' that all athiests agree on, which there isn't.
How is athiesm any different to not believing in walking trees? Would you assert that everything everyone doesn't believe in forms a religion?