Is Atheism a Religion? Why or why not?

[Fake Messiah]

you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics.

Anyone who enables pedophilia and lies about it can not claim to have ethics, and that is the Catholic Church along with other Christian denominations. So you are clueless as to what ethics is.

Here is Nishant's code of ethics that he defends and wants back

[The Architect Of Fate]

you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics.

You have no ethics you have the pretension of ethics 

[Deesse23]

Now, let's take some "definitions" of Atheism that have been proffered on this thread:

Helios: "(A): I lack belief in the theistic claim there is a god 

(T) I claim there is a god"

Your statement is not about objective reality, but a subjective opinion, hence the "I"s in both.

No, his statement is a statement about objective reality. He does, in FACT, not believe in a a god. It is an "opinion" about reality.
Just as yours is an opinion too. In your opinion, a god is there, and its a FACT that you made this claim (that you believe this).

[Thumpalumpacus]

If your nation is America, as I think it is, a certain historical figure disagrees. Oh yeah, his name also happens to be Abraham Lincoln, lol.

What of it?

This is classic argumentation from authority. Sloppy thinking, ten yard penalty and loss of down.

[Angrboda]

You have no reason to maliciously slander me like that, but of course you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics. So I expect that and I forgive you. And oh yes, I did. Go back and read what I showed about the First Cause being what Scholastic Philosophy calls Pure Actuality, A Being in whom there is no Potentiality. Since there is no contingency in the First Being, there is no potentiality in this being either, nothing that He can become that He is already not.

You didn't show anything, you merely asserted it. For you to have done as you say, a) it would have to be enough for the first cause being pure actuality to establish that the first cause is God, and b) you would have had to show that it is necessarily the case that the first cause is pure actuality. You didn't do the latter, you simply asserted it to be the case, and the former is simply not the case. Even if you had made the Thomistic argument instead of simply asserting it, it wouldn't be valid because Thomism isn't an adequate description of reality. The terms 'pure actuality' and 'potentiality' have no legitimate meaning because neither are substances.

I will retract my implication that you did not make the attempt, however. It was buried in a reply to Nudger and so I hadn't read it.

[Gwaithmir]

@Nishant Xavier

Prove that your God exists, THEN we can discuss whether or not atheism is a religion.

[Angrboda]

You have no reason to maliciously slander me like that, but of course you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics. So I expect that and I forgive you. And oh yes, I did. Go back and read what I showed about the First Cause being what Scholastic Philosophy calls Pure Actuality, A Being in whom there is no Potentiality. Since there is no contingency in the First Being, there is no potentiality in this being either, nothing that He can become that He is already not.

You didn't show anything, you merely asserted it.  For you to have done as you say, a) it would have to be enough for the first cause being pure actuality to establish that the first cause is God, and b) you would have had to show that it is necessarily the case that the first cause is pure actuality.  You didn't do the latter, you simply asserted it to be the case, and the former is simply not the case.  Even if you had made the Thomistic argument instead of simply asserting it, it wouldn't be valid because Thomism isn't an adequate description of reality.  The terms 'pure actuality' and 'potentiality' have no legitimate meaning because neither are substances.

I will retract my implication that you did not make the attempt, however.  It was buried in a reply to Nudger and so I hadn't read it.

Oh, as long as I am bringing out the guns this morning, let's deal with the Thomistic argument. A potentiality exists whenever there are multiple entities that are not in perfect homeostasis. Now the universe, though created by God, is not in homeostasis with him, and so a potentiality exists for both entities. Moreover, there was a point at which the universe did not exist and God did (otherwise the two would exist simultaneously and God could not be the universe's cause). At that point, the potential for God to create a universe with which he is not in homeostasis exists and therefore God necessarily was not pure actuality at that point.

[Nay_Sayer]

@Nishant Xavier

Prove that your God exists, THEN we can discuss whether or not atheism is a religion.

He has barely proven he's an actual human being

[The Architect Of Fate]

If your nation is America, as I think it is, a certain historical figure disagrees. Oh yeah, his name also happens to be Abraham Lincoln, lol.

1. It isn't 
2. Abraham Lincoln also held views that today we would consider reprehensible so employing him to make a point is futile.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If your nation is America, as I think it is, a certain historical figure disagrees. Oh yeah, his name also happens to be Abraham Lincoln, lol.

What of it?

This is classic argumentation from authority. Sloppy thinking, ten yard penalty and loss of down.

He seems to love that particular fallacy of taking the views of one person then trying to use them as a sweeping authority on something.