Is Atheism a religion as say...Theravada Buddhism?

[Tiberius]

Thankyou capt obvious.

Ok, cut the attitude. I'm only stating the obvious here because apparently I'm conversing with someone who doesn't think it's obvious that atheism isn't a religion. I have no idea how you are defining atheism, but if you thought it was a religion...

What piqued my interset was:

Theoretical atheism
Further information: Existence of God, Evolutionary origin of religions, and Evolutionary psychology of religion
Theoretical (or theoric) atheism explicitly posits arguments against the existence of gods, responding to common theistic arguments such as the argument from design or Pascal's Wager. The theoretical reasons for rejecting gods assume various forms, above all ontological, gnoseological, and epistemological, but also sometimes psychological and sociological forms.

So now philosophies are religions? There are arguments for a position (atheism), and there are arguments for the opposite position (theism). Just because there are arguments doesn't make it a religion. There are arguments for our existence ("I think therefore I am") yet it is not taken as a religious belief to believe you exist. Philosophy and religion are completely different.

Why you asking me?? I'm not pretending to have all the answers. But for arguments' sake would it not be logical to take the position that your statement is correct in it's assumption??

Looks up the definition of a "rhetorical question". I was making a point.

All too true just as there are many Atheists that are religious and varying shades in between... as you point out. The major trend though is that Atheism is and does rely on science and scientific principles of evidence when arguing it's position. Is this not so?? There are many theists who follow that "pseudoscientific crap" too. So what??

No, it isn't so. I don't argue for atheism using science. To do so is absurd seeing as the concept of God is always one of an external non-temporal being. How on earth could I argue against such a being using science, which is strictly temporal? Also, a "major trend" means nothing unless it is given in the doctrine.

As for your "so what??", so everything. My point is that just because you can generalise a group of people on some belief, does not make that belief "core" to that group of people, let alone dogmatic. It's on the same grounds as saying that because there is a general trend amongst atheists to be more intelligent, being intelligent is a requirement for atheism. Such is not the case.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/at...ligion.htm

Atheism is a disbelief, not a philosophy. My disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is not a philosophy of life - is it for anyone else? Furthermore, a philosophy of life is not necessarily a religion and it doesn't necessitate that a religious belief exists in the person with the philosophy.

So you agree with me now?!? *confused*

Are you sure mandy?? I would envisage the early christians were no different with their "prophets" not to mention the Jews.

Well actually they were different, in that they were telling people what to think rather than telling people to think for themselves. They also created aspects of their religion, which Dawkins has yet to do (I don't think he's mentioned anywhere in the definition of atheism!). If people start calling themselves "Dawkinists", start worshiping Dawkins, acting like he's some massive prophet, then you'll have another atheistic religion on your hands, but it won't stop me (as an atheist) from disagreeing with it and rejecting it.

Again I would say that atheists do have a view of the cosmos happily provided by science. Look at your own avatar for example.

Again, this is a view provided by science, not by atheism. By saying I have both you are attempting to connect the two together, yet my science is not based on my atheism, nor is my atheism based on my science. You seem to be just completely ignoring what I write in my posts; I clearly stated above "Atheists themselves might have some view of the cosmos, but it isn't prescribed by atheism". What exactly don't you understand about this?

I would argue that you appear to have a very simplistic narrow view of just what constitutes a religion, religious "practice", belief systems and beliefs.

Yeah, unfortunately it's the disadvantage of using a dictionary. *rolls eyes*

I do not think I am ill-informed

The ill-informed rarely think they are ill-informed. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Your view simply doesn't agree with the semantics of the argument, so you wish to change the semantics. Unfortunately, if you did this, a lot of other things would suddenly become religions and make the word meaningless (for instance, every philosophical position could be labelled a religion, every group of fan (the religion of Brittany Spears vs the religion of MJ!). We use strict definitions so we don't get into this mess. I'll humour you for the moment thought; what are your criteria for a religion, and how does atheism fit into it?

and it could be argued that right wing conservitism is irrational. So what??

As a far-right-wing conservative I find this humorous. +1 to you

My own life experience has led me to conclude that of the 6Billion people on the planet there are 6Billion religions and no two are EXACTLY the same, practiced the same, support the same tenets nor give the exact same comfort to each individual

They don't have to be the same. The reason groups of different believers flock together and call themselves "Christian" is because they each share the same core beliefs of that religion. I don't care how many people you ask, you won't find a Christian who doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God (in some literal or non-literal way). These are the core tenets of Christianity. You can get YEC and OEC, Christian evolutionists, Christians who work for charity, Christians who commit murder, etc, etc. It doesn't stop them from being Christian.

What matters is that religions are well-defined, and they are. A religion has to have a set of beliefs pertaining to the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheism doesn't. You can't deduce anything about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe from the statement "I don't believe in Gods" because it doesn't mention any belief about the universe. For all we know, someone who says "I don't believe in Gods" could have a belief that the universe is the lovechild of two alien races, who knows?

I would also put forward that 'religion' is not used exclusively for belief systems as any MotorGP, F1 enthusiast can attest. So much can be viewed as a 'religion' and it can also be said that atheism is just another one.

Then you dilute the word into meaninglessness. Have you met our friend Watson? I think you'd get along famously. How people misuse a word for clever effect has no influence on the meaning of the word.