Does Atheism Fit the Definition of Religion?

[Artorius]

The problem in my mind isn't coming up with a moral code that is independant of religion. The problem I see is that society does not allow it to be taught.

I agree that there are cultural pressures to suppress exposure to atheistic morality (to many, the term 'atheistic morality' would be an oxymoron).

The majority of Americans, for instance, cannot make the distinction between religion and morality because the "traditional" upbringing includes religion intertwined with transcendental morality. The feelings of fear, guilt, and shame associated with traditional religion prevent analysis of morality outside the realm of religion. And, of course, there is also the pervasive misconception that all atheists are evil, and therefore are incapable of practicing or elucidating on any sort of morality.

 

[Tigron-X]

It doesn't appear to me that athiesm fits any of those definitions. That's pretty thin: athiests don't practice, so there are no leaders, there is only one belief, and athiests don't "pursue" it.

Sure, you can say that lack of belief is a belief, but I don't think you can similarly say that lack of a religion is a religion.

No, you couldn't. The definition of atheism does not include practices as part of its definition, and it does not include a purpose that is pursued with zeal. An atheist can have those things, but they don't have to, and not all do.

In either of the religions you have the belief or you don't; there is nothing to be pursued in terms of the initial belief. What tends to be pursued is an understanding of that belief. What is interesting about Atheism is that the belief is so simple that there isn't much to pursue in comparison to other religions, even though one can pursue what affects such a belief has on one's life. So it seems that Atheist tend to pursue science or philosophy with a zeal for the explanation of life and/or the purpose of life. Most people tend to search for a purpose to life or at least his/her own life. Something that seems to affect one's morality. Does this cause one with Atheist beliefs to be his/her own leader that uses his/her own intelligence to give one self a sense of morality or to look to others with similar beliefs; maybe both? Does that not seem similar to what others, those with beliefs in God or god(s), do?

I refuse to believe that you do not understand the difference between something that a definition does not dissallow and something a definition includes. The definition of atheism does not include the zealous pursuit of a goal, but it doesen't dissallow it. That definition of religion does include that attribute - that attribute is necessary for that definition to be met, but atheism does not necessarily contain it. Therefore atheism doesn't fit.

It's true that other religions make it much easier to do so because one is given a projected image to seek after, while an Athiest must imagine something from nothing. Those that do tend to lean to explanations of nature within scientific bylaws, but of course he/she does not have to be limited to such explanations. That's the beauty of imagination. Maybe my problem with understanding the difference is because I've came to understand that I can't comprehend nothing. Nothing is always something.

What part of "I'm not wandering off the subject to amuse you" don't you understand? If you had an argument, you would make it. You wouldn't be asking for clarification of these terms.

I gave my attempt but it seemed you wouldn't acknowledge it, so I'm trying to see things from your perspective so I can re-word it from your perspective to show you what I'm talking about. And maybe you can correct me from there?

No, they don't. All of those contain enough information in their makeup to fit the definition of religion - except atheism. A few seconds of brainstorming what attributes each of those religions contains will bring up information that fits a definition of religion. Atheism will not.

I'm sorry; I still can't see it. I'm probablly going to die laughing if it's just semantics.

Yes, you obviously do. However, you have no reason to think so. You have no rational backing of this assertion. I'm not sure why you would stick to such a rediculous stand after it has become overwhelmingly obvious you do not have any argument to defend it. Some people have a deep, driving need to believe that other people are similar to them, and therefore are threatened by a minority of humans who say they are without religion. Other people take this stand just to aggrevate and belittle others. What your motivations are I do not know - though I must admit I'm mildly interested.

I think that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. I only seek understanding and knowledge. The more and more I look at various religions; the more and more I see similarities on the explanations of life, and the more I see how life flows (if you would allow me to use such a metaphor) or at least the possibilities of how life flows. I admit it's a bit selfish to cause an argument to stimulate my own imagination, but it's pure inquisitivness, and thank you. :D