Does Atheism Fit the Definition of Religion?

[bd1976]

hmm...

My family is christian so i'll try to answer these.

Does morality come from religion? How? Is this more acceptable than an evolutionary view?

Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

Does the origin of morality has to do with its value?

Erm not entirely sure what you mean by this. However one viewpoint is that the commandments in the bible were actually just common sense i.e only eat kosher meat becuase its more healty etc and that is why they because so important. However since a christian person believes that morality comes from god then probally the origin has nothing to do with value.

Why can morality that's (also) regarding behaviour between humans, be formulated by a higher being? Do agreements not have to be made between the parties that are involved (in stead of by a third party)?

In the christian sense god defines what is right and wrong. He created people in his own image etc... there is no "agreements" god doesn't have to be fair/unfair.

In how much is this kind of morality universal, in how much is it interpretable?

Almost all of it is interpretable. Hence different denominations.

What's the relation between morality and 'judging'? Does only the law maker have the 'right' to judge? Why?

God judges people according to his morality. He has the "right" because he is god.

What's the relation between morality and justification and forgiveness? What is 'just', what is 'kind'?

Well in the Bible God creates people, they start doing bad things. God get angry. God sends his son jesus to die thus atoning for those sins. Thats prety much the story. So I suppose that morality comes from god. god is just and judges people if they break his morality. Forgiveness is when god gives you another chance having broken the moral code.

 

[Tigron-X]

Ha ha! In that case I've probably the same religion as these chimps! What kind of religion do chimp have, Tigron? And ants?

I have no idea what religion chimps have or ants; let alone for me to say that they have one. The next time I have a convo with an ant though, I'll let you know.

As for you, if you say you have no religion then define religion. If you say religion is belief in God then you must include the absence of belief in God which is the samething as atheism. Atheism is a religion.

 

[Artorius]

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is best compared with the term theism for clarification.

Theism is a position in which there is belief in a god or many gods.
Atheism is a position in which there is a lack of belief in a god or many gods.

I do not know of any religion which lacks belief in some god, either historical or present. In this sense, atheism cannot be deemed a religion.

 

[Locrian]

Those who say that atheism is a religion do the term "religion" a great injustice. Religion includes many possible individual and social aspects and values, while the definition of atheism includes only one - that you do not believe in a god or gods.

Religion can include many different cultural interpretations, many different moral values, even different belief systems. To be an atheist, one must only not believe in God.

Until recently I would have agreed with ARtorius and said that atheism prohibits religion. I am no longer so sure. An atheist can sometimes acquire a set of cultural customs and values that seem very "religious." Take the Church of Freethought, for example. These people gather weekly, discuss issues, work on charitable projects together, support each other and do many of the things a religious organization do. Am I to tell them they have no religion? I am undecided.

What I do know is that not all atheists have these cultural customs and values. In fact, many atheists lack any belief or custom usually associated with religion. I cannot repeat enough; those who defiantly state that atheism is a religion are incorrect, because the two words describe very different things that overlap much less than people suggest.

 

[russ_watters]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this:

Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

 

[saviourmachine]

As for you, if you say you have no religion then define religion. If you say religion is belief in God then you must include the absence of belief in God which is the samething as atheism. Atheism is a religion.

Okay... Albeit that I think that religion has to do with rituals and so on, I would couple it with believe. I certainly do believe in something. I am agnostic about the existence of god or its non-existence. So I'm not an atheist. (Besides, doesn't have something to exist, to be without-something, or it would be a tautology?)

I do believe in some kind of deeper reality, that gives rise to what we see and what we are; a kind of disk on which both data and memory are kept. I do believe scientists about scientific things, my mother about social things, my father about technical things, and so on. I've not time enough to observe everything in person.
Supernatural things didn't happen in my short life, even the 'religious experiences' I had felt pretty 'emotional', so I still am inclined not to believe about that kind of things.

I believe it's good to live. That ant too? Then do we share the same religion.

 

[bd1976]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bd1976
Yes. Its written in the bible. Its more acceptable for some people because many poeple believe that murder is wrong - not because its a social nusiance - but because it actually is "WRONG".

First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Well, yes, God makes up the rules on an arbitary whim. (sort of the same as axioms in maths) However it has to be said that most christians I have met would say that the rules are of benefit to humanity.. i.e you will be happier if you follow them. In the Bible it says that God "loves" the world so I suppose that the rules should be designed so that they are beneficial. That could be taken as the resoning behind them I suppose.

 

[cogito]

I read your other thread and typed a response, but had a network problem. I have two major (though related) problems with this: First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Hooray for Euthyphro's question. Plato asked this originally, and it's been a headache for theists ever since.

 

[Locrian]

Hooray for Euthyphro's question. Plato asked this originally, and it's been a headache for theists ever since.

Hah yes. Except I thought Plato was relating Socrates asking the question?

Well, yes, God makes up the rules on an arbitary whim. (sort of the same as axioms in maths) However it has to be said that most christians I have met would say that the rules are of benefit to humanity.. i.e you will be happier if you follow them. In the Bible it says that God "loves" the world so I suppose that the rules should be designed so that they are beneficial. That could be taken as the resoning behind them I suppose.

You begin this paragraph saying the rules are arbitrary. By the end you have reasoned that, since God loves the world, that the rules aren't arbitrary. If you believe God would not make a rule that says, for instance, "it is good to kill other people's babies," then you believe that God has reasonings behind his ideas, and therefore his rules are not arbitrary.

In the interest of the discussion, would you care to expand on your view?

 

[Tigron-X]

I have two major (though related) problems with this: First, it appears contradictory: is it murder wrong simply because it appears in the Bible or is there some reason why its wrong? Ie, does God just make up these rules on an arbitrary whim?

If the answer to that question is no (ie, God has a reason why murder should be wrong and that reason makes logical sense), why do we need to base morality on God - why can't we base morality on reason?

Well, we basically do and it all depends on how you look at it. A lot of people see God as the All Knowing Being while we look at ourselves and see beings that have a lot to learn. So, should we base our reasonings of judgment on our lack of understanding or should we look to a Divine Truth?

 

[Tigron-X]

Atheism is best compared with the term theism for clarification.

Theism is a position in which there is belief in a god or many gods.
Atheism is a position in which there is a lack of belief in a god or many gods.

I do not know of any religion which lacks belief in some god, either historical or present. In this sense, atheism cannot be deemed a religion.

mmm... Quakers?
I could be wrong on that...

Those who say that atheism is a religion do the term "religion" a great injustice. Religion includes many possible individual and social aspects and values, while the definition of atheism includes only one - that you do not believe in a god or gods.

Religion can include many different cultural interpretations, many different moral values, even different belief systems. To be an atheist, one must only not believe in God.

Until recently I would have agreed with ARtorius and said that atheism prohibits religion. I am no longer so sure. An atheist can sometimes acquire a set of cultural customs and values that seem very "religious." Take the Church of Freethought, for example. These people gather weekly, discuss issues, work on charitable projects together, support each other and do many of the things a religious organization do. Am I to tell them they have no religion? I am undecided.

What I do know is that not all atheists have these cultural customs and values. In fact, many atheists lack any belief or custom usually associated with religion. I cannot repeat enough; those who defiantly state that atheism is a religion are incorrect, because the two words describe very different things that overlap much less than people suggest.

Actually I'd have to disagree with you saying that by claiming atheism as a religion it does a great injustice to the term. One's beliefs on life influences his/her values, social behavior, and all decisions that a person makes or will make. These beliefs are what you claim define a religion, however at the basis of those beliefs is the core belief of what one defines as his/her governing principal whether it be God, a diety or dieties, or lack there of. And as for those lacking such beliefs, one cannot live without a governing principal so he/she does have a higher power that is followed, but it isn't claimed as your traditional beliefs in God, god, or gods. Because it isn't a traditional religion it can't be claimed as a religion? I wasn't aware of that rule.

 

[saviourmachine]

the core belief of what one defines as his/her governing principal whether it be God, a diety or dieties

What you define as 'core' others don't regard as such. What is the difference between me - agnost - and a deist? (Most often) just some rational explanation how the universe came to be. Is that important? Is that something you would assign the loaded term 'belief' to? My belief in life, sex, music and myself is much stronger than my agnostic(!) belief in a supernatural being. It's a very tiny aspect of my personality.

 

[Locrian]

Because it isn't a traditional religion it can't be claimed as a religion? I wasn't aware of that rule.

Well that isn't suprising; you don't seem to be interested in using a definition of religion that already exists, so why should you be aware of what it says?

You state that a person must have a governing principle, but provide no reason for someone to believe this. I see no reason for that to be true at all, since there are times in my life where it didn't apply. You want to stretch the definition of religion to include anything, but all that does is reduce the definition to meaninglessness.

In the end you are still left with the fact that religion includes a large number of attributes that the term atheist does not describe. You can try to force a belief of some kind on someone by making vague statements like that of the governing principle, but how you will force culture, values and social interactions on them is beyond me. Since there are atheists who don't have these attributes, your statement that atheism is a religion is unfounded.

This is a very common tactic I see employed. In an effort to get a rise out of atheists, people go on a great crusade to redefine and reduce the term religion until they can somehow get it to apply. It seems to me a rather self destructive errand.

 

[Tigron-X]

What you define as 'core' others don't regard as such. What is the difference between me - agnost - and a deist? (Most often) just some rational explanation how the universe came to be. Is that important? Is that something you would assign the loaded term 'belief' to? My belief in life, sex, music and myself is much stronger than my agnostic(!) belief in a supernatural being. It's a very tiny aspect of my personality.

Of course it is. You are your own being. I was talking about the influence it has on one's character which inturn influences personality. Perspective is reality, or better said, individual reality. One's beliefs influence the way he/she sees the world, and thus rules are set on how one will behave. If one's behavior does not return an experience that fullfills one of Life's needs, then the consequences of such actions can influence one's beliefs until Life's needs are met.

Well that isn't suprising; you don't seem to be interested in using a definition of religion that already exists, so why should you be aware of what it says?

You state that a person must have a governing principle, but provide no reason for someone to believe this. I see no reason for that to be true at all, since there are times in my life where it didn't apply. You want to stretch the definition of religion to include anything, but all that does is reduce the definition to meaninglessness.

In the end you are still left with the fact that religion includes a large number of attributes that the term atheist does not describe. You can try to force a belief of some kind on someone by making vague statements like that of the governing principle, but how you will force culture, values and social interactions on them is beyond me. Since there are atheists who don't have these attributes, your statement that atheism is a religion is unfounded.

This is a very common tactic I see employed. In an effort to get a rise out of atheists, people go on a great crusade to redefine and reduce the term religion until they can somehow get it to apply. It seems to me a rather self destructive errand.

Well first off, I like to think about what I believe in all the time so I can increase my awareness, and I respect atheism because of the thoughts it produces, but I also see the limits it can produce as well. The same goes for known religions. Anyhow, the only rise I want is an intellectual one no matter how stupid you may think I am. lol...

Anyhow... No, I've read the definition and understood what it's defining. It tends to deal with spiritual content with respect to one's beliefs in a higher power and/or life, and I think it's pretty safe for me to say that everyone has beliefs. From my observation, in most conversations religion is usually associated with belief(s) in God or a diety/dieties. Now, couldn't one consider that the absence of such beliefs is still a belief with respect to spirtual content? In other words, isn't zero still considered a number? If one asked another person who holds atheistic beliefs what religion he/she is, then could that person not respond with, "I'm Athiest."? And, couldn't a person who says, "No Religion," be considered as one who has atheistic beliefs?

Now, according to you, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you say that Atheism cannot be considered a religion because there isn't an Atheist book out there that describes how an Athiest should live; a book that would define culture, values, and/or behavior. Last I checked, the definition of religion doesn't speak of needing a book or anything of that sort. The definition of religion doesn't speak of needing a set defined culture, value, or expected behavior. The type of religion does that; Christianity, Budhism, Muslim, and so on. Everybody has culture, values, and behaviors that are defined by his/her beliefs whether he/she can state and define them to you or not when specifically asked.

The great thing about Athiesm as compared to other types of religions is that the belief does not have a set of beliefs tagged on with it and people are more open to think for themselves, but at the same time one can miss the principals taught in other types of religion. In that instance, one can have trouble thinking beyond him/her-self or humanity. Beliefs limit awareness.

Also, one's instincts are influenced by beliefs. And no matter how big someones ego is, he/she cannot truly come to believe that he/she or humanity is the highest form of intelligence in existence because our instinct won't let us due to the fact we learn on a daily basis and in various ways. The very knowledge of the forces acting upon us or within us can only be seen depending on an individual's sense of awareness.

Governing Principals are the Laws that govern Life and existence. Beliefs are our interpretations of the Laws as we learn to influence our experienced consequences. Values are the order of importance to these beliefs. Morality is judgment on which value set is better.

 

[GONE2UCF]

Your morals are created according to your values.

 

[Locrian]

Now, according to you, (and correct me if I'm wrong), you say that Atheism cannot be considered a religion because there isn't an Atheist book out there that describes how an Athiest should live; a book that would define culture, values, and/or behavior.

No. I never said anything about a book, anywhere. Although you have part of my ideas correct, adding that extraneous information suggests you don't understand all of them.

Last I checked, the definition of religion doesn't speak of needing a book or anything of that sort.

No, but it does speak of beliefs and practices, a part of the definition you continue to ignore. No amount of typing is going to make the definition of religion any smaller. Neither will it make the definition of atheism any larger. I've met people who aren't atheists who are not religious. You would take that from them. I've met atheists who are not religious. Who are you to deny them that?

This talk about governing principles is off topic and not meaningful to the question at hand. You would like to define them in a way that everyone has them, yet it is plainly obvious to me that there are people who have little or no grasp of morals at all.

This need of yours to make everyone like you disturbs me.

 

[Tigron-X]

No. I never said anything about a book, anywhere. Although you have part of my ideas correct, adding that extraneous information suggests you don't understand all of them.



No, but it does speak of beliefs and practices, a part of the definition you continue to ignore. No amount of typing is going to make the definition of religion any smaller. Neither will it make the definition of atheism any larger. I've met people who aren't atheists who are not religious. You would take that from them. I've met atheists who are not religious. Who are you to deny them that?

This talk about governing principles is off topic and not meaningful to the question at hand. You would like to define them in a way that everyone has them, yet it is plainly obvious to me that there are people who have little or no grasp of morals at all.

This need of yours to make everyone like you disturbs me.

Nah, everyone loves me. :P

No, they might not have the grasps of your morality.

Do me a favor and define religion, beliefs, and practices. Also, explain to me the difference between religious beliefs and beliefs. Also define awareness and what changes one's awareness. Define mindset and values. Please define all these with your own words. And also please explain to me how they all relate.

 

[Locrian]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Why not start with that? To make a case that atheism is a religion you must do much more than show it can meet those guidelines, you must show it always does meet those guidelines (guidelines meaning one of the above definitions). Goodluck.

Also define awareness and what changes one's awareness. Define mindset and values.

Very funny. I see no part these things play in the current discussion. Maybe you could look them up in the above link? I don't forsee your succesfully including them. If you do, we'll worry about defining them carefully then. You keep trying to bring off topic subjects into this. I'm not so naive as to allow it. In the end, the word atheism describes very little, while the word religion describes a wider set of things (regardless of what you choose for them). Whether a god exists can certainly be a part of religion. Reading the Bible can be part of a religion. This does not mean that atheism is a religion any more than reading the bible is a religion.

It is just that simple.

 

[Tigron-X]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

Why not start with that? To make a case that atheism is a religion you must do much more than show it can meet those guidelines, you must show it always does meet those guidelines (guidelines meaning one of the above definitions). Goodluck.

Uhh... You could go with the third or forth definition. One can be his/her own spiritual leader. I'm glad you put the definition in your own words.

[Very funny. I see no part these things play in the current discussion. Maybe you could look them up in the above link? I don't forsee your succesfully including them. If you do, we'll worry about defining them carefully then. You keep trying to bring off topic subjects into this. I'm not so naive as to allow it. In the end, the word atheism describes very little, while the word religion describes a wider set of things (regardless of what you choose for them). Whether a god exists can certainly be a part of religion. Reading the Bible can be part of a religion. This does not mean that atheism is a religion any more than reading the bible is a religion.

It is just that simple.

Well, would you at least take a look then? And since you won't define "religion" in your own words would you at least state the purpose for religion?

All other religions such as Christianity, Budhism, Judhism, Wicca and so on describe very little just as Atheism does. Reading the Bible is studying a religion, and thus part of a religion but not the religion. Christianity is the belief that Jesus is Lord and Savior. So seeing how Atheism is a type of religion it isn't going to have the same definition as religion. The set of beliefs that go with Atheism tend to be "No God or god", "evolution", and/or "other scientific theories". Values tend to come from humanity or society. The practice is expanding the knowledge on these. If you want to say you know people that don't practice these things. That's the same thing as a Christian saying he/she doesn't read the Bible or go to Church. Does that make him/her not a Chrisitan? Of course not, because it's his/her beliefs that determine his/her religion. Anything else pretty much determines his/her denomination.

I can consider a person with atheistic beliefs without a set denomination rather than lacking a religion.

 

[Leon]

Who cares? What's important is that atheists will define any morality they have according to human reason or human feelings, and religious people will define it according to something from without. It doesn't matter whether atheism is considered a religion or not, I think the subject of this thread presupposes that it isn't since if it was EVERYONE could be considered to be religious.

Personally I think that atheism has no real foundation to base morality on. Sure, if a morality could be based entirely on reason then I would possibly be convinced. But so far I haven't seen such a thing; they all involve a value judgement. In which case, the 'morality' is nothing but personal preference, unless one begins with the same irrational belief in the value of something.
In the spirit of honest inquiry, can anyone present a clear morality based on pure reason with no value judgement at its foundation?

 

[russ_watters]

It doesn't appear to me that athiesm fits any of those definitions.

Uhh... You could go with the third or forth definition. One can be his/her own spiritual leader.

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.

 

[Artorius]

In the spirit of honest inquiry, can anyone present a clear morality based on pure reason with no value judgement at its foundation?

Michael Shermer recently published a book entitled The Science of Good and Evil. He uses evolutionary theory to build a case for the development of morality in humans and his theory of "provisional morality." Provisional morality is presented as a compromise between the two extemes of transcedental morality (based on the supernatural or gods) and relative morality (morality is relative like motion is relative, in a sense). I haven't completely read it yet, but it is a good read so far.

 

[Locrian]

Uhh... You could go with the third or forth definition. One can be his/her own spiritual leader.

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.

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.

And since you won't define "religion" in your own words would you at least state the purpose for religion?

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.

All other religions such as Christianity, Budhism, Judhism, Wicca and so on describe very little just as Atheism does.

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 can consider a person with atheistic beliefs without a set denomination rather than lacking a religion.

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.

In any case,

Who cares?

Is probably a fair appraisal from an outside party at this point. The question of the subjectivity or relativity of morals of those without religion is of interest and I will respond to it in another post. I will not respond to the question of whether atheism is a religion unless a real, meaningful argument can be put for that it is one.

 

[Locrian]

In the spirit of honest inquiry, can anyone present a clear morality based on pure reason with no value judgement at its foundation?

I don't believe I can do this to your satisfaction, and I do not believe it is necessary. This is because I believe morality can be built upon with a very small number of value judgements that almost no one would disagree with - and those that would disagree would have no rational reason to do so. People are fundamentally very, very similar.

For examples of these moral constructs, see the Dalai Lama's "Ethics and the New Millinium" and "Elements of Moral Philosophy" by Rachels. These are good examples of how you can begin with a statement that, although it is difficult to argue with, seems too broad to be of any use morally. Then, through the use of reason, you can build a strong moral foundation. I find these kinds of moral foundations laid out in the above books to be far stronger than the christian one I was raised on.

Now I claim that atheists can have a moral structure. I makes no claim they do. 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. A moral code developed without religion will have many things in common with religion, but it will have differences. For this reason, religious people do not want it taught. This leaves society in the unpleasant position of having people who, since they do not have a religion and have never been taught morality without religion, have very few morals. This is something I'd like to see altered in the future.

 

[arildno]

I would like to add that having a prescriptive judgment from an imagined God as the source of your morality, happens to be deeply problematic from a moral point of view.
It means, that basically, welfare,happiness&the lives of humans are morally irrelevant concerns (they are to be swept aside if your God tells you to do so).

Personally, I regard humans who base their morality on prescriptive religion to be morally immature individuals.

 

[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