Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.

Look, I am saying it is neither. It is like saying being human means you are American. There are humans who are Americans, humans who are not Americans, but defining the whole as Americans is foolish. The same applies to my argument. But perhaps I better rephrase. Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.

Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography? Where is the anything that would define something as a religion?

Are these requisite for religion?

Warbler said:

btw, I looks up the definition of religion:

1

a : the state of a religious religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Hmmmm...nope, those are not required traits you mentioned.

Arguing that it's even vaguely similar is a bit silly.

But there is in fact similarity in many areas. Take for instance the extremely dogmatic view that so many atheists adopt, including you. To be an atheist, you must not believe in any divine being, or anything supernatural, or practice any rituals, or have any clergy. You must accept that humans descended from primates. You must accept that there is no afterlife. You must accept that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, that the universe is 14 billion years old. Some might even adopt the view that all religious persons are ignorant, whether willfully or not.

Do not such strict demands on the definition of atheism not sound something like a creed?

We can find other parallels. You ask about priests. There are no atheist priests, but what is a priest beyond being a religious authority. Are there not authorities in the atheist world? The Dawkinses of the world could be considered as having an analogous role. How about rituals? We humans thrive on rituals and symbols, even atheists. How many atheists celebrate Christmas, Easter, and other holidays rooted in Christianity and paganism? How many find self affirmation through other common rituals, celebrating humanity, nature, birth, etc.? How many even turn to religion-bashing for self-affirmation, putting up posters every Christmas season why we do not need Christ to celebrate Christmas? Here is an article worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/27/why-non-believers-need-rituals-atheists

What else did you say? Let's see, creation myths! May I ask you, if you met an atheist who did not believe mankind evolved from apes but instead was planted as a scientific experiment by aliens, would you say he is not an atheist? And as you answer, consider that his atheism is not on trial in this scenario, but rather yours, as you may in fact be subscribing to a dogmatic creation story And while it may be very scientifically based with much supporting evidence, is it not still just as firmly entrenched in your mind as the only acceptable belief for one to be considered a "true" atheist?

Now let me draw some more comparisons. I had a patient very recently who did not believe in any god. She did not worship anything, practice any rituals, believe in an afterlife, or follow any clergy. And yet, when I asked the question, "Are there any religious or spiritual requests you have while you are in the hospital?" She said, "I'm not religious, but I I am spiritual: I believe in nature. I love to hike and be among the trees."

Is she atheist? Yes, in fact she is. She does not believe nature had any supernatural properties, but found spiritual fulfillment by being with nature. Now she is not religious per se, but she is spiritual. And she is an atheist.

Can we take it a step further? Could she and a group of others in fact develop a system of beliefs and holidays and even rituals surrounding their adoration of the natural world whilst remaining "without god" or anything else supernatural? Clearly she can.

Now let me refer you to the following article, and I encourage you to read it.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/AtheismReligion.htm

The article says:

Atheism is not the same as being irreligious; theism is not the same as being religious. Atheists in the West tend not to belong to any religion, but atheism is quite compatible with religion.

....

To understand why, it is necessary to keep in mind that atheism is nothing more than absence belief in the existence of gods. Atheism is not the absence of religion, the absence of belief in the supernatural, the absence of superstitions, the absence of irrational beliefs, etc. Because of this, there is no inherent barrier preventing atheism from being part of a religious belief system

When I attended the University of Arizona, I recall an article written by a fellow named Taylor Kessinger. I've not been successful in finding it thus far (I referred to it once before), but his condemnation of "superstitious" atheists led to a surprising backlash. Yes, my friend, religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and the more you try to pin your narrow definition onto what you feel atheism should be, the more you prove my point by adopting and advocating for such a strict, almost doctrinal position.

[JEDIT: Found the article. I guess they must have been reworking their archives last time I looked.

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2008/09/a_rational_response_to_atheists

The many replies he got were in the physical newspaper and are not online, unfortunately.]

In fact many religious persons and religions are atheistic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Secularism_and_irreligion

My point to all this is not to say atheism is another religion. I am not of that crowd that says it takes just as much faith to believe there is no God, etc., etc. I am saying that there are parallels, aspects that could be considered spiritual or religious in nature, and religions that are in fact atheistic. So again I say:

darth_endersaid:

atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.

Along with this I add my clarification from earlier in this lost:

Atheism is not a religion, but it is not necessarily the absence of religion.