Hmmm... Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It is simply the lack of a single belief, namely that of the existence of a divine, supernatural being. If atheism is a religion, then a-unicornism (Unicorns don't exist) is a religion...

Just my two cents! Peace!!!

Whe I say "to serve the world" I mean serving money and/or yourself before anything else. I mean it in the sense that jesus put it in that you put worldly possesions before Godly possesions. When one becomes of the world everything they have can be taken away in an instant, but an individual who is of God has their life stored in heaven, it is a little difficult to understand without studying it though. As for environmentalism and humanism, yes, some of them are atheists too, they may not put themselves first, but they do put worldly belongings before God, to make them of the world. Anyways, I hope I explained it enough.

First of all, to serve something doesn't make it a religion. Are the men and women in the armed services part of a distinct religion? (militarism?) Are butlers and maids part of a distinct religion? obviously not!
And what's wrong with "serving the world" (sic) when we (mostly) believe that "the world" (that is, they physical universe) is all that there is. It would make no sense for us to serve something we don't believe exists!

peace to all!

ok. Atheism is not a religion. My personal view of a religion is something where you go someplace to worship a being greater than you. you essentially say "you are so much more awesome than me, and I trust you will make everything right." Atheism on the other hand is simply "there may or may not be something greater than me, but if there isn't, i am not going to have wasted my time." besides. depending on how you want to look at it, atheism is the best bet. if your an atheist and you are right, then you didn't kill time your whole life going to a building to talk to yourself (not a slam, just the reality if this case were true). If you are an atheist and are wrong, then this all merciful being will forgive you for not worshiping it, knowing that your mind was unable to comprehend the full awesomeness of this beings power, in which case you are still going to be "saved"

but back to the origional question. No, i do not think atheism is a religion.

I think it is most correct to define "religious statements" and then to observe that such statements are a form of "religious behavior", suggesting some form of "religion". In my opinion, a "religious statement" has the following characteristics. It purports to be a statement of fact and it is not a logical statement, that is, it is not presented as a theorem in a clearly defined logical system which can be derived from that system's axioms.

I don't think that this is necessarily true. I think that the big dispute between various religions and atheism isn't so much logic vs. faith, but rather all make logical inferences from different axioms that are taken on faith.

For example, take Christianity. One of their axioms is: God punishes evil doers. Other axioms define evil (in various degrees of ambiguity). A logical statement in the Christianity mindset, then, is that if I have acted in ways that are (by the axioms' definition) evil, I will be punished. The distinguishing thing about atheism is that its axioms are all empirical or are consistent with observations. Atheists generally trust their senses, or trust people that trust their senses, or trust people that trust people...etc. Yes, but then, are their senses trustworthy?

If their basis for avoiding solipsism is to assume the world exists and that their senses actually report information from it, how does this differ from any other religious belief which asserts the same thing? I can see that, by simply assuming the existence of the world and the trustworthiness of the senses, instead of, for example, asserting the existence of God and deriving these beliefs from that assertion, they may claim to be applying Occam's razor; but how are they any better off in actuality? Is not their entire existence based on assumptions which cannot be proven (or disproven)?

Also, how does this relate to *atheism*, that is, to the denial of the existence of God? Are we to understand that they start from the axiom "God does not exist" and conclude that the world does exist and that their senses are trustworthy? Somehow, that appears unlikely. I don't think you people are describing atheists, I think you are describing agnostics who, not being able to decide, have put the question of God's existence to one side and decided to get on with their lives. So the question becomes a purely semantic one.

The beliefs of the various systems that are generally agreed to be religions are isomorphic to those of atheists, agnostics, etc. Of course, so is any belief system. When "religion" is generalized enough to be equivalent to "philosophy" or "belief system" then it is no longer a useful term. Let's not do that. When it is specified a little more, it could either mean a belief system that includes axioms that are not based on any observable phenomena. This sounds good to atheists, I think.

But many Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. claim to be able to observe evidence of their religions, and there's no way to dispute those claims, even if one is skeptical. When specified further, it can be defined as a system that includes a certain view (either axiomatic or inferred) about sentient beings that are superior to humans. This brings its own problems. Atheists would then be considered religious

I don't believe atheism is a religion. I was atheist for the first portion of my college career and I didn't worship anything, I never thought about it or anything.

I simply lived life the way that I thought it should be lived, without any type of religious thoughts influencing my actions. It's typical for most religions to have some sort of influence on the actions you do, because Religion would like nothing more than to control everything you do.


I always thought of atheism as an escape from organized religion, because it's soooo messed up.

As rayzoredge said, the definition of religion includes "a set of beliefs." To deny this is to be unreasonable: you would be committing a logical fallacy known as "appealing to consequences." However, no matter what, there will be those who will continue being unreasonable.


You cannot say that atheism describes someone without a belief or set of beliefs and then go on to say that these very same people can have beliefs. We all know that an atheist has at least one belief.


Lacking one belief does not prove that atheism does not contain a set of beliefs. If it denies (a) divine being(s) or creator(s), then it is part of atheism; doesn't matter how it denies such (a) being(s).

I can't think of a more wrong thing anybody has ever said in the history of the world ever.
In the bible it states that you must NOT use God's name in vain.

How many times do you hear christians say

OH MY GOD!
For god's sake!(or if theyre awesome, for the sake of revenge)

Lots, cos it's just a saying... Just like that's just a saying. You ask god for help and nothing happens. Cos it's just a saying and God is imaginary.