The Most Logical Religion

[PointOfViewGun]

Your misunderstanding of it you mean.

Which you've failed to establish, hence, resorting to such one liners as you did so many times in this thread. Don't cover the failure of your arguments with such pointless attacks. It makes me feel like we're making this discussion in an elementary school courtyard and that the next one liner from you will "Your mom!". That is the level of your arguments, I'm sorry.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Evil westerners!

Are you ?

[basics]

" So how does that make like Jesus said 'worship me !' ?"

LestaT,

The answer is that He is God. Just as Gabriel told Mary that she would call Him Immanuel meaning God with us. Just as He is the only mercy man gets from God in that by rejecting Him man is lost. He is telling you that your sins, your fallen nature must be removed before death because there is no mercy after. To believe that God will let you enter this paradise you look for as a sinner just cannot happen because not one ounce of sin can enter heaven. Mercy in Christ's blood has to come first. There isn't any other way. The Scriptures are quite clear about that.

[Himster]

You don't believe that universe has a divine purpose or that there is no god that could create it. So, you do have a set of beliefs concerning the universe's nature.

There are atheistic religions (there are atheists who believe the universe has a metaphysical purpose), however atheism is not a religion: there is no unifying set of beliefs that are shared by all atheists. Atheism isn't a religion for the same reason theism isn't a religion.

That the universe was not created by a deity, that life came into existence without any external force, as in a deity, involvement,

Some atheists think that: not all. An atheist could believe that future humans based on the current trajectory of our technological advancement are destined to create a/the universe as time may be cyclical. Or maybe an atheist could be solipsistic and believe that the universe is a projection of his/her mind. There is no unifying atheistic religion, there are many, hypothetically infinite, exactly the same as theism.

that all claims of divine involvement in mankind, such as the ones made by prophets, are false.

There is a subtle but important distinction between false and unsubstantiated.

Except your belief about having two stakes in the refrigerator says nothing about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, so, no, it's not a religion.

You could very well be worshiping a steak as the creator of the universe. Nobody said that every religion had to make sense.

Exactly: atheists can be religious: there is no unifying set of beliefs shared by all atheists, atheism doesn't qualify as a religion just as theism doesn't. Theists share only one belief (not a set of beliefs) and atheists share only one non-belief or a belief that there are no Gods, not a set of beliefs, there isn't even one kind of atheist.

It really is when we talk about dichotomies. Existence is one. Something either exists or doesn't exist. If you disbelief in one, you believe in the opposite.

Non-belief (which is inherently inactive) is not synonymous with belief in non-existence (which is an active belief).
If someone never heard of God that person would be an atheist by definition, that doesn't mean that person believes no Gods exist, that would be absurd.

It really is:

Ok, please enlighten us: what set of beliefs do all atheists share? Oh, there are none, there is only one shared non-belief. That's the end of that argument.

[Taiji]

For everyone (from the Oxford Dictionary site):

religion
Line breaks: re|li¦gion
Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n /
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
1The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1 [COUNT NOUN] A particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
1.2 [COUNT NOUN] A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense 'life under monastic vows'): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n-) 'obligation, bond, reverence', perhaps based on Latin religare 'to bind'.

----------

logical
Line breaks: lo|gic¦al
Pronunciation: /ˈlɒdʒɪk(ə)l /
ADJECTIVE

1Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument:
a logical impossibility
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.1Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning:
her logical mind
the information is displayed in a simple and logical fashion
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS
1.2(Of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances:
the polar expedition is a logical extension of his Arctic travels
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
SYNONYMS

[PlPs]

So, you're telling us, if a religion is logical that means that religion is the True Religion?

You must know that a religion doesn't have to be logical at all. It's Faith not philosophy


Anyway, I really really don't understand the people who voted "Christianity is logical" lol (no offence but that made me laugh)

Like I said, a Religion doesn't have to be logical. There is two options for you, you believe or not believe, that's all.

[Aeneas Veneratio]

The foundation of this thread is wrong. The question should be "what is the most logical stance?" and the poll options should be "agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, agnostic deism, ignoctism, apatheism, gnostic atheism, gnostic theism and gnostic deism".

re·li·gion

[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional andritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons orsects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

1. Atheim has none of that. 2. No practices are reached by having a non-belief. 3. Atheists don't use atheism to adhere to anything. 4. N/A. 5. No agreed upon practice of religious beliefs shared by atheists. You lost...

[Taiji]

I think that if we're asking people for the most logically correct stance on something then, assuming one doesn't already have all the answers, it might be a good idea not to include a poll.

[Denny Crane!]

"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong,
then Buddhism will have to change,"
-His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

[PointOfViewGun]

There are atheistic religions (there are atheists who believe the universe has a metaphysical purpose), however atheism is not a religion: there is no unifying set of beliefs that are shared by all atheists. Atheism isn't a religion for the same reason theism isn't a religion.

Some atheists think that: not all. An atheist could believe that future humans based on the current trajectory of our technological advancement are destined to create a/the universe as time may be cyclical. Or maybe an atheist could be solipsistic and believe that the universe is a projection of his/her mind. There is no unifying atheistic religion, there are many, hypothetically infinite, exactly the same as theism.

All atheists believe that if they're not secretly theists. Religion is about "the universe" which is this one we live in, not some new one humans could create. People who live in that universe could very well worship humans for that but its beside the point. All atheists share those beliefs that I listed. The unifying belief is the non-existence of a god, the same way theism has the belief in existence of a god.

There is a subtle but important distinction between false and unsubstantiated.

And as long as a claim is unsubstantiated it's regarded as false until it's proven true.

Exactly: atheists can be religious: there is no unifying set of beliefs shared by all atheists, atheism doesn't qualify as a religion just as theism doesn't. Theists share only one belief (not a set of beliefs) and atheists share only one non-belief or a belief that there are no Gods, not a set of beliefs, there isn't even one kind of atheist.

We call atheism a religion because of those distinctions not being clear yet. In truth, atheism is a collection of unorganized religions.

Non-belief (which is inherently inactive) is not synonymous with belief in non-existence (which is an active belief).
If someone never heard of God that person would be an atheist by definition, that doesn't mean that person believes no Gods exist, that would be absurd.

It's not inactive at all as it surely is belief in the opposite if we talk about dichotomies, which existence is. A person who have never heard of or developed the concept of a god then s/he's neither atheist nor theist. Those people are simply irrelevant to the question the same way a calculator's gender is irrelevant.

Ok, please enlighten us: what set of beliefs do all atheists share? Oh, there are none, there is only one shared non-belief. That's the end of that argument.

What's the point of asking this question when you're already discussing the answer to that question in the very same post?

The foundation of this thread is wrong. The question should be "what is the most logical stance?" and the poll options should be "agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, agnostic deism, ignoctism, apatheism, gnostic atheism, gnostic theism and gnostic deism".

1. Atheim has none of that. 2. No practices are reached by having a non-belief. 3. Atheists don't use atheism to adhere to anything. 4. N/A. 5. No agreed upon practice of religious beliefs shared by atheists. You lost...

Well, you just showed us that you don't know how to read a dictionary... In dictionaries those different points are not required to be true for a particular concept at the same time. You're clearly not aware of that as I even highlighted the applicable one, the first one. From the perspective of the first point, I explained how atheism has all of "that" which Phier agreed with at least two of them. So, you should first go meet with to make sure you guys are on the same page.

[Himster]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes" - Pope John Paul II.
Combining religion and science makes science less like a religion (idolatry and false absolutes)....... how does that make sense?
Gotta give the win of this bout to the Buddhists.

[Himster]

All atheists believe that if they're not secretly theists. Religion is about "the universe" which is this one we live in, not some new one humans could create. People who live in that universe could very well worship humans for that but its beside the point. All atheists share those beliefs that I listed.
And as long as a claim is unsubstantiated it's regarded as false until it's proven true.

Only stupid people believe the unproven is proven to be false. Are you trying to say all atheists are such stupid people? There's no need to be mean. (I don't deny that some atheists are stupid, but to call us all stupid.... aww dude).
Atheists have A unifying belief/non-belief; as theists have A unifying belief, neither are religions as neither necessarily have a SET of beliefs. There are atheistic religions just as there are theistic religions.

The unifying belief is the non-existence of a god

Not all atheists believe that. Many atheists accept the possibility of a God, but have not seen evidence to convince them of the existence of such a being, some atheists have never heard of a God, other atheists believe in the non-existence of God.

If you insist on making up the position that you wish to argue against, why do you do it with other people, surely it would make more sense to just do it on your own?

We call atheism a religion because of those distinctions not being clear yet. In truth, atheism is a collection of unorganized religions.

I can tell you those distinctions are clear. You can choose to believe me or you can choose to make up a strawman atheist position and pretend it magically applies to all atheists even though we've informed you that that is not our position, you have over-generalized your opposition to an absurd caricature. That is not conducive to a reasonable conversation or debate.

It's not inactive at all as it surely is belief in the opposite if we talk about dichotomies, which existence is. A person who have never heard of or developed the concept of a god then s/he's neither atheist nor theist. Those people are simply irrelevant to the question the same way a calculator's gender is irrelevant.

A dichotomy is defined most simply as a distinction between A and everything not-A. Someone who has never heard of a god has to be an atheist, just as something that is not symmetrical is asymmetrical
They are of course atheists. atheist is synonymous with non-theist just as asymmetrical is synonymous with non-symmetrical.
It's perfectly clear that those who have never heard of the concept of God are atheists, how can they actively believe in the non-existence of something they have no conception of? They also have to be agnostic, they have to ahistorical, those without language are a-lingual, if they have no sexuality they are asexual, and on and on and on. Why would the prefix "a" mean something completely different for atheism? Are you seriously trying to form an argument based on special pleading?

What's the point of asking this question when you're already discussing the answer to that question in the very same post?

Are rhetorical questions pointless? No.

[PointOfViewGun]

Only stupid people believe the unproven is proven to be false. Are you trying to say all atheists are such stupid people? There's no need to be mean. (I don't deny that some atheists are stupid, but to call us all stupid.... aww dude).
Atheists have A unifying belief/non-belief; as theists have A unifying belief, neither are religions as neither necessarily have a SET of beliefs. There are atheistic religions just as there are theistic religions.

That's a connection you're making, not me.

Not all atheists believe that. Many atheists accept the possibility of a God, but have not seen evidence to convince them of the existence of such a being, some atheists have never heard of a God, other atheists believe in the non-existence of God.

If you insist on making up the position that you wish to argue against, why do you do it with other people, surely it would make more sense to just do it on your own?

Then they're not atheists. Simple as that.

What kind of question is that? It makes no sense.

I can tell you those distinctions are clear. You can choose to believe me or you can choose to make up a strawman atheist position and pretend it magically applies to all atheists even though we've informed you that that is not our position, you have over-generalized your opposition to an absurd caricature. That is not conducive to a reasonable conversation or debate.

I'm not making a case about atheist's position. I'm making a case about their belief. The two are different.

A dichotomy is defined most simply as a distinction between A and everything not-A. Someone who has never heard of a god has to be an atheist, just as something that is not symmetrical is asymmetrical
They are of course atheists. atheist is synonymous with non-theist just as asymmetrical is synonymous with non-symmetrical.
It's perfectly clear that those who have never heard of the concept of God are atheists, how can they actively believe in the non-existence of something they have no conception of? They also have to be agnostic, they have to ahistorical, those without language are a-lingual, if they have no sexuality they are asexual, and on and on and on. Why would the prefix "a" mean something completely different for atheism? Are you seriously trying to form an argument based on special pleading?

Dichotomy is simply division into two mutually exclusive parts. Neither Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster nor Oxford use the definition you're trying to use. You're merely trying to bend it. Moreover, Oxford even has an entry for non-theist which it doesn't list as a synonym for atheist. So, no, atheist is not a synonym with non-theist. Same goes for thesaurus.

Your argument about the use of the a- prefix doesn't make much sense because the examples you give don't support it much. A- prefix doesn't certainly cover everything that's not the subject of the word. There are many things that are not sexual or asexual, for example. Neither terms are applicable to many things. Same goes for theism and atheism. A person who has no concept of a god is not applicable to either term. He is neither a theist or atheist. Nobody said that such a person actively believing in the non-existence of a god. That person truly lacks any belief as he's completely incompatible with the question of believing in a god. Your examples; alingual is only applicable to things that are capable of linguistics, asexual is only applicable to things that can have a gender, and so on. It makes as much sense as calling rain alingual. It's neither lingual or alingual.

[Himster]

Then they're not atheists. Simple as that.

I don't believe in God: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the non-existence of God, my beliefs surrounding God (in it's broadest terms) are non-existent. It's as simple as that.

I'm not making a case about atheist's position. I'm making a case about their belief. The two are different.

You are claiming that all atheists believe in the non-existence of God. This is demonstrably false by my existence and the existence of many atheists.

Dichotomy is simply division into two mutually exclusive parts. Neither Dictionary nor Merriam-Webster nor Oxford use the definition you're trying to use. You're merely trying to bend it.

I'm being specific. There are many kinds of dichotomies.

Moreover, Oxford even has an entry for non-theist which it doesn't list as a synonym for atheist. So, no, atheist is not a synonym with non-theist. Same goes for thesaurus.

Not all synonyms are listed. "non" and "a" are synonyms, even a basic knowledge of English makes this clear.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a-

prefix
without or not: used with some adjectives and adverbs

a-

6variant of an-1 . before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”: amoral; atonal; achromatic.

a- or ( before a vowel) an- 1
— prefix
	not; without; opposite to: atonal ; asocial
[from Greek a-, an- not, without]

non-


a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force asimplying mere negation or absence of something (rather than the opposite or reverse of it, as oftenexpressed by un


non-prefix1. indicating negation: nonexistent.
2. indicating refusal or failure: noncooperation.
3. indicating exclusion from a specified class of persons or things: nonfiction.
4. indicating lack or absence, esp of a quality associated with what is specified: nonobjective; nonevent.

[from Latin nōn not]

Your argument about the use of the a- prefix doesn't make much sense because the examples you give don't support it much. A- prefix doesn't certainly cover everything that's not the subject of the word. There are many things that are not sexual or asexual, for example. Neither terms are applicable to many things. Same goes for theism and atheism. A person who has no concept of a god is not applicable to either term. He is neither a theist or atheist. Nobody said that such a person actively believing in the non-existence of a god. Your examples; alingual is only applicable to things that are capable of linguistics, asexual is only applicable to things that can have a gender, and so on. It makes as much sense as calling rain alingual. It's neither lingual or alingual.

Theism and atheism/nontheism apply to humans given the fact that humans are capable of believing. Symmetrical and asymmetrical applies to objects and representations. Honestly do I have to explain what each dichotomy applies to? I thought it was pretty obvious.

"A" and "non" are clearly synonyms. That is not in question.

That person truly lacks any belief as he's completely incompatible with the question of believing in a god.

The question of course still applies: he/she is human he/she has the capacity to believe or not believe.
Ask such a person do you believe in God: the answer will be no.

[Lord Rahl]

Setekh, you have repeatedly failed to understand what the difference between a religion and a belief is.

Atheism is simply the non-belief in deities, just as theism is the belief in them. Atheism does not necessitate a bound set of multiple beliefs, and it can't since it is only one belief. For example, there's a person who's atheist and doesn't believe in deities but does believe in spirituality and the paranormal. There's another atheist who doesn't believe in the paranormal but in naturalism. You see, there is no set of beliefs inherent in atheism. Now, atheists do tend to prefer other beliefs that are associated with atheism, but those are separate beliefs. Religions have sets of beliefs, of dogma. There is no dogma in atheism because it is just one belief (even if atheists can be dogmatic).

[PointOfViewGun]

I don't believe in God: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the non-existence of God, my beliefs surrounding God (in it's broadest terms) are non-existent. It's as simple as that.

Than you believe that he doesn't exist. Simple.

You are claiming that all atheists believe in the non-existence of God. This is demonstrably false by my existence and the existence of many atheists.

It's an issue that can't be proven by what people claim.

I'm being specific. There are many kinds of dichotomies.

No, you're simply bending what it is. Existence and belief in it is a dichotomy that is in no way divided the way you want to divide it.

Not all synonyms are listed. "non" and "a" are synonyms, even a basic knowledge of English makes this clear.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

a-
prefix
without or not: used with some adjectives and adverbs

a-
6variant of an-1 . before a consonant, meaning “not,” “without”: amoral; atonal; achromatic.

a- or ( before a vowel) an- 1
— prefix
	not; without; opposite to: atonal ; asocial
[from Greek a-, an- not, without]

non-
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force asimplying mere negation or absence of something (rather than the opposite or reverse of it, as oftenexpressed by un

non-prefix1. indicating negation: nonexistent.
2. indicating refusal or failure: noncooperation.
3. indicating exclusion from a specified class of persons or things: nonfiction.
4. indicating lack or absence, esp of a quality associated with what is specified: nonobjective; nonevent.

[from Latin nōn not]

Theism and atheism/nontheism apply to humans given the fact that humans are capable of believing. Symmetrical and asymmetrical applies to objects and representations. Honestly do I have to explain what each dichotomy applies to? I thought it was pretty obvious.

"A" and "non" are clearly synonyms. That is not in question.

Strange how something you keep calling as synonyms are consistently not used in the sources out there. A- is even explained as being "opposite to". On the other hand, non- is often explained as a much weaker expression where opposition is explicitly avoided. Quite different for them to be synonyms.

The question of course still applies: he/she is human he/she has the capacity to believe or not believe.
Ask such a person do you believe in God: the answer will be no.

No. Such a person would have the capacity to believe or not. He or she would respond: "What's a god?" You can't answer a question you don't understand.

Setekh, you have repeatedly failed to understand what the difference between a religion and a belief is.

Atheism is simply the non-belief in deities, just as theism is the belief in them. Atheism does not necessitate a bound set of multiple beliefs, and it can't since it is only one belief. For example, there's a person who's atheist and doesn't believe in deities but does believe in spirituality and the paranormal. There's another atheist who doesn't believe in the paranormal but in naturalism. You see, there is no set of beliefs inherent in atheism. Now, atheists do tend to prefer other beliefs that are associated with atheism, but those are separate beliefs. Religions have sets of beliefs, of dogma. There is no dogma in atheism because it is just one belief (even if atheists can be dogmatic).

Sure, atheism involves much less points of belief but there are still a couple concerning the universe, deities and other topics like creation, etc. I'm merely using the definition of religion that I posted here from Dictionary.com which is primarily concerned with universe's cause, nature and purpose. Atheism necessitates that a god did not create the universe, that such a god does not exist, that such a universe does not have specific purpose set forth by such a god. That is a set of beliefs that all atheists have.

So, what is it that I'm not understanding? Keep in mind not agreeing with a claim of yours doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't understand it.

[Lord Rahl]

Sure, atheism involves much less points of belief but there are still a couple concerning the universe, deities and other topics like creation, etc. I'm merely using the definition of religion that I posted here from Dictionary.com which is primarily concerned with universe's cause, nature and purpose. Atheism necessitates that a god did not create the universe, that such a god does not exist, that such a universe does not have specific purpose set forth by such a god. That is a set of beliefs that all atheists have.

But they aren't atheist beliefs specifically. You are imposing beliefs associated with atheism and making them one. So, you're making atheism what it isn't and then using that incorrect definition to suit your arguments. Just as theism is not a religion, atheism is not either. There are religions that come from theism, but I don't know of any religions that come from atheism.

So, what is it that I'm not understanding? Keep in mind not agreeing with a claim of yours doesn't necessarily mean the person doesn't understand it.

True, but in my mind, either you don't understand what atheism is and therefore don't understand why it isn't a religion or you're arguing that it is a religion to discredit it.

[High Fist]

So, you're just gonna arbitrarily ignore the definition I provided?

While you do the same with mine? What you're saying by falling back on that definition of religion, is that religion can be any belief, or any set of beliefs, explaining the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. That simply isn't true. I can see where you get confused, but that is not a rule.

Than you believe that he doesn't exist. Simple.

Agreed.

It's an issue that can't be proven by what people claim.

It's not really an issue though. Not an important one anyway.

[PointOfViewGun]

But they aren't atheist beliefs specifically. You are imposing beliefs associated with atheism and making them one. So, you're making atheism what it isn't and then using that incorrect definition to suit your arguments. Just as theism is not a religion, atheism is not either. There are religions that come from theism, but I don't know of any religions that come from atheism.

True, but in my mind, either you don't understand what atheism is and therefore don't understand why it isn't a religion or you're arguing that it is a religion to discredit it.

Or I'm just not arguing with you on what atheism is and yet to hear a coherent argument on why I'm wrong. The beliefs I listed are what I see as the common denominator of atheism. For that and for the fact that its mostly unorganized, as I explained earlier to Himster, atheism could be seen as a religion. More accurately, of course, its a type of religion. So, in the absence of an organized environment it can be used as a name for the religion.

I'm like what atheists claim about their beliefs; I have no belief in your understanding of what atheism is but if you can produce evidence I'm willing to change my opinion.

While you do the same with mine? What you're saying by falling back on that definition of religion, is that religion can be any belief, or any set of beliefs, explaining the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. That simply isn't true. I can see where you get confused, but that is not a rule.

Mine is at least more inclusive and doesn't just take into account Abrahamic religions. What if a religion out there recognizes that a god created the universe but doesn't worship that god? You're merely using a different definition because it's convenient for you to do so and actually have no reasoning why to use that. Yet, you have no problem with still making definitive claims about it.

[pacifism]

Religion is a term we use a lot but few of us seem to take the time to tangibly define it for others to be aware what we means by the word. Indeed, I imagine that what one considers is or isn’t a religion can be a better reflection of one’s particular definition of the word, or at least the connotations that individual has, than the definition of religion we actually write out at some point. This is where the whole debate on whether Buddhism or atheism or whatnot is or isn’t a religion stems from, and the whole thing is reliant on the definitions we seem to not bother at first to take the time to put in words.

This brings me to my next point: the term “religion” attempts, or should attempt, to encompass so much ground that it is difficult to define. Here's two examples of what I mean.

1.) Defining religion as “the worship in one or more deities” is either a poor or a very dogmatic definition of what a religion is. Such a narrow definition of religion would therefore neglect that irreligion and “non-theism” isn’t necessarily the same thing. This definition inherently excludes nontheistic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. Buddhism and Hinduism are both non-theistic in the sense of the fact that the belief or inclination of pantheism, panentheism, deism, monotheism, polytheism, or atheism doesn't affect one's standing as a good Buddhist or a good Hindu. Yet Hinduism is certainly a religion, and Buddhism is (arguably) a religion, at least in some of its sects. One also has to realize the existence of things like Christian or Jewish atheism, which are by definition religions and atheist ones.

2.) Another interpretation of religion as having a sense of supernatural beliefs is also incorrect. Defining a religious person as someone who adopts a non-naturalist philosophy neglects the fact that not believing in naturalism doesn’t by definition make one a member of a religion. In other words, one can be an irreligious atheist and still believe in supernatural entities, such as spirits or ghosts.

This is why I think that one of the best assessments of what one’s particular definition of religion is can be found if they think that everyone has a religion. Personally, I think you can define religion this way as long as you take the time to actually define it. This is because I am willing to phrase my post(s) according to your definition if it will make the post(s) more meaningful and thought-provoking to its recipient. But frankly, the actual word "religion" is a lot like the word "theism". They are both too broad to be meaningfully used in debate, and we should instead say the specific source of what reasoning we are combating.

Setekh, you have repeatedly failed to understand what the difference between a religion and a belief is.

Atheism is simply the non-belief in deities, just as theism is the belief in them. Atheism does not necessitate a bound set of multiple beliefs, and it can't since it is only one belief. For example, there's a person who's atheist and doesn't believe in deities but does believe in spirituality and the paranormal. There's another atheist who doesn't believe in the paranormal but in naturalism. You see, there is no set of beliefs inherent in atheism. Now, atheists do tend to prefer other beliefs that are associated with atheism, but those are separate beliefs. Religions have sets of beliefs, of dogma. There is no dogma in atheism because it is just one belief (even if atheists can be dogmatic).

I think that Set might find more success in this current discussion if he were to frame his stance more along the lines that irreligious, naturalistic atheism can have religious-like attributes. Basically that people with a distinct disbelief in the supernatural tend to have a general uniformity in their views on religion, not unlike some religions themselves that the said atheists are against. Unless of course he has already done so, in which case I happily retract my statement.