Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Today I found a post that struck me as hypocritical:

The thing I found weird about it was the poster acted as if atheism is a religion and could do no wrong in that respect. Now I'm not here to discuss this post, I'm here to ask you guys if you consider atheism a religion and discuss why or why not.
To me, yes. Atheism is a belief system of the belief of no god but what about you guys?

Atheism = The belief of there being no higher power or divine plan
Theism/Religion = The belief of a higher power(s) existing or there being a divine plan
Based on those definitions, Atheism cannot be a religion.
That's how I see it.

I'm sure you've heard this before but if atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby and my favorite tv channel is off. There is no belief system. Atheism is simply defined as the lack of belief in god. It's not even the positive belief in no god, though some take that stance, but simply the lack of belief. Even if all atheists held the positive belief that there is no god, it would still not qualify as a religion because that would be the only belief that they would necessarily share.

No. I don't see how. His/her post merely states that atheists are almost all in favour of the separation of a religion from a state. Most people who aren't religious (or anyone who doesn't believe in the dominant religion) don't want laws of those who do believe it to be forced on them. It's not fair.

Atheism is a belief system as people not believing in Father Christmas is a belief system. You don't have to be aware of what god is to be an atheist.

Your post sort of implies that atheism is anti-religion or something. What's more fair? Laws based on what a society believes is morally correct, or what one specific part of society believes.

In my opinion, not really. For the majority of atheists I can only assume they don't take their belief (or in this case, disbelief) too seriously. Even the more hardline atheists alone don't constitute a religion or any belief system for that matter.

Cause is the word you're all looking for.
Atheism has become an activist anti-religion cause.
That's why I roll with the agnostics. Ain't nobody got time fo that.

here's where it gets tricky. atheism isn't a religion per se but some aspects of it can serve the same purpose. it depends whether or not people find a great overarching meaning to it or not. some people are atheists and their "raison d'etre" is their family or some political cause and that's where they find meaning. but that's a different discussion

some atheists use the trite "there is no god with a plan, we're only here to pass on our dna through generations". which is a gross oversimplification of life for one, but also sees evolution as a replacement for "god's plan". there is also people like the guy op posted who talks about "science" and "questions" which we can assume science will find the answers for. john gray wrote a nice article about these kinds of atheists, namely, richard dawkins. it's worth reading but i'll paraphrase it poorly. there are people who believe science is the only way to find the truth about life, and that there is no use screwing around with anything else. but since truth is so very vague and maybe even impossible to pin down, it seems like putting all your eggs in one basket.

terror management theory talks about how people create symbolic frameworks to deny death. once upon a time a religion would soothe everyone's worries about death but since the enlightenment people have started more and more to shy away from it. tm theorists argue that where we used to have gods we have causes. dying in a revolution is no big deal because you will live on symbolically in it. the internet's favourite kind of atheists will be more than happy to tell you after death there is nothing. now just like a missionary saying "your ancestors are in hell, and you don't want to go there haha" to some african tribe". they serve a purpose for their ideas, getting more people on science's side will help science achieve it's goals. the atheist symbolically lives for as long as science lives, which he or she believes to be forever.

so yeah atheism isn't a religion but people sometimes will find a meaning in it which is not necessarily true.

When I saw the image I was prepared to read what some crazy tumblr sjw wrote…

Well this is awkward….

You can be atheist and agnostic. You can be theist and agnostic. Atheism doesn't claim a certainty on the lack of a god or higher power.

I like the anti-matter analogy

Atheism is to theism what anti-matter is to matter

I suppose you could say they have some things related and in common just as matter and anti-matter do, but by definition they are opposites. You cannot say that atheism is a religion any more than you can say baldness is a hairstyle

But anti-matter can do the same things as matter and that's where it gets confusing.

To parrot what Blubber has pointed out: While atheism is not a religion, it is still possible to treat it like a religion and use it to occupy that religious/spiritual/philosophical part of your personal identity.

Religion follows some common elements such as fostering a sense of community and belonging, displaying assertive fervor that your belief is right, Us vs Them, indoctrination, or setting down a moral/philosophical code. Atheists can do that too if they really commit to it. It's just that Atheism is usually just too anarchic to organize something like that

However Richard Dawkins very nearly pulled that off by making a church of atheism at one point. I don't think it took off in the end, but he was able to get some atheists to congregate and unify as an organised faith. His book "The God Delusion" turned into the atheist bible and Richard himself became the prophet. He encouraged Atheists to band together and convert the believers toward his cause. What he did looked pretty religious. Only instead of pushing a dogma based on a god, he pushed an dogma based on the absence of one.

Ultimately Dawkins did not succeed in making a religion of atheists, I think that's because right at the beginning, he was criticized that his actions was unwittingly making an ironic religion of atheism and science. Making science your own personal religion is something I consider to be abuse of science and most people didn't seem happy about it. But Dawkins did go to show how it can be done.

TL;DR: No, atheism is not a religion. But it's possible to use atheism religiously

I didn't say it did… I said its been turned into an activist cause. Groups like the American Atheists go around submitting frivolous lawsuits, like suing to keep a building section that landed in the shape of a cross out of the 9/11 memorial museum, in the name of separation of church and state which just makes them look like petty little assholes.

And you can't be agnostic and theist or atheist. Theism is the belief in some god(s), atheism is the lack of belief, agnostics say 'maybe you're both right or wrong but I don't need confirmation either way to be a good person in life'. It specifically refers to a lack of theism and atheism. Undecided.

@Lisa

Might want to read up on Agnostic atheism and Agnostic theism

To be agnostic isn't just being undecided in general. In fact I prefer to think of agnosticism as being totally decided: deciding that everyone is wrong and probably will never be right, that is

You can be decided that there is a god, but undecided on which religion that god from, or that God is from a religion that mankind has not yet proposed. You may also be decided that God is absolutely not accurately defined by any religion and never can be, hence Agnostic Theist

You can also be decided that there probably isn't a god but it is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty that there is not, hence Agnostic Atheist

Make more sense?

That's simply not true. "Agnostic" literally means "without knowledge", and that's all it refers to. The most accurate way of looking at this is as a spectrum, like so:

And the fact is, a vast majority of self-professed atheists such as myself fall under the x-axis. To justify our position, most of us use the unfalsifiable hypothesis explanation, which I personally won't get into, but I will provide a link that provides some perspective on it.

Atheism is as much a religion as Fandom. There are some similarities, but they [Atheism and Religion] are ultimately not the same. They are an apples to oranges comparison.

Atheism is the lack of faith, religion is having faith in an organized fashion, therefore it is impossible to be a religious atheist, or have atheism be counted as a religion.

I see people throw around the idea that since there are atheist organizations that somehow this makes it a religion, again, this means nothing; many things that aren't religions also have organizations that are a large part of the movement in those subcultures. Anyways these atheist groups aren't really like a central control like Catholicism so I'm not really sure why the comparison is being made.

Ultimately I don't really believe anything but you can't prove or disprove god with 100% certainty because the ability to empirically prove things is restricted to the natural world, while God is, by default, supernatural. It is entirely possible for our world to exist in its current state either way, and thus God should really be cut from explanations. He effectively does nothing, if he exists.

If you're not 100% sure there's a god then by every religion's definition, you are an atheist. Religious faith requires devotion, that's why the religious are encouraged to take in and teach the "lost" and "confused" until their faith is solid.

I guess you could chalk that up to how religion define agnostics and what the dictionary says, but there are a LOT of definitions the dictionary and religion define differently. In discussing religion, you should defer to what the religious opinion is, not the opinion of analysts who feel the need to break groups down into meaningless categories.

That atheism is a cause, not a religion, which is what my first post says, still stands either way.

I mean, like I stated, I don't really consider myself either.

First off, you can be non-religious and still believe in god, religion is essentially organized faith, and many people such as myself have some sort of faith that is not linked with a larger organization. A lot of people are spiritual with no connection with any specific religion but are far from atheists.

I don't consider myself an atheist because I do believe in a concept of a higher power, but I don't believe in it in a way that fits with any religion. They are vague, spiritual beliefs that are best described as deist.

I don't consider myself a person of faith because this idea is not something that I hold with confidence. I would not, for example, go out of my way to prove or disprove this idea; it's simply what I believe and it would probably be changed if something proved it to be unavailable.

I hope that makes things clearer. It's quite incorrect to claim that if you're not 100% faithful that you're automatically atheist though. If anything I would consider people who have doubt to be more agnostic than just pure atheist…

I don't really think that the implication that atheism is a "cause" though is a valid analysis. It's true with organized atheists, who, like any other organization, does carry an agenda, but many atheists have no real "cause", they don't believe in god and that's that.

I was very confused on that comment OP posted about the part of "oppressive" atheist laws. Separation of the Church and State isn't an atheist thing, it's a secular thing. And the 1st Amendment makes it illegal for the government to establish a religion or promote it in anyway. If we had an atheist government there would be no religion allowed in our country at all.

On topic: if atheism is a religion, it isn't but some people can use it religiously like BSOD said. And well it seems like people rapped that up pretty quickly.

I'm not talking about how you define yourself though, I'm talking about how religion defines the words you're using to call yourself. There is no agnostic atheism or agnostic theism to the Church, if we're going to use Christianity as the example. You are either an atheist or you believe 100% and are Christian. That the dictionary says "no technically you can be both" has absolutely no weight with the Church, who still insists you can not.

It's like when people say they're Christian but they don't actually pray or go to Church or do anything that makes Christians Christian. It's pointless to talk about religion using terms that religion itself denies.

"It's true that organized supremacists, who, like any other racists, have an agenda, but many racists have no real "cause", they don't believe in equality and that's that."

What is separatism if not a cause?

What is atheism if not a cause?

Ed: those are not hypothetical, I'm really asking. If it's just a hardcore system of beliefs, then why can't both be called religions?

Except, atheism doesn't have a fucking head church. There are probably thousands of atheists who never heard of any organized atheist groups. There may be atheist communities, but I'm pretty sure their only requirement for you to be an atheist in their eyes is that you are not a theist.

It doesn't matter if the church thinks your Christian or not, because they don't decide who is. If you believe in god and Christ, you're a Christian. You may not be part of the organization, but that is separate from when we were talking about agnostic theist and atheists.

“It’s true that organized supremacists, who, like any other racists, have an agenda, but many racists have no real “cause”, they don’t believe in equality and that’s that."

What is separatism if not a cause?

What is atheism if not a cause?

The point was that you can believe that white people and other races aren't equal and treat them like shit, yet not have to have a cause to do that. You don't need to be a separatist to be racist. All separatists are racist, not all racists are separatists. You don't have to be campaigning for segregation to be racist.

Atheism is not a fucking cause. It is a lack of a belief in a deity. That has nothing to do with any cause. I can think that religious ideas are OK but not true or I can think they are dangerous and be part of a cause to take them down, either way I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a deity.

{ It doesn’t matter if the church thinks your Christian or not, because they don’t decide who is }

What exactly do you think the Pope and the Vatican are for? And the Infallible Imams of Islam? They're the people in charge of (Abrahamic) religion where the Prophets left off. They write law and interpret scripture because they are the highest living authorities.

They're just questions nigga you can state your opinion regarding them without the reaction gifs~ don't act like that's a right or wrong answer to this discussion just because you feel really sure you're right.

The dictionary says a cause is a person or thing that gives rise to an action. Not all feminists are activists, but we still consider feminism a cause, so why can't we consider atheism a cause even though not all atheists are activists?

Feminism, separatism and all over movements are there because they believe that the world should be a certain way. Feminists (at least the older waves) believe that genders should be equal. Separatism believes that people of different races should be separate. This is a belief on how the world should be. Something to change within the world.

Atheism is the lack of a belief. Or if you want to put it in a different way, it is the belief a higher power or deity didn't create the universe and that there is no god who watches over our ever action and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent etc This a belief about how the universe is, not how the world should be. Atheists don't believe we should have a godless world they don't believe the world has a god.

What exactly do you think the Pope and the Vatican are for? And the Infallible Imams of Islam? They’re the people in charge of (Abrahamic) religion where the Prophets left off. They write law and interpret scripture because they are the highest living authorities.

Yes but if you believe in all the exact same things as a Muslim or Christian but the pope or the Imams tell you aren't what are you? You're not a an atheist.

If the pope excommunicated everyone but himself and the cardinals, do all those people who still believe in the Catholic god not become Catholic anymore?

Atheism (at least the newer waves) believe there shouldn't be religion. If that logic works in reverse for feminism, why doesn't it work for atheism?

Atheists launch anti-religion billboards across Bible Belt

"Not all atheists are like that!!!"

Neither are all feminists.

So why is feminism a cause and atheism is not?

{ If the pope excommunicated everyone but himself and the cardinals, do all those people who still believe in the Catholic god not become Catholic anymore? }

He would be removed from his position for blatantly going against the Prophets. His actions aren't a representation of what he himself believes, his actions as Pope are the modern representations of a Prophet. He doesn't get to randomly decide whatever he wants with no religious basis lmao.

Jesus fucking H Christ (pun not intended).

In this case, the cause is to eradicate religion in south, that is not atheism, it may be a cause made by atheists and it may be to promote atheism. Here we go back to the racists and separatists point. Atheism is a belief on how the world is. A cause is a movement to achieve some goal. Atheism has no goal. A group of atheists can have a movement with a goal relating to atheism, but doesn't change the definition of atheism.

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. This isn't a claim on how reality is, this is just a claim on how the world is now.

Think about it this way, the Christian Crusades were a cause, does that mean Christianity is the crusades?

In this case, the cause is to eliminate the patriarchy, that is not feminism, it may be a cause made by feminists and it may be to promote feminism.

Atheism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common line of thought: that there is no God. This isn't a claim on how reality is, this is a claim on how the world is now.

& yes, the Church did approve of and endorse the Crusades based on the same Hebrew Bible verses that lead Muslims to jihad. How could you even try to claim they aren't "Christianity"?

No. Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

That has nothing to do with movements outside that it's atheists that want .

Yes it was a Christian movement, but if I told you to define Christianity, I think you would say something along the lines of a belief that there is a god and he had a son called Jesus etc. You wouldn't say that Christianity is an event where people went to Jerusalem to kill Muslims and capture their cities or that Christianity is a holy war.

Even if we were talking about just organized religion there are Christians movements that some parts of Christianity like the Catholics took part in and others like the protestants didn't. To define a belief based on a movement is stupid.

Atheism has nothing do to with atheist movements.
Gotcha.

Christianity is a LOT more than a belief in God and Jesus. There are religious rites and ceremonies you have to go through before you're considered a Christian.

Well unlike Christianity, you don't need any ritual to be an atheist, because its a lack of belief not a cause.

Is Atheism an actual religion? No, as they don't have faith in a higher power and/or another plane of existence and don't adhere to rites and rituals as other religions do.

Do some zealots treat it like a religion? Yes, in that some atheists are defensive about their lack of beliefs and are actively hostile to people of differing belief systems (a la WBC and other such fundamentalists)

That's a good example, but tell me, if I see a billboard for directions to the nearest rest stop is that a cause? The rest stop wants people to go to the rest stop; its goal is to get people inside the building. What about road limit signs? Those are a government cause wanting people to adhere to their ideas on the recommended driving speeds.

This is all semantics. The way this discussion is going, any statement of fact or observation can be considered a cause for something.

And to answer your question regarding feminism I'll use the dictionary . If you take a look at the dictionary.reference link it uses the word advocating. What that means is that if I put a check mark under atheism on a form or if I don't tell anyone, I'm still an atheist. But if you have an opinion that women aren't treated equally or if you answer a yes or no question on a survey regarding women equality. You aren't a feminist until you campaign for it.

The atheism billboards are a cause. The cause is for atheism. Atheism is not a cause.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cause
"a principle, ideal, goal, or movement to which a person or group is dedicated"
You can't dedicate yourself to the lack of belief in a god. That's silly. That's like saying "I practice the teachings of nothing". What is the goal of atheism? There is no goal.

There is a difference between being an Atheist and being Anti-theist. Atheist is not believing in a higher power, Anti-theist is the idea that theism is bad. One can be both, but not all Atheists are Anti-theist. In fact, this is probably the biggest thing Atheists have been trying to teach people, because people automatically think "Anti-theist" when they hear the word "Atheist" It's why many Atheists now wrongly identify as "Agnostic" to try to further themselves from the Anti-theist label.

And not all feminists are feminazis. You guys are not doing a very convincing job here. It's a cause~

You are missing the point. Atheism and Anti-theism are two different, separate but sometimes over lapping categories.
Feminazi is an extreme version of Feminism. You can't be a Feminazi without being a feminist, but you can be Anti-theist without being Atheist and vice-versa.

feminism is a movement, atheism is literally just living life without god.

{ Feminazi is an extreme version of Feminism. You can’t be a Feminazi without being a feminist }

Feminists say feminazis aren't actually feminists at all. So do we listen to the feminists, or do we take it from the dictionary?

& of course we're arguing semantics, that's what this whole thread is about.

The dictionary considers consumerism a religion, which it defines as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." The example sentence for this definition is "consumerism is the new religion". So why can't atheism, an "organization/movement/cause/religion" for which the authoritative body are actively pushing "atheist rights" (just like Christian rights and Jewish rights and Muslim rights), be considered a religion?

American Atheists' mission statement, btw, is: "Promote atheism and secular humanism; oppose religion in the public sphere".

edit: they also have a PAC, a TV channel, and a magazine and are responsible for all the federal lawsuits you hear about in the news, so don't tell me they're not the authoritative body of atheists.

It seems you've become so entrenched in this atheism/feminism analogy that you're acting that it's more than what it actually is- an analogy. These two things do not compare perfectly, or even close to that. For one, feminism tends to be a side that makes outstanding claims- there is an active patriarchy etc.- whereas atheists do not. It would actually make more sense if they were used as the stand-ins for the theists in this comparison.

That's like Christians claiming WBC aren't Christian, or ISIS isn't Muslim. They want to distance themselves from that group without actually doing anything about that group.

First off, there is no "authoritative body" of Atheism. There are people who get together based on Atheism, mainly because Atheists aren't particularly welcome in many parts of America. They however, hold no power over all Atheists nor do they speak for all Atheists, unlike the church, which hold power over the christian religion. American Atheists are closer to the NAACP or the ILGA than a religion.

Second, that is a tertiary definition, one that doesn't adhere to the original definition, and under that definition, any cause people believe to be supremely important can be considered 'religious' Gamergate is fucking religious under that definition, and that definition refers to things people believe in to the point of being 'religious like'

*Representative not authoritative. Those people don't decide what it means to be an atheist or what they can or can't believe.

And this thread was about whether atheism was a religion not whether it is a cause. The semantics is whether a sign publicly expressing atheism is a goal of atheism or simply of the viewpoint of the sign creators.

why can’t atheism, an “organization/movement/cause/religion” for which the authoritative body are actively pushing “atheist rights” (just like Christian rights and Jewish rights and Muslim rights), be considered a religion?

Because that's not what a religion encompasses:
1. 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 and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

No devotion, no rituals, atheism governs no moral code.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

There is no such thing as "fundamental lack of beliefs". Before you say lack a belief is a belief. The fundamental beliefs of atheists are not necessary the same. That is to say not all atheists "believe" in evolution or generally agree on things such as the beginning of the universe.

Seriously. Dictionary.reference.com take a look.

{ For one, feminism tends to be a side that makes outstanding claims- there is an active patriarchy etc.- whereas atheists do not. }

They've made over 30 lawsuits worth of claims, notably FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, NOT FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!1!1!!

They also routinely call active religions myths.

That's one of the billboards from their billboard campaign, which claims the world would be better off if people choose atheism instead of theism and seeks to convert people to atheism.

{ Second, that is a tertiary definition, }

Language evolves, definitions change, or is a faggot still a bundle of firewood in your mind?

Why shouldn't GG be called a religion? They're certainly fanatic enough about their cause~

Are the ancient pagan religions not really religions, because they didn't believe in or worship a superhuman controlling power? What about nature worship religions, they don't believe there's a higher power either. All you're doing is picking the definition that most suits your argument and saying it's the correct one. None of these definitions are any more or less correct than the next.

{ And this thread was about whether atheism was a religion not whether it is a cause. }

And I was arguing that it's not a religion, it's a cause. Now I'm arguing that it's just as much a religion as a cause. This is a debate forum, not a yes or no poll.

{ No devotion, no rituals, atheism governs no moral code. }

Same question I posed in my last post, there are many nature/pagan religions with no rituals, devotions, or moral codes. Are they suddenly not religions because this modern definition of religion no longer fits them? What are they, if not?

{ The fundamental beliefs of atheists are not necessary the same. }

They fundamentally believe there is no higher power governing mankind.
That's what all atheists believe.

Atheist organizations do not speak for/represent all atheists, and do not compel atheists to hold certain positions. People have said this to you multiple times, and yet you still don't seem to understand. Also, rejecting a claim is not a claim in and of itself.

"Why shouldn’t GG be called a religion? They’re certainly fanatic enough about their cause~"
When has anyone here said that fanaticism has anything to do with defining/classifying (ir)religion?

"Are the ancient pagan religions not really religions, because they didn’t believe in or worship a superhuman controlling power? What about nature worship religions, they don’t believe there’s a higher power either."
Seriously, where are you getting any of this from?

The claim is "all of your religions are a myth". "Choose to come join us atheists instead" is their message.

{ Atheist organizations do not speak for/represent all atheists, and do not compel atheists to hold certain positions. }

According to their lawsuits they do, in fact, legally represent the atheists of America, and have represented them in court over 20 times. The laws of this country claims they are the authoritative body, what exactly gives you the authority to claim they're not? Not all Christians agree that the Pope is their representative either, but that doesn't stop him.

{ Seriously, where are you getting any of this from? }

The ~6 years I took of religious studies when I was going to major in it.
Why don't you answer the question?

'Or is a faggot still a bundle of firewood" Yes it is. A fag is also a cigarette and a derogatory term for a homosexual. The same word can have multiple meanings, those meanings separate. The Religion definition of "belief in a higher power" is different than the "strong belief" definition.

It doesn't matter anyway, Atheism doesn't fit either definition, because Atheism is the "lack of belief" It is by both definitions, the opposite of religion .

Religion (first definition) is the belief in "a higher power". not necessarily a God. Ancient Pagan religions were all different from each other so how can anyone make a broad statement about them? And wouldn't nature itself be the higher power for these "nature worshiping religions"?

What I'm doing is using the definition 99% of people think of when the word Religion is used, the definition that Atheism is being compared to, and the definition people are using in this discussion. You are the one who wants to switch to the definition that suits your argument.

However, it seems like I was mistaken earlier. The definition (a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance) doesn't fit Gamergate. It doesn't fit Atheism either. That is because the word "Supreme" means "above all others" meaning that unless Gamergate thinks there cause is the most important cause in the universe (admittingly, not much of a stretch) it's not a religion. Atheism is not a religion by this definition either because it's not a pursuit or interest, it's the complete lack of one. There could be a case for the Anti-theism movement, but that's something different.

The pope represents the Catholic denomination of Christianity, never is it said all Christians of all denominations follow the pope.

Do you know how representation works in court? Representing a group of people in court =/= being the authority for that group. Otherwise all Black people would have to answer to the NAACP.

"According to their lawsuits they do, in fact, legally represent the atheists of America, and have represented them in court over 20 times."

"Not all Christians agree that the Pope is their representative either, but that doesn’t stop him."

So, if a individual or organization asserts that they speak for all people with a certain position, then we must automatically take that as 100% valid over the many people with that exact position who say otherwise? How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Also, that's not how lawsuits work. It's not American Atheists and all atheists of America v. United States In order to be a plaintiff/petitioner, you yourself must agree to that- all people with a certain belief don't just get lumped in. And, because repeating myself is apparently a theme with these things, I'll say again that rejecting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim.

"The laws of this country claims they are the authoritative body, what exactly gives you the authority to claim they’re not?"

Uh… "laws"? What laws? How is the US government involved with which organizations get to dictate to whom (other than itself of course)? Perhaps you're confusing the concept of a group being "an authority" on something- i.e. they know their shit and are a good place to go for information on a subject- and "authoritative"- i.e. dictating to people what to think and how to act.

The NAACP is definitely the racial authority in this country, what are you even talking about lmao?

An authority is not a binding, elected board of directors that everyone agrees on, an authority is the group that has the most control over the cause/whatever its authority is on.

{ au·thor·i·ty a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. }

Who has more power and control over atheist rights/etc than AA? Nobody. Hence, they are the authority. That's how mass representation works.

{ So, if a individual or organization asserts that they speak for all people with a certain position, then we must automatically take that as 100% validi over the many people with that exact position who say otherwise? }

Does that individual or organization have the power and control? Anybody in the world, as many of them as they want, can claim they're Christian because they say so, but they're still not Christian if they haven't gone through the official rites and adhere to certain standards. No matter what modern history or any social rights movements have to say about it, for that matter.

{ I’ll say again that rejecting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim. }

I repeat myself~ "Your religion is a myth" is not rejecting a claim. It is making its own independent claim.

{ How is the US government involved with which organizations get to dictate to whom (other than itself of course)? }

They're the opposing power. They're recognizing the authority, American Atheists, as the group in control with their response.

You realize your own definition disproves your stance?
"A person or organization having power of control" AA has no control or power over the Atheists in America, and the NAACP doesn't have control over the Black People in America. These groups are just after equal rights for these groups. Fighting for Equal rights for a group =/= having power over that group. And you know who has the most power and control over atheist rights? The Elected Government of the United States of America No one has more control over the rights of Americans of any type then they do.

I repeat myself~ “Your religion is a myth” is not rejecting a claim. It is making its own independent claim.

Atheism is not the one making that claim, a group of people who are Atheists and Ant-theists are.

And I was arguing that it’s not a religion, it’s a cause. Now I’m arguing that it’s just as much a religion as a cause. This is a debate forum, not a yes or no poll.

Never intended to imply it was a yes or no poll, just wanted to defend myself when you said what the thread was about. Anyways I was just trying to say that we shouldn't focus on the meaning of a particular sign or subcategory of people, but rather look at the word itself means or even the historical significance.

Same question I posed in my last post, there are many nature/pagan religions with no rituals, devotions, or moral codes. Are they suddenly not religions because this modern definition of religion no longer fits them? What are they, if not?

I'm not an expert on world religions nor have I ever taken any religion study courses. So I have no clue which pagan religions that you are referring to. I can't answer that.

They fundamentally believe there is no higher power governing mankind.

That’s what all atheists believe.

That's not a belief though. All atheists don't believe in a higher power governing mankind. But their beliefs on what does governs mankind may not be the same. If one atheists believes that we are all slaves to a race of eternal galactic overlords and one atheist believes that their creation was just the product of a series of random events. Their fundamental beliefs are not the same despite the fact that that they agree there is no higher power.

"Anybody in the world, as many of them as they want, can claim they’re Christian because they say so, but they’re still not Christian if they haven’t gone through the official rites and adhere to certain standards."

Wrong. You do not have to be a member of a particular organized denomination to be Christian. That word is used to describe personal belief.

“Your religion is a myth” is little more than a particularly forceful way of saying "your religion is not true", which is a rejection of a claim.