Church of England threatens Sony with lawsuit

religion -- (noun)

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

so no, Atheism is not technically a religion. it's a belief... or lack thereof.

Guys, you're so busy denying that Atheism isn't a religion that you're proving it yourselves.

Lets break apart this definition:

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

This part right here is all you need, this is the very base of what a religion is. Now let's take Tie's comment(#98):
"not believing in invisible pink unicorns does not make you a follower of the PinkUnicornDenial religion"
This is correct, but ONLY because the cause, nature and purpose of the universe are not in question. If I was convinced enough to form a group around the idea that invisible pink unicorns did NOT create the universe, then yes, it would be a religion. A stupid one, sure, but that point hardly reflects favorably on Atheism.

Now the next part of the definition:
"...esp.[Especially] when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies..."

The key word here is especially. In other words, this factor makes an even greater case for it to be a religion, but is not absolutely essential.

Next part:
"...usually involving devotional and ritual observances..."

Key word is Usually.

Now for the final part:
"...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Key word is Often.

So technically, yes. Atheism IS a religion.

Where Christians worship God and refuse to deny his existence, Atheist worship the lack of it and refuse to accept his existence, where Christians turn to priests, Atheists turn to theorists and therapists, where Christians have commandments from God, Atheists have laws from their government, where Christians consult the bible, Athiests consult Darwin and books on psychotherapy.

I'm not even trying to say anything for religion at this point. All I'm doing is pointing out the flaws in the logic, seriously.



oh, and @DrXym (#100) I'll admit that WITHIN a single species, evolution does happen. Let's face it, we wouldn't have breeding programs to produce bigger cattle, or all these thousands of different breeds of dogs for all sorts of different purposes. But you notice something that's really interesting? A Great Dane can breed with a Chihuahua. Despite the thousands of physical differences, they are still within the same species and are capable of breeding. It also doesn't matter if the dog is European or American or Chinese, they can still breed. Dogs can even breed with wolves, which is the species from which dogs originated from when they were domesticated.
The same is true for humans, there are thousands of different physical and locational differences, but any human can breed with any other human of the opposite sex. But humans can't breed with monkeys, whom we supposedly evolved from.

Evolution does explain changes IN a species, but it does NOT explain the CREATION of a NEW species. There have been no documented cases in which a species will evolve to the point at which it becomes an entirely new sustainable species that is completely separate and incapable of breeding with the original species.

Evolution does exist, I'll admit that. But the THEORY that evolution explains the ORIGIN of species, and thereby supposedly debunking creationism, has NOT been proven. EVER.

I realize by reading people like grey acumen that I seriously need to improve my communications skills. I've been trying to say what you're saying for ages.

I'd like to add one thing about the definition of religion. The definition calls out "superhuman" origins, not supernatural. I would call the big bang, and the singularity "superhuman".

Religion: Fall of Man

Correct. Grey Acumen is describing the TWO separate types of biological evolution: Micro evolution, which is scientifically proven and very observable and macro evolution, which unfortunately is swallowed hook line and sinker due to the bait of aforementioned theory, but has no scientific proof. Micro evolution is simply variations within a species. No one denies that, not even the most defiant Bible thumper. But accepting the theory of macro evolution simply because micro evolution exists is in the same vein of logic as accepting Santa exists just because there are presents under the Christmas tree.

Micro evolution is scientific. It helps us understand species and predict genetic outcomes. Macro evolution is not scientific. The theory has not benefited science one iota. No predictive qualities can be extracted from the study and so far no biological mechanism has been found to even make the theory possible. Gene pool shift and survival of the fittest are both mechanisms for micro evolution but have never been shown to have the power to drive macro evolution while random mutations is just a joke as 99% of mutations are negative, usually causing death to the organism. The 1% that isn't harmful to the organism usually ends up being a waste product in the DNA chain or as a recessive trait which is quickly overwritten in the next generation. Occasionally these traits may show up in later generations if two parents happen to be a carrier of the recessive gene, however a recessive trait can NEVER become a dominant one and therefore cannot drive macro evolution. For the record, modern biogenetics has never been able to produce a single mutation in the lab that has benefited the organism. Ths is of some concern as a lab is far different from nature- it is a closed, monitored and perfect environment with highly trained scientists TRYING to get a desired result. None of these conditions are found in the natural environment where macro evolution supposedly takes place. If you would like a good read on the mind boggling impossibilities of biological macro evolution, pick up "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, PhD in microbiology. Lifelong , championed atheist, Antony Flew, realized this fact and became a deist after decades of mocking faith. Read about it here:

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041209-113212-2782r.htm

C.S. Lewis also did not believe in God until after extensive research and reasoning, he found no other possibilities, Christianity was the only logical conclusion. Einstein was also a firm believer in a God and was particularly intrigued with the Bible. The list goes on and on. Believing in a deity does not make you weak minded or archaic. Some of the world's most brilliant minds held the belief that there had to be a creator, and for good reason- There simply is a complete void of evidence for macro evolution while the complexity and intricacy and beauty and order of life begs a super intelligent creator.

"Jesus went straight to the Temple & threw out everyone who had set up shop, buying & selling. He kicked over the tables of loan sharks & the stalls of dove merchants. He quoted this text 'My house was designated a house of prayer, You made it a hangout for thieves.' Now there was room for the blind & crippled to get in. They came to Jesus & He healed them." Matthew 21:12-14

God's word is so GOOD! Props to you England for keeping it Holy!