Is non-belief in gods or religions a "faith or religion?"

A person of conviction in no way needs faith or religion.

I am a person of convictions and have faith and belief in God. A belief in God is one of my convictions. I will agree that I have no need for religion. I have all I need from a personal relationship with Christ. Whether we want to admit it or not we all need faith and exercise faith daily. When you drive down the freeway you have faith that everyone around you knows how to drive. When you go into surgery you have faith that the doctor really dose know what he or she is doing. Faith is a part of who we are a humans. If we did not exercise faith we would turn in to agoraphobics and never leave our houses.

I don't attend weekly meetings and tithe to anyone about my disbelief in gods.

I do practice my non-belief as a weekly religion supported by any group that needs my funding to spread my message of non-beleif.

I do not give my money or meet with groups that promote the unbelievable.

Non of the above are requirements of faith, some maybe requirements of religion but I believe my feelings on that we clear in the previous answer. Atheist do have organization that have meetings, the take money and do promote non-belief.

Religion for this discussion should be about people, that on faith, accept unprovable supernatural gods. That is a very specific meaning.

Yet by doing this we are ignoring the other relevant definitions. That would be narrow minded and not inclusive of all views.

It is obvious that religions want us all to be in the awkward fix they are in!

I am in no awkward fix, I am very content in where I am in my life. This is an irrelevant assumption.

a chrsitian would be very outspoken and strong about telling people that they don't believe in Vishnu or Thor, wouldn't they?

since a main tenet of Christianity is rejection of all other deities, then yes, they are automatically declared unbelievers of those gods. and if you actually live in a place where people still believe in those gods, like India, you find Christians even more outspoken about those differences.

bonos_rama...wait a minute:

if not believing in a god is a religion,

How can NOT believing something translate into anything??

Ex. There is no such place as 'hell'. (Although, there may very well be some place on Earth that some has given that name to; I'm talking about the 'hell' ofttimes described as: fire burning forever, place where bad people are sent after dying...that type of thing). If there is no such place, HOW can I believe there is??

I'm with you, retlaw. I'm playing devil's advocate. There are people who want to declare non-belief a 'religion'. Well, then, any non-belief would be a religion under that "philosophy". In other words, it's a silly position to make.

If non-belief is a religion then christians are also hindus, buddhists, pagans, etc.

I simply want to know how things work.

My sentiments exactly. As soon as that's all figured out, the rest comes easy. (Personally,myself, I've got a long way to go)

Tom,

Don't feel bad. I can't even figure out where my sock went.

Honestly, where do socks go? In my case some of them lose their heels to my dog that thinks they are tasty. That dog damn god.

TryUsingLogic,

Did you misread my post? I wrote DISbelief of God.

If a God will stand up and make Its self perfectly clear...I will listen!

actually, what you're really saying is you will only listen to a revelation from God on your terms. but it's not like religious beliefs are born in a vacuum, the majority of people on earth are convinced that God has revealed himself.

we weren't talking about particulars, it's an unfair tactic to have a discussion on a general topic then divert to a specific topic as if you were talking about that all along, which you weren't. back to the general topic, conflicting ideas and opinions don't invalidate an entire systematology. that would be like saying that if scientists disagree on a certain topic that all of science must be wrong. or philosophers, economists, mathematicians, or any other theory-based systems.

Mo:

There is no proof that there is no god.

Not a logical requirement to prove nonexistence -- absent evidence for an agent's "being", it is acceptable logic to deny existence of such. This does not mean it cannot exist, merely that it is not logically worthy of acknowledgment. Re-read Webster; it does not say anything about faith being "belief in nothing for which there is no proof." Try this as well: absent evidence, how can you say anything about the nature of God? And what, pray tell <giggle>, would make your claims authentic or in some manner superior to conflicting assertions?

Additionally, how would you explain the tens of thousands of religious sects in the world, each with different notions of life, deities, immortality and related consequence, or privilege of adherents? Who has the magical decoder ring -- and why?

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed atheists take offense when it's suggested that they are choosing eternal damnation, as if they find it discriminatory that they wouldn't be allowed into heaven if they were, indeed, wrong in their beliefs.

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians take offense when it's suggested that they should trust God/Jesus to protect them instead of taking up arms.

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians take offense when it's suggested that they should ask themselves what would their God/Jesus do before committing a heinous act.

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians take offense when told "I'm not interested in learning about your God".

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians allow anyone member of their church to lose their home.

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians allow children to enter homelessness rather than adopt or foster them.

I must admit that I'm baffled when self-proclaimed Christians practice paganism then deny that they are.

I'm with you Try. I'm just going by the Webster definintion you provided. Jhoopy...I'm not making a case for god or belief in God. Check some of my other posts on religion. I don't buy in. However, you can't prove that god does NOT exist and by the Webster definition Try provided that amounts to faith, which was his question. Not wether or not I believe, but wether his belief amounted to faith. My argument is purely language related.

Hey, Power,

Good points, I'm baffled by those things as well. So I guess the most baffling aspect would be why either would want to try to convince the other that they were "wrong".

Jim Comfort, why can't we respect what another believe in live in harmony?

Mo:

You still miss my point and your objection amounts to (poor use of) semantics. (The definition said "something" after all, and not "nothing".) It is not a matter of "faith" to deny God's existence -- it is a logical necessity. All manner of things unknown could exist -- the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an obvious example and was instantiated specifically to help people see the logical absurdity of trying to disprove unsubstantiated assertion. Absent evidence, presumption of nonexistence is the logical default. This does not eliminate a (very small possibility) that God could exist (whilst essentially covering his/her/its tracks) -- but certainly other argument concerning the self-contradictory nature of many of the common characterizations of the christian or Muslim God reduce that (already low) likelihood.

As I said, it is logically accurate to say God does not exist. You avoided my question on sectarian splintering, however. How is that consistent, for example, with a God eager to get his/her/its message out and "save souls"? Or for that matter, how does inscrutability foster any type of "personal relationship" with humans (another christian canard)? Playing hide-and-seek with cosmic truths seems mean-spirited, at minimum. And note that the tired "free will" gambit will not do -- people completely aware of the death penalty still choose to exercise their free will and commit murder, for example.

As to "respecting beliefs" -- absolutely. But tell me this: how is it respectful of personal beliefs (which everyone harbors) when one attempts to promote a personal belief absent evidence for same in a public access forum? This is the most sordid kind of influence phishing, is it not? And this is the difference between belief and knowledge -- the latter is belief, vetted by evidence and logic. Belief in God enjoys no such foundation. In other words, the atheist is perfectly sound in espousing the nonexistence of God -- the religious adherent, not equally so in promoting the existence of same.

Another question: A train is bearing down from behind on a deaf man standing in the tracks, who behaves as if he "believes" he is safe. You can see and hear the train; he cannot. At what point does your benign tolerance morph into murderous indulgence of fantasy (however quaint)? Are you on the hook to do something, or no?

Power,

I would agree, but for some, religious or atheists, it would apperar that harmonious living is not the goal, rather changing the minds of those with differing views is the ultimate goal. What baffles me is why atheists would want to disprove the possibility of the existence of a supreme being to a religious type. Religion, even if it it only a feel good fantasy that makes enduring the time spent here more bearable, is just a hope that there is an afterlife, something even the ancient Egyptians longed for. Is that really so bad, to hope that there's something more than just the here and now?

And yes, it's equally baffling to me why a religious person would try to "save" someone who has no desire to be "saved" by ghosts.

And "converting" everyone to atheism is logical where? Those feel good fantasies are also what get believers through rough patches emotionally like the loss of loved ones. It seems to me that tearing down their belief system is more hurtful than any real danger the "general ranks" of believers pose.

And personally, I'm agnostic. I'm not really willing to disavow the possibility of the existence of an entity that I can't comprehend with the physical. And the older I get, the more I can't help thinking that if they're right and all I needed to do was be willing to believe in order to "get into heaven", then where's the beef? On the other hand, if they're right and I don't, I'd better bring my bathing suit. And if they're wrong, I won't know it.

It seems to me that tearing down their belief system is more hurtful than any real danger the "general ranks" of believers pose.

So if I convince someone that they can fly if they TRULY believe they can, isn't that harmful to them if they actually go out and try it? (*jumps off building*)

That's what the problem is with faith. (aside from the blatant disregard for others' rights and scientific advancements)

The religious spend so much time thinking about an afterlife that they blind themselves to their life passing them by as they do so.

Logic, awesome quote, one of my favorites. :D

I'm just saying that if you spent time convincing someone spiritual who's either dying or just lost someone near and dear to them that there is no god, no heaven, nothing...you've torn down their faith. And what utilitarian purpose would that serve?

Is it really horrible to let a believer think that the mother, father, sister, brother, wife, etc. that they just lost went to heaven instead of taking a dirt nap? Or if they're dying, letting them think they're going to a better place rather than convincing them that when they're done sucking air, that's it?

I'm just saying that if you spent time convincing someone spiritual who's either dying or just lost someone near and dear to them that there is no god, no heaven, nothing...you've torn down their faith. And what utilitarian purpose would that serve?

I've lost my faith before. I know how painful it is. But you know what? Don't get mad at the messenger. It's reality.

I got smacked with a hard dose of REALITY.

You know who you SHOULD get mad at? The people who indoctrinate kids with this crap, and make them believe from a young age, though these kids aren't even mature enough to choose their own clothing style yet, much less a moral code.

Why not get angry at the people spreading LIES in the first place?

If people don't believe crap like 'the world is flat,' or 'the world is 6,000 years old' or 'dinosaurs coexisted with human because they were in the ark with them' we wouldn't have people who will be so heart-wrenchingly CRUSHED when they find out their faith is total bull@!$%#.

We should all base our beliefs on what is REAL, and logical and not on fairy tales.

Imagine if everyone REALLY REALLY believed that Santa was real.

Imagine that HEARTBREAK when they found out he wasn't...

Be a kind parent; don't let your kids believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

It'll only break their hearts later.

Or if they're dying, letting them think they're going to a better place rather than convincing them that when they're done sucking air, that's it?

I truly feel bad for you if that's the only philosophy that you can imagine outside of Christianity.

Life is beautiful and worthwhile, even without a god.

Is it really horrible to let a believer think that the mother, father, sister, brother, wife, etc. that they just lost went to heaven instead of taking a dirt nap?

How about just now say anything about where they go?

How about just remembering them in a kind way and enjoying that time you had with them?

We have to grow up sometime.

They're gone. The best you can do is to live, and not dwell in darkness.

Live respecting their memory.

You had me TryUsingLogic until you wrote

I do think children and dying people need the benefit of fairy tales

I don't believe that any one needs to believe in fantasy. I taught my children that anyone and everyone who gave them a gift was Santa Clause. If I was dying of cancer I wouldn't want to be told I had hemorrhoids. How can I manage the care of my health if I'm told a lie? And some people who are dying can participate in managing their health.

TryUsingLogic, you're absolutely correct, I misunderstood what you were saying.

I believe Islam has brought a balance to both aspects of life

Belief and evidence.

As far as what I have learned through my investigation. We have a few cases of people who pick one over the other, but for the most part it comes down to knowledge and what we know will change our belief.
For example the dark plaque many say it was an act of God, but science can easily explain what happened with the spreading of the disease.

After all It's important to realize the fact of our own creation from the beginning till now and for anyone to think that one religious text can FULLY explain all the details is wrong.

I belief the best available explanation came with the Quran.

I belief the best available explanation came with the Quran.

but even in the Second Surrah, the Qur'an makes reference to the value and Truth of the Jewish and Christian scriptures and the the continued revelation of God. So to a certain extent, that explanation is, by its own admission, strongest when read in the context of the other two. Or would you disagree with that statement?

Very true. The quran states that even though some of man's words had corrupted earlier scriptures, much of the good is still in it.

For that reason I have a bible at home which I read seeking those good revelations and I have found plenty.

"....it's the core of what we all start with at our birth, the experience of our senses and interaction with a universe we can mostly agree on."

I don't remember my infancy. I'm not 100 percent positive but I'm pretty sure that no one does. Do you? Have you ever spoken with an infant straight out of the womb and asked them for their thoughts on the subject. More importantly did the infant blow your mind with it's grasp of language at such an early stage of it's life?

So basically "the core of what we all start with" is unknowable. We can assume that a baby is born knowing nothing and therefore the wise adult would understand that knowing nothing is at the core of being human. But I don't believe that and I don't think that you do either.

As far as only accepting that which every one can agree on and that which we can all see, smell, touch, taste and hear then I guess that means that we need to stop using math because numbers don't exist. I can't look in the sky and see the number 2,072. What does the number 5 taste like? Why is the number 42 always so loud?

We all believe in one thing or another abstractly without empirical evidence of it's existence. Is the anxiety, fear or anger that you feel when a cop pulls you over for speeding not real? How much does anxiety weigh if you put it on a scale? Love, hate, joy and sorrow are absolutely real but they can't be measured using the metric system.

Bottom line. Objectivism is a myth especially with everything being relative to everything else and relative to the observer. Ask a group of adult movie goers to explain the movie that they've just watched, the conditions of the theater and their experience with the theater's employees and none of them will give you an identical accounting. None of our life experiences are the same. There is only one way that we all interact with the universe and that is subjectively.

Thanks. That's a great example of the liberating power of religion.

...or, for a more realistic view of the illiterate, sociopathic, warmongering bipolar pedophile and misogynist named Muhammad, read Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet. Sorry, "Islam", this is a "no whitewash" zone. You can make a personal hero out of that piece of human garbage if you want but stop selling his "goodness" here. Caveat emptor, and all that...

...oh, and add "delusional" and "rampant egotism" to the criticism. We do not want to forget the private audiences with angelic transcribers or white horseback rides to see his good buddy "God".

No, sorry, stuff like this underscores the profound difference between theism's leverage of unsubstantiated belief and atheism's leverage of knowledge. Theism begs for the logical foundation which is atheism...

Jhoopy56. Your source for such information is whom ? I can tell you believe the egotistical men writers over the truth.

A billion and half Muslims across the world from all nations and colors will not follow in the foot steps of a man of your description, but a man with a truth that places him high above all others.

Mohammad's wives were mostly widows and done to bring feuding tribes to peace amongst each other.

IslamSch:

Are you denying that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and banged her when she was 9 -- and he, 54? So maybe, uhm, she was not a widow, you see...

Religion leverages the fear and ignorance of people. Do I believe there are billions of humans who fit these loose descriptors (ignorant, afraid)? Oh, yeah, easily...

As to truth -- you've seen a lot of white horses headed skyward, have you?

a man with a truth that places him high above all others.

Stop... really, I'm blushing... What can I say? It's a gift...

I believe religion is a school of thoughts about life and morality.

I think that sells religion short. There are much deeper and transformative values to religion. Hope, liberation, peace, empathy, community, connectedness, curiosity, idealism, honor, acceptance, romance (an not necessarily in the sexual context), love, soterialim, tranquility, etc...

Just because you don't accept or believe in an organized religion doesn't mean you are devoid of religion.

A very interesting point. Would you elaborate more on what you mean specifically?

Atheists and religious folks sometimes make too much out of their beliefs to the point that they forget the purpose of religion

Very true. We can all get so hung up on the little details that we miss the big picture.

Sometimes religion comes after a unique event and a number of atheist and religious folks will just have to wait until something fantastic happens before their belief in a higher power will become certain or known to them.

Very true, but not everyone has major transformative spiritual experiences. And so I don't sell short the ability of the Divine to make big things happen out of the mundane.

Not true. I was a practicing Catholic for several decades and used my brain to counter the Jesuit boast. It is possible, even if difficult, to excise religion and its hideous influence from one's life. Congrats to all who pull it off...

Religions are fabricated to give people [who deny science, fact and logic] a false reason to feel special!

Non-belief makes me feel rational.....and not gullible!

Deny science? What are you talking about? What has science "proven" about the beginning of our existence? This has been an on going debate throughout history! This is the exact reason why Atheism is a religion, you believe in theories that haven't fully been proven yet, this could be consider faith.

Religions are fabricated to give people a false reason to feel special!

The fields of psychology of religion, sociology of religion, anthropology of religion and history of religion would all roundly disagree with that statement.

A decent link to find the scientific evidence for explaining lifes' origins:

http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/448/a-primer-in-abiogenesis---the-origin-of-life-often-confused-with-evolution/

The theory of evolution is fact. It has been proven over a hundred years ago.

That our existence didn't start in the last 10,000 years.

Well the bible doesn't say that either, that is why you need to study the bible before judging it.

What has any religion "proven" about the beginning of our existence? Don't quote scripture please.....that's like saying a book about astrology proves astrology is for real.

If you studied and understood the bible as well as other ancient texts from other cultures you would know ancient people interacted and lived among other beings, you may know them as (Angels, Demons, Giants, or Gods). It would be foolish to believe almost every ancient culture fabricated Gods, some of these Gods are identical in nature to other cultures who have never met and are across the globe from each other.

What do you think the probability of this happening by chance is? Before you answer this question, I suggest you research exactly how many ancient cultures I'm referring to, you might be surprised.

Well the bible doesn't say that either, that is why you need to study the bible before judging it.

These religious people don't think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Are you saying they're misinterpreting the bible????

*gasp*

It would be foolish to believe almost every ancient culture fabricated Gods, some of these Gods are identical in nature to other cultures who have never met and are across the globe from each other.

So where are the dragons and unicorns?

Almost every culture has these mythical beasts somewhere in their ancient books and legends.

So where are they?

Where's your proof that they exist?

If you have some, I'll convert right now!

Oh, and I'd also like evidence for the creations stories of EACH religion; because of course, ALL of them are correct.

What do you think the probability of this happening by chance is?

People tell stories. I'm an artist- I make them up all the time to get across a message. Gods were made for the same purpose.

Do you think Lord of the Rings is real too?

You seem to be asserting so, since it's in a book and it has creatures we've never seen in it, AND its sold worldwide!

This is your logic, not mine.

TryUsingLogic

I do not need to read religious fantasies created by men about gods to find reason and truth.

Then why believe its fantasy if you don't understand its meaning? I can only assume you believe anything you hear without researching it first.

Anathema6205

These religious people don't think so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Are you saying they're misinterpreting the bible????

*gasp*

I believe in different earth ages, this last one lasting around 14,000 years...the link below can explain some of that for you.

http://www.biblestudysite.com/1stage.htm

So where are the dragons and unicorns?

Almost every culture has these mythical beasts somewhere in their ancient books and legends.

So where are they?

Where's your proof that they exist?

If you have some, I'll convert right now!

Isn't it interesting how almost all ancient cultures wrote about dragons, beasts and serpents? This can be explained, we already know dinosaurs existed. As for unicorns, if you're referring to re'em, I've always pictured it as an ox like creature.

Oh, and I'd also like evidence for the creations stories of EACH religion; because of course, ALL of them are correct.

We know there are many similarities in ancient myths, some seem beyond coincidence, check the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology

People tell stories. I'm an artist- I make them up all the time to get across a message. Gods were made for the same purpose.

Do you think Lord of the Rings is real too?

Are you kidding me? you compare LOTR to The Holy Bible?? I'm sure you're aware your local Walmart wasn't around the corner fully stalked with writing materials just waiting to be bought. I'm also sure you're aware education was something few had in those days, mostly the wealthy and religious students were the only ones given that opportunity. Also, people didn't have the convenience of the printing press in those days either, so writing a book for profit doesn't make much sense.

I believe in different earth ages, this last one lasting around 14,000 years...the link below can explain some of that for you.

I stopped reading the moment I read 'against evolution.'

It's a load of bullox, what any religious person says if they say they don't believe in evolution.

It's an accepted theory and fact for well over a hundred years now. Get over it.

This can be explained, we already know dinosaurs existed.

Thanks to the scientists you so readily deny and reject.

Isn't it interesting how almost all ancient cultures wrote about dragons, beasts and serpents? As for unicorns, if you're referring to re'em, I've always pictured it as an ox like creature.

So are you REALLY saying that dinosaurs existed with people at the same time?

Because I've read stuff that talked of dragons...they said they fought them.

And if you think unicorns exist, I'd like some fossils or skeletal remains to prove it.

We know WHY people said these things existed...it's because their imaginations were broad and perhaps their education was a little on the dull side.

We know there are many similarities in ancient myths, some seem beyond coincidence, check the link below.

Interesting how you automatically assume that must mean there's a god.

Ever think that people just think similarly and have similar innate fears that we all share universally?

I won't get into depth on this subject; much can be said about without even bringing the existence of god into it, and it would be just as intriguing.

It's human nature and its' evolution as a species.

I'm also sure you're aware education was something few had in those days, mostly the wealthy and religious students were the only ones given that opportunity.

Oh snap, you just answered all your questions.

Why do people believe in god, and why has it been going on for so long?...

See your quote.

Why do people say there's dragons and unicorns?

See above quote.

Why has the bible remained unchanged and unquestioned by some of its' followers for thousands of years?

See above quote.

Also, people didn't have the convenience of the printing press in those days either, so writing a book for profit doesn't make much sense.

If you were a history buff, you would understand that the people that had power were those of the church.

The only ones that wrote books were controlled by the church. The only books that were often the only ones allowed was the bible.

Anything/anyone that questioned or challenged the church was quickly burned, hanged, drowned, crushed under boulders, thrown in iron maidens...you get the idea.

And seriously? Writing something to control the masses and soak them for all their worth doesn't make sense?

Telling them every day in masses that they're going to hell unless they do EVERYTHING that they say doesn't make sense?...

It makes sense to me, though I strongly disagree with it.

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

You should credit Gervais here! ;-)

If it makes you feel better about yourself, you can call atheism a religion. It is not, however. Sorry to ruin your buzz.

As I pointed out above, there are billions upon billions of people who are both atheist and religious. The two and not mutually inclusive, however. There are also theistic religions that don't think that Christ fellow is some kind of god. There are polytheistic religions and there is animism. All those require some sort of faith, all these religions.

Not all atheists are religious. I am neither a theist nor am I religious. Can you comprehend these distinctions? Or is it necessary to frame the existance and experience of billions of others in your own particular, personal, selfish point of view? Step outside of that, if you dare. Will your religion and faith permit that?

This has nothing to do with feels on my side, I personally can care less. The only ones getting their feelings hurt are Atheists.

You're wrong AK Luahiwa. Our feelings are not hurt. We're stupefied by people who won't consider or respect a different point-of-view.

You're wrong AK Luahiwa. Our feelings are not hurt. We're stupefied by people who won't consider or respect a different point-of-view.

I respect and agree with most of science, as well do many other religious individuals, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If the hypothesis stated in the religion can be proved by the scientific method, then overlap is possible. That proof needs to withstand the test of time and must be subject to review by other scientists at any time. Where religion rests upon faith and superstition and the particular hypothesis or statements of that religion cannot withstand the rigors of scientific examination, then there is no overlap.

That's not difficult to understand. Science rests upon tests of hypothesis leading to proof. It is the antithesis of faith. Faith is not required; indeed, that which rests upon faith is suspect.

Denial of science or the scientific body on kowledge does not make that body of knowledge false, by the way. Ignorance on the part of one person does not prove ignorance on the part of the entire population.

Denial of science or the scientific body on kowledge does not make that body of knowledge false...

Here is my point exactly, though... You neither have to deny the truths of science to affirm the Truths of religion or deny the Truths of religion to affirm the truths of science.

My faith is in no way rooted in what the ancient world understood of biological history or human reproduction, for instance. However I can read the texts that deal with those issues, while having a thoroughly modern understanding of them myself, and not have to completely abandon everything that is of value from religion and theology.

There are great scientists who are persons of very deep faith, and there are great theologians who have great respect for and devotion to science. (I always feel uncomfortable using terms like that so loosely because the fields are so broad.) So the mutual exclusivity arguments always fall really short for me.

I don't know if you've ever read All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, but there is a really fantastic quote from that book that I think is really fitting to the discussion.

"The truth of poetry and parable do not compete with the truth of science or the courtroom"

Let's make a distinction between general truths derived from experiments and the application of the scientific method, and those that feel truthy for a particular individual. Anybody can duplicate the scientific truths; those personal to the individual cannot meet that standard. These two perceptions, then, are not equivalent.

Ironically, the emotional response can seem stronger than the intellectual product of science. That's a learning experience, too, that realization. Don't forget that our default state is ignorance; it takes, therefore, an effort to overcome that default state and move beyond ignorance. That effort is worth it, if you ask me.

Buddhism is atheist. Tao is atheist. Hindu is poly-theist, therefore atheist. Animism is atheist. And so on. There are many religions and religious who are atheists. There are also those who are not religious. They will be, by definition, atheist. Think about this, it's a true and important distinction.

No, just atheism is atheist.

That's why they're called...atheist.

Atheism isn't a religion.

Buddhism IS a religion, for the reasons mentioned above qualify it to be so.

Taoism IS.

Hindu...I don't even know what your comment meant by polytheistic therefore atheist.

That makes zero sense.

Atheism is a lack of belief in any deity.

Period.

Polytheism is a belief in MANY deities.

Perhaps a dictionary would serve you well.