All you need to do is check a dictionary.

A religion is a belief in God.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God.

Therefore Atheism is not a religion, by definition.

No need to make it complicated.

not sure about that.

a religion is a belief in a god figure. The belief is based on faith since no scientific proof of such a being exists.

atheism is a denial of belief in a god figure. The denial  is based on faith since no scientific proof of the non existence of such a being exists.

Therefore atheism is a variety of religion. And an extreme atheist (most of them ) is his/her faith's equivalent of a Christian fundy.

Bretta lists all kinds of criteria for a religion, all of which are nonsense. Lots of religions, expecially the primitive ones, have no structures, no written bibles, no clear rules, etc. So I guess you could call atheism a sort of primitive religion.

graeme

Butttttt, if you make having no god a god within itself, and you worship that concept, then atheism is a religion since the god you worship is no god.  Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tua.  (whaddayaexpect for a Friday night, eh?)

I would suggest that you can have an atheist religion. For instance, pure Buddhism doesn't have a god(s) per se. It could be argued that UU'ism as a movement is atheist, since as a group we don't have a belief in God, although many individuals within the movement do believe in some form of deity(ies). Therefore, I think that atheism is not in and of itself a religion, but it could be (and is) part of the belief systems of some religions. However, it can also be a purely secular philosophy not connected to a religion.

LOL...  So those who don't believe in the existence of:

- magic

- orcs

- fairies

- Skak

- faeries

- gnomes

- dragons

- unicorns

- goblins

- pegusi

- guffwaws

- minotaurs

- psychics

- gorgons

- centaurs

- hypogriffs

- werewolves

- thestrals

- Basilisks

- spiddldypauts

- kmsaxxuhjhbdcmlksfdjwdflkehkfdwsklksds...

and countless trillions of other... - anything at all with absolutely zero evidence! - are likewise all religions and we're all therefore members of said countless religions...  Yeah - let's go with that, Graeme!  Too funny! 

It's actually not a bad idea and places 'religions' in the realm of the completely meaningless.  Is that your point, Graeme - that they're meaningless enough now, so let's make sure everyone recognises that that is a clear and obvious fact?  Clearly... no nonsense, here!

Sorry Graeme, but you're doing that complicating thing I warned you about.

It's simple

Religion is a belief in God

Atheism is a lack of a belief in God

Not a denial of a stricture of a faith of a person of a semantic of a structure of a godhead of a tome of a institutionofathingofapiceofawhateverofablahblahblah

You can be an athieist by virtue of no other quality than lacking a belief in God. You don't have to deny anything. You don't have to claim anything. You don't have to have anything.

You just don't believe in God.

That's all it takes..

Simple.

WHOA!!!! Nice hair cut Freundly.

At this point I have lost all interest in whether or not atheism is a religion. Atheists are free to not believe all they wish. 

A religion is a system of beliefs. Atheism is one belief (or lack thereof if you prefer), not a system. Therefore it is not a religion. It is a component of some religions though, like Buddhism and Taoism. They are atheistic religions, but the atheism itself is not a religion, nor is it what makes them religions.

FG,

"For me, atheism’s roots are in a sober and modest assessment of where reason and evidence lead us. That means the real enemy is not religion as such, but any kind of system of belief that does not respect these limits on our thinking. For that reason, I want to engage with thoughtful, intelligent believers, and isolate extremists. But if we demonise all religion, such coalitions of the reasonable are not possible. Instead, we are likely to see moderate religious believers join ranks with fundamentalists, the enemies of their enemy, to resist what they see as an attempt to wipe out all forms of religious belief."

--Julian Baggini

Thanks, guys. I do see a half and half issue here. I'll bring that up on Monday when I see this friend. Mendalla, I might just use your Bhuddist example.

The more I see of atheists (did I get the spelling right this time?) on this site the more I think that they have many of the characteristics of a religion.  A creed or statement of belief that defines them - we don't believe in any god.  A belief that this somehow makes them superior to those who are different - ie those poor souls who believe in a god.  Sacred scripture - oh I know that they will deny this, and then quote their favourite writers to prove their point.  And it seems that they have some organization - although not all atheists belong to the same or any organization.  Sounds like a religion to me.

Agnostics are not a religion. They neither believe nor disbelieve in that for which they have no evidence. On questions like witches and goblins, I neither believe nor disbelieve- (For the most part, I really couln't even define most of the things in that list, and don't much care.)

I have no problem with agnostics. But atheists are different. They actively deny the existence of any god. That is not the same as disbelieving. By making a denial of that which they cannot possibly prove, they cross the line into faith.

So I put them into a category with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Athesitm is not an organized religion, of course. But I'm not sure that being disorganized makes it any way superior.

graeme

So you have absolutely no idea as to the existence of witches, huh?  That kind of attitude would explain why there was no outcry when supposed 'witches' were burned at the stake by 'loving' Christians.  So sad.

Try reading Witch's post Graeme...  You're confusing an 'atheist' with 'militant atheist', 'activist atheist', etc... or perhaps you're just being willfully ignorant.  And I only became active a very few short years ago - 3 or 4? - in the face of continual active hate from Christians.  But still - as I've said before - I'm an agnostic atheist.

And you have no clue as to whether fairies, unicorns or dragons exist either?  That would explain why you can accept a 'God' with an equal amount of evidence... zero.  I'm glad I wrote that list - it's provided an insight to you.

You really got a beef with the whole tax exempt thing don't you BrettA?

Tell me, why are you so annoyed by (basically) a charity organization not having to pay tax?

Are you also annoyed by exclusivism?

Because most religions are inclusive.  Whether their extreme fringes want you to know or not.

How about preferences given to Aboriginals when it comes to job acquiring?

How about "affirmative action"?

Just trying to probe your thinking.

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

Errr... Because I include it in a list?  You really seem defensive about this one aspect.  So, no... no real beef and much less so than other aspects of religions, but this 'thing' (as you call it) would allow govenrment to put money towards, say, the infrastucture that churches use... sounds fair to me.

D'ya mean "pay no tax"?  Well, this is because they are clearly not "(basically)" a charity organisation, so your premise is flawed from the outset.  Also, churches have been fabulously wealthy and although are less so today, likely have far more wealth that than any true charity, so why should they not pay taxes.  It could have something to do with charity organizations not calling others fools for 18 centuries and me not (yet?) finding members of charity organizations publically misrepresenting me and hundreds or millions of others in truly ugly ways... which is the sole reason I found this site.  No issue with the rest, thanks.

Hmmm...  I don't think I'm superior to you, but your ugly central book calls me a 'fool'.  Pot-kettle-black?  Edit:  Oh... unless of course you mean that you think we're superior to you.

Well i've seen you mention it elsewhere whilst listing your list of evils of religion.  Just was using my initiative to deduce.

What would you rather have the money go towards in stead of a church?  And by the same token, what would you rather have a church over? 

Yes, Is what I say.

 Please elaborate on how they are not a charity?  Do they charge people for going to church?  No.  Tithing doesn't happen in most of the world anymore, so you can't sue that as an excuse.  Offering?  Thats not required at all.  Most clergy people either work for very little or volunteer.  Any money they have goes to upkeep of the church and outreach/events/helping the helpless...et cetera.  Sure there is abuse...but have you seen the abuses of capitalism??

 Because it is a law.  Your and atheist, follow it.  I'm a Muslim, I follow it too.  If you have a problem with it take it to your MP, not me, or a member of clergy.

Come now, there is always misrepresentation and you know it.  Whether its of a charity, a religious group, a political group, even schools of thought.

And as for calling people fools...does it really hurt your feelings that much?  You don't think everyone on earth has been called a fool from time to time?

Anyways, thats my rant.  Sorry to unload on you like that, I just started the ball rolling and didn't think of stopping until I hit the bottom of the hill.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

:)

 Well i've seen you repeat the sentiment elsewhere.

Tell me, what would you rather have in place of a church, what would you rather have a church over?

Is what I say

Define charity organization please.  In your own words.  Besides tithing which doesn't happen often anywhere anymore, thereis no cost on the part of the participents.  it's a charity organization ebcause it offer's it's services for free.  Collection?  Thats not mandatory. Besides, any money collected either goes towards upkeep of the church and/or outreach things like helping homeless people, or hosting community picknics.

Not to mention most clergy people are payed much less than their counterparts in the professional world.  If they get payed at all.

Because it's a law.  Beef about it in the politics section of perhaps to your MP.

Everyone from every marxist to every capitalist to every muslim to every UUist has been misrepresented.  And everyone has been called a fool.  Those can't possibly be problems you connect with a charity are they?

As-Salaamu Alaikum

-Omni

Oops, It appears my first post wasen't deleted as I thought by my internet hiccup.

Not to compound my arguement, but I decided to leave the second one because it is slightly different from the first one.

Wow...what a waste of time xD

As-Salaamu alaikum

-Omni

Unfortunately you are confused in your definitions Graeme.

An Agnostic DOES believe in God, but simply contends that God's nature is unknowable. The description you give for an Agnostic is actually applicable to an Atheist. An Atheist does NOT have to deny the existence of God in order to be an Atheist. You are taking the actions and beliefs of SOME Atheists, and attempting to make those the defining characteristics of ALL Atheists. Do all Christians kill abortion docters in church?

A person who never had a single thought about God in his lifetime would be an Atheist, by definition. No denial required.

Well I cannot say about Goblins, as such, but I can assure you that Witches really do exist.

Typical...  putting ugly words in my mouth *sigh*.  No, I don't think there's anything 'evil' in my lists and respectfully request that you (and others) not do this.  I fail to understand why theists continually do this... it gets most tedious.  And the list was essentially the same... so my question was why you picked only one item - taxes - out of it (your 'initiative' seems very selective.)

You're kiddin, no?  TAXES!  That's the whole point you've been on about!  Or as an example of use (once again)... infrastucture that churches use - such as propery taxes going towards roads, water and sewage.

Sorry?  Did I say or suggest anything to prompt this seemingly out-of-left field question?  All I was suggesting is that churches pay their fair share of taxes; nothing about wanting something "over churches" (or is this a fear-mongering attempt of yours?).

Incredible...  40+ Dictionaries to help you figure this out...

http://onelook.com/?w=charity&ls=a 

http://onelook.com/?w=religion&ls=a

Uh...  I'm talking about the inequity of said law.  Indeed I have taken it ip with MPs and this was a discussion point (do you understand this term - 'discussion point'?).  And I'll take it up with whomever I want, thanks - you seem to think that you have some God-given right to tell me who I can talk to (no surprises there), but we still have free speech here (at least with the current secular laws).  So sorry to disappoint. 

I did say, 'in truly ugly ways'.  And the context is around taxes.  If an organization and its members continually misrepresent others, then I think they should lose the privilege of avoiding taxes so this money does not go towards propogating such hate and misrepresentation, ad infititum. 

And could you please provide an example of a charity that continually misrepresents others in ugly ways?  Especially one that is merely based on belief - it's akin to having thought police.  Political groups actually do work for the people (or die unless supported externally) and 'schools of thought' don't get out of paying their way by not paying taxes (context, remember?).

Hurt?  Whoever said I'm hurt by this?  It's the hatred that results from 18 centuries of being called a fool in their silly central book and all that stems from it that I mainly object to.... and in the context of this post, I don't wish to subsidize and support such organizations, thank you very much. 

Agnosticism simply deals with a lack of knowledge... which may not even deal with the subject of 'God'(s).  So, as an agnostic atheist, I take issue with your "An Agnostic DOES believe in God".  Still dealing with agnosticism where it does relate to the existence of 'God'(s), I'll suggest that there are:

- Agnostic theists - who realise they can't know, but believe in God(s). 

- Agnostic atheists - who realise they can't know, but don't believe in God(s).

I further submit that anyone who claims not one doubt that there is or is not a 'God', is deluding him or herself...  possibly due to life-long indoctrination as opposed to actually thinking about it.  However, for simplicity, it seems not unreasonable to call oneself a theist or atheist alone, and only to qualify the terms when the subject of doubt or its l;ack crops up.

OK Brett, I believe your description of the definition of an Agnostic is more correct than was mine. There is a class of Agnostics who are atheistic, and your point is valid.

I have no quarrel either with your second point.  By calling oneself a theist or an atheist, one is simply using the terms as most basic. It is up to the individual to furtehr refine their beliefs, or lack, as they wish, and whatever label applies... applies.

Where the problem comes in is when people seek to change the meaning of a word to suit their own sensibilities, or in some cases, prejudices. Thus labelling atheism as a religion is simply incorrect' as musch so as the claim that Christianity is not a religion. Both are predicated on a faulty understanding of what the words mean.

Atheists are very sensitive, too, and easily roused to a frenzy. And they will see themselves as the wise ones under constant and unfair attack. And they will respond viciously to people who didn't even realize they were talking to them. Perhaps to compare them to Witnesses is unfair. Perhaps I should have said Scientologists.

Look, folks. You want to be atheist. Okay. Do it. But face the terrible truth. Nobody cares what you believe or don't believe in.

Oh, and never waste time discussing anything with people who have to write paragraphs defining each word.  When that happens, laguage as a tool of communication becomes impossible. 

graeme

Pretty pointed generalizations there, Graeme?

Most of the Atheists I know are quite the opposite, they simply don't care about the whole thing. They don't argue, or rant, or even discuss religion. They have no interest in talking about religion. It's just not part of them.

Perhaps you are making the mistake of using the few militant atheists as a template for all?

Spoken like a true obfuscator....

You most often hear this arguement immediately after someone has made an error in debate by argueing from the wrong word.

Proper definitions do not render communication impossible, they render it possible. If two people speak different languages that the other doesn't understand, communication is impossible. Differences between languages is nothing more than differences in definitions of words. Whether you have the wrong definition of a few words, or all of them, is only a measure of the difficulty you will have, the fact is that the difficulty remains.

If you are debating the proper way to build a house, and you insist on calling lumber "grape jelly", and calling a hammer "macaroni and cheese dinner", you aren't going to be well understood, and the fault of that misunderstanding will be yours. In that instance would you still use the "stop arguing semantics" excuse?

Semantics are only irritating to people who use the wrong word.

There aren't many more frenzied people on the planet than Christians... take a gander at "Jesus Camp" (LOL)

I only came here to correct the Christian who - like many other Christians - stated that I and millions of others "lack morals"...  and felt the need to create a five paragraph post to do little else but state that.  Now go burn a "witch", Graeme - even if she looks human, ya don't know whether witches are fiction, so ya best make sure and burn her anyway.

Hmmm... that would be - you.

BTW, churches do pay property taxes for rentals that are outside of the charitable purpose of the organization.  They also pay more GST and PST than registered businesses.  Certainly it's possible to deny all charities, educational facilities and foundations tax exemptions but as pointed out upthread, it would likely have a detrimental effect on society in general.  For the betterment of society, I have no problem offering exemptions...cms

Oh, well this is excellent - thanks!  So, all churches, mosques, etc., - as places of "worship" rather than charity - pay property taxes?  I'm somewhat surprized as it means that vitually everyone I've spoken to is clearly mistaken... Omnissiah even seemed to think so.  Churches often have prime locations and it's great to know that these are taxed!  I apologise for raising it as an issue...  I wonder if this is true in other jusirdictions or was true here in earlier times (as it must have come from somewhere.) 

And where 'upthread', please - "betterment" & "society" aren't found.

In Quebec until the 1960s, thanks to the political clout of tthe RC church, churches paid no tax on most (at least) of their land holdings. That was quite a bonux for the RC church which was surely the largely landowner iin Quebec. When that status ended, it forced the church into massive land sales.

graene

Witch, you may be right. I may be confusing the minority of atheists who seek out a church site to write with a majority that is not nearly so insecure.

Morals? It has never seemed to me that atheists in general have morals any different from Christians in general. (Well, you have your stalins. We have our George Bushes.) I speak with some authority on this. I was an atheist for quite a long time. The experience as well as the prelude and postlude have left me unconvinced about the existence of any great barriers between the two.

I supppose the biggest point of difference I came across is that many Christians believe they got their moral code straight from God, and atheists kid themselves they figured it all out by themselves one night over a couple of beers.

I can't take either of those views seriously.

graeme.

You're welcome.  However it appears that you still don't understand.  As I said, the property taxes are to be paid on monies received for purposes outside of the charity's stated purpose.  In suggesting that a place of worship is not a charity, you have shown your misunderstanding of the Income Tax Act.  Advancement of religion qualifies an organization as a charity in Canada.

My apologies.  It must have been the other thread where this argument was made.  One of the reasons that charities receive the exemption is that they do a great deal of work that the government cannot afford to pay for on its own.  They rely on the various charities and foundations in this country to support much of the social network.  If they all collapsed, much of the good work being done in communities across the country would simply cease to occur...cms

You are very adept at using sarcasm.  Do unto other's as you would have them do unto you.  Remember that the next time someone rants at you.

As-salaamu Alaikum BrettA, peace be upon you, may your spirit, and all others, feel at rest.

-Omni

Well, I never professed to understand the Income Tax Act, but based on this, I've done some digging.  To my utter amazement, it seems a religion *must* promote the idea of a 'God' or 'Gods' FOR RELIGIONS TO BE CONSIDERED A CHARITY!!!

This is saying that you *must* promote unsubstantiated and superstitious ideas to be a charity (well, a religious one), and that helping others matters not!  Based on that, astrology should qualify!   

And I disagree with your analysis... If religions (as opposed to charities who actually help people) paid tax, then the government could indeed afford to do more.  And since the government isn't based on superstitions (well, most of them), they can be trusted far more.

Oh, dear...  Sarcasm?  I wonder why you think this?  I'm sorry, but just as I learned above that preists pay tax, I thought this person was telling me that churches do as well.  I never mind learning new things.  Are you always so distrusting of people?

However, I am indeed learning and have now become active in promoting the idea that religions pay their fair taxes and I'm immensely pleased that many others have started this... even within the church!  

And by the way, I've never been treated with sarcasm (and disgust, hate, etc.) like I have in the past ~3 years from religious people in my entire life... Not even remotely close, Oh, Dismissive One.

As one recent example...

...which seems to say that self-gratification, self-aggrandisement, and the basic maximizing of personal "now" goals are the sole things worth noting about atheists (now, you'll likely go and dismiss this, as usual).

I believe the example cjms was giving woudl relate to a church building that was rented out to say a fitness club daily.  that income , lets say $500/ week for space rental or $26.000 annually would be entered into the books differenlty than the weekly collection.

That church income is handled differently by the accounting practices and taxes would be paid on that type of income.

Now I can't imagine many church building that do share with some organization such as a fitness club but it would be possible.  I know in our church we occasionally get quite a large fee for movie crew rentals.  Either as holding spaces or for actually filming.  This income is quite different on the books than donations.

FG, I don't see atheism itself as a relgion under the defination.  I do see what we often refer to as fundy atheists or perhaps more corectly militant atheists as quite "religious" in their dogmatism.

That is correct...and has actually been under review for the past couple of years with the intent of expanding the definition to encompass 21st century concepts of sacredness/divinity. 

No it does not.  Supernatural theism is merely one concept.  If you read long enough here (WC site) you will discover all sorts of other concepts.  BTW, helping others is vital to charitable status.  Even if organizations chose not to register as advancing religion, they could certainly do so under any of the other elligible categories - and public benefit is always key.

And I disagree with your analysis... If religions (as opposed to charities who actually help people) paid tax, then the government could indeed afford to do more.  And since the government isn't based on superstitions (well, most of them), they can be trusted far more.

[/quote]

And that is, of course, your prerogative.  May I assume that you have calculated the costs that would be put on the country's burden for, let's say, labour costs vs volunteer costs.  I have done this type of analysis on a large scale which has strengthened my belief in my statement.  What analysis have you done?...cms

Ok - this thread had changed from the original question to one about taxes.  Do churches and clergy pay taxes?  Actually, it has been discussed on other threads as well.

I think that we have established that clergy people and church staff pay income taxes on their salaries. 

Now one question seems to be about property tax.  Do churches pay property tax?  I believe the answer is: No.  Why don't they?  I think that when exemption was first granted it was probably because the province and municipality saw the churches as providing a worthwhile service to the community.  Do they still?  Well, if providing a place where people can gather in community to worship is not enough, it seems that we have also established that urban churches are open seven days a week and that they are providing services.  Support for the food banks, community kitchens, shelter come to mind.  Toy library, lending library, and clothing exhange take place in a church building.  A gathering place for seniors to play cards and table games, to share a hot meal.  A drop-in place for the downtown people to play pingpong, socialize, have a snack or a meal.  A place for AA, for youth groups, preschool children and their parents.  etc.  etc.  etc.  each church being different.  Study groups on justice issues.  Study groups on the environment.  The list go on.  As I said in another thread - suppose the church paid property tax, and suppose the municipality and the province gave credits for service provided which would end up owing the other?

Then there is the question of charitable status.  Do churches pay taxes on income?  I don't believe anyone does - they pay taxes on profits and churches don't make profits.  Their income is used for operating expenses such as salaries, maintenance, and for charitable purposes (see above).   Their income comes from free will offerings from people who have already paid their personal income tax - and from fundraising efforts such as bake sales, rummage sales, dinners at which volunteers do the work.  And the finance committee are usually very careful to obey the guidlines set out by the income tax act.

...one further note, seeler.  Charities (not just churches) pay employer payroll taxes for any employees...cms

Wait a minute...  Are you saying that property tax exemption *on* the place of worship (the church and property itself, for example) can or cannot be applied based on said worship alone?  If it can be exempt, the requirement for the promotion of 'God' or 'Gods' simply doesn't make sense and this isn't how I read whatever web site I saw on Saturday.  Put another way, if a church solely promoted supernatural theism, would it be tax exempt or not?

By the way, I have no issue with actual charitable activities being tax-exempt (religious or otherwise), so I'm hoping to keep this the above para to understand tax and supernatural theism alone. 

And if you're saying that this site is an example of why churches should be tax exempt due to the resulting 'public benefit', I'll first ask:  Are you kidding?

Sorry?  Are you questioning (simplified): "If religions paid tax, then the government could indeed afford to do more"?  This appears a self-evident truth, especially given the prime locations and size of many churches.  Does your analysis indicate the reverse, say that:

"If religions paid tax, then the government couldn't afford to do as much as now, when churches do not pay this tax?"

I looked at Revenue Canada myself and BrettA is bang on. For charitable purposes they do, indeed, use theistic belief as part of their definition of religion. Whether we agree with that definition or not is moot, as far as taxes are concerned, that's what they say. That said, they also say that a charity is not actually defined in the act and that the definitions they use have been established by common law, so changing it could be done through court challenges. Now, property tax is a whole different kettle of fish since it's governed by provincial laws and local by-laws, so the definitions could be different.

Reference: p. 8 of this: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4063/t4063-08e.pdf

Freundiy - you'll notice your question has been completely lost in these posts. That's because both atheists and christians are often more interested in what they have to say than in anything you would like to  know. So, very briefly...

1, Atheists, simply by being atheists do not have any common set of beliefs or values. Some think they are atheists out of intellectual conviction. Some are atheists because they see no reason to thing otherwise. Some think it makes them intellectually superior to be atheists. Some, probably, few, find atheist organizations which espouse certainly moral values. But, in general, simply being an atheist means you don't believe there is a god or gods. That's it.

2. Is it a religion? Well, if you think a religion must have a set of rules and beliefs then, no, it isn't.

    If, as I do, you think that believing in anything that cannot be proven or disbelieving in anything that cannot be proven is an act of faith and therefore a religion, then they are a sort of religion - and in that respect not much different from most Christians.

graeme

Sorry Brett.  It seems that graeme has decided that the conversation cannot go where it will.  Pity - it was a good discussion.  However I'm not sure where some of your questions were coming from in relation to what I was saying.  Perhaps another time...cms

Hmmm...  I wonder why you raised this point out of the blue on this forum, given the first 2 posts in the very recent thread:  "Divinity of Jesus"(?)  Unless IB and the UC mentioned in the OP are considered "extreme fringe".

oh, cjms 1. you're not sure where some of his questions were coming from in relation to what you were saying???? Do you commonly have that difficulty in answering questions? I suspect you do.

2. And I decided, with one post, to change the direction of the thread? Hey. You're one person, just like me. You could change it right back. And that would be so much better than getting paranoid.

graeme

There are several atheistic or non-theistic religions in the Far East. Even I, as a member of the United Church, call myself a "spiritual atheist."

If, as I believe, God is the self-generative universe, then there is no supernatural God. There is, however, the self-generative universe as God. In such a universe, there can be any number of gods, or no god at all, or just one God. (Take your pick and organize accordingly! :-) The members of UAA (United Atheists Association) vehemently deny the existence of God, but are united in a common cause, and therefore might qualify as a religion.

What is common to us all, theists and atheists, religionists and non-religionists, is the search for truth, which is a spiritual quest.

I am of German ethnic background. In the German language and culture, the word for spirit and intellect is the same: "Geist." In my mind, any intellectual quest is also a spiritual quest, and vice versa. When we separate intellect from spirit, then both are in trouble. 

I think it completely depends on the atheist. There are many different "kinds" of atheists.

See, the difference between spirituality and religion are that spirituality is within, and religion is when ppl who share the same fundamental beliefs get together as a group.

They do have atheist churches, believe it or not (which I think is an oxymoron, but whatever). So I think if you asked the people who go to those churches, they would probably say that atheism is a religion. Because they've assembled a group of people who believe in not believing. They still have beliefs, they just don't fit into any group so they call themselves atheists.

Then there are people who simply do not believe that anything matters. They think we're here for no reason, nobody or nothing created us, when we die we will disintegrate, and that's that. Those are nihilists. Who also usually call themselves atheists...

I guess you've got to go to the source, for that one.

Is your friend an atheist?

Atheists self identify as basing their understandings on evidence, rather than belief and faith.

So no, atheism is not a religion.

LL&P

Spock

I'm coming in late, so maybe commenting on the OP is more of an interruption, but I just wanted to put my two cents in. This thread seems to have diverted sharply from the OP.