Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Pogo]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...

This just in: Atheism is not a religion. Breaking news.
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions. And that's three religions --- not four.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.

I agree. Everyone has a fucking fright.

 

[Pogo]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

It is not a "set of beliefs", it is a single non-belief. The answer is the set of beliefs requested to qualify a religion -- simply does not exist. It is a zero. Zero can never be "one". It is the absence (i.e. non-presence) of the designated belief.

I don't believe in satyrs. That doesn't make asatyrism a "religion". Don't know what's so elusive about that.

Ok. I just want to point out that you just made up a word. Kind of brought a tear to my eye.

I was born on a Satyrday too.

 

[asaratis]

Of course not. It is man made. Invented and constructed by man as opposed to occurring naturally. Iron ore is natural. Knives are not.

What is the intrinsic difference between a beaver dam and a dam made by man? What makes one natural, and the other unnatural? Defining natural in such a way that you exclude the works of human beings is, at best, simplistic.

Beavers build dams instinctively. Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct). Concrete dams do not exist in nature. They are man made after a learning process.

]Wrong. That is their natural way of protecting and raising their young.

And a house is man's natural way of doing the exact same thing.

Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them. The first humans had no houses. Many lived in caves. Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seems like it. Since they won't answer the question, that will have to do.

And it makes logical sense; in other words once it's been pointed out that they've painted themselves into a corner, they want company in that corner, presumably to save face. So they start insisting, "hey, you're standing in the corner too" --- to people who aren't even in the room.

Hate to point out the obvious, but rationality and reason are the very foundations of all religious thought since the days of Plato. By arguing that your reason trumps that of others you are arguing in favor of your religious viewpoints, even if you don't know that. I am pretty sure Maher is educated enough to understand what he is saying, but I could be wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

Yet you make it into a production by using the philosophy behind religion to make your point.

Interesting.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

No, it is the opposite of action. Only the thought process is an action. You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating theism with religion.

And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does. The point is it does not espouse any beliefs.

No, it not the opposite of action. Belief is entirely a thought process, but how we act based upon that belief is action. Religion is action arising from belief. It need not arise at all, but if it does it arises from belief. That is its nature.

Atheists obviously espouse beliefs. What the heck was Carla doing when she said she thinks God is improbable if not espousing a belief? If you are not espousing your belief, what are you doing here?

 

[alpine]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

Emotional meltdown continues...

(a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
(b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
(c) the end.

Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all. Premise presented; premise rejected. Not rocket surgery.

Why would I melt down? Because I don't have smilies like you have in my messages?

Anyways, the FACT you are missing is, not all people come to the conclusion on religion like: "Premise presented; premise rejected". Ignorant and close minded people would find this process very convenient, but for the people who came up with the idea of "atheism", it was not.

The only reason they were atheists were because they were emotional on this subject. Otherwise they would do the same as the rest of the closed minded people who were many on their time; "Premise presented; premise rejected."

So actually the dictionary.com definition you put up here was a very correct and beautiful one comparing to the OP used. And I said I liked your definition better before. But now you are just rejecting your own definition.

Atheist people very well suits the definition you put up here. And that is a very good thing I believe. I don't understand any atheist trying to differentiate themselves from religious people.

Up in the brain, we are all the same and atheists should know this better than anyone, rather than being SMUG about it...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm afraid that definition is faultily limited. It's a definition of theistic religion.

More inclusive for this purpose, brought forth from earlier:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
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. (Dictionary.com)

Funny, that sounds a lot like science to me. Does that mean you think science is a religion, or does it actually mean that your proffered definition is faulty? Personally, I vote for the latter, but you are probably stupid enough that you will argue that science is a religion.

 

[Pogo]

Most Atheists aren't trying to convert anyone.

They just don't want to hear the bullshit. Keep it in your churches/temples/mosques and homes.

We fucking pay for it.

You don't want to convert people, you just want to shut them up because you disagree with them. I have only one thing to say to that, fuck you. Everyone has a fucking fright to say whatever the fuck they want, even you. The fact that someone has to take the time to explain that to the idiots, like you, shows just how wrong you are when you argue that atheism is not a religion. If you don't understand the reference I can refer you to a long history of various religions working to suppress the words of people that challenged their doctrines.

I agree. Everyone has a fucking fright.

I understand we're all born with a fear of falling...

 

[Pogo]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

No, it is the opposite of action. Only the thought process is an action. You're conflating thought process with action just as the other poster was conflating theism with religion.

And you're moving goalposts here -- the question is not, and never has been, whether atheism refers to beliefs; of course it does. The point is it does not espouse any beliefs.

No, it not the opposite of action. Belief is entirely a thought process, but how we act based upon that belief is action. Religion is action arising from belief. It need not arise at all, but if it does it arises from belief. That is its nature.

Atheists obviously espouse beliefs. What the heck was Carla doing when she said she thinks God is improbable if not espousing a belief? If you are not espousing your belief, what are you doing here?

Describing a thought process.

This post describes a thought process, as does yours. Doesn't qualify either as "religions".

Again, you cannot have a "religion" until you espouse some set of beliefs or philosophy. Those are absent, ergo religion not qualified.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, that sounds a lot like science to me. Does that mean you think science is a religion, or does it actually mean that your proffered definition is faulty? Personally, I vote for the latter, but you are probably stupid enough that you will argue that science is a religion.

Science is not a religion. Science is a process, a methodology for discovery. Science postulates nothing, it merely offers the tools for people to test what they postulate.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

No, you don't get to put your un-reason on the same shelf as my reason. (thank you, Bill Maher)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since 1812 there have been examples that Bigfoot lives. There are even books on that subject, providing evidence. I reject that evidence. I do not believe in Bigfoot. Is that a religion?

There has been no evidence that Bigfoot lives. There is, however, abundant evidence that religions are real.

 

[alpine]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.

Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...

I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.

 

[PratchettFan]

[/QUOTE]

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up. I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain. Was Dawkins wrong? Because either he is wrong or you are.

I do try to clean it up but it seems every time I think I've figured it out the damn thing changes.

 

[Pogo]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

Emotional meltdown continues...

(a) You argue that the Creator is the Flying Spaghetti Monster;
(b) I consider your theory and decide it is without merit.
(c) the end.

Nothing "smug", "disgusting", "fancy", "bitchy" or "infallible" about it --- in fact no emotion present at all. Premise presented; premise rejected. Not rocket surgery.

Why would I melt down? Because I don't have smilies like you have in my messages?

Anyways, the FACT you are missing is, not all people come to the conclusion on religion like: "Premise presented; premise rejected". Ignorant and close minded people would find this process very convenient, but for the people who came up with the idea of "atheism", it was not.

The only reason they were atheists were because they were emotional on this subject. Otherwise they would do the same as the rest of the closed minded people who were many on their time; "Premise presented; premise rejected."

So actually the dictionary.com definition you put up here was a very correct and beautiful one comparing to the OP used. And I said I liked your definition better before. But now you are just rejecting your own definition.

Atheist people very well suits the definition you put up here. And that is a very good thing I believe. I don't understand any atheist trying to differentiate themselves from religious people.

Up in the brain, we are all the same and atheists should know this better than anyone, rather than being SMUG about it...

Once again, "smug" is your own plug-in, as is your implied history above. Strawman. There is no emotion in a simple cold logical conclusion.

And no I'm in no way "rejecting my own definition". On the contrary it's crucial.

 

[Pogo]

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.

Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...

I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.

That doesn't make any sense. I didn't even use the word "religion" there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wait -- did you just declare Wikipedia to be infallible?

The definition in the OP was unnecessarily limited to theistic religions. "Theism" and "religion" continue not to be synonyms. So I supplied a more inclusive definition that doesn't exclude nontheistic religions. Unless you're about to tell us that Buddhism and Taoism are not "religions". Good luck making that case, because here's Wiki again, apparently contradicting itself:

Jainism /ˈdʒeɪnɪz(ə)m/, traditionally known as Jaina Shasana or Jaina dharma (Sanskrit: जैन धर्म), is a nontheistic Indian religion that prescribes a path of ahimsa - nonviolence - towards all living beings, and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life.​

Interesting.

Jainists make no attempt to define the purpose of the universe, therefore it is not a religion if your preferred definition is right.

On the other hand, if religion does not have to concern itself with things like you insist are the elements of religion, then atheism can be a religion.