Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

 

[Pogo]

Yet we're not writing law here so that's irrelevant. Legally, you can define a human being as three-fifths of a person, so .... so much for legal technicalities to hide behind.

Too bad.

Wow, another idiot that thinks the fact that slaves were actually counted for establishing the number of representatives proves that they were less than human. The funny part of this is that it was the people that were, allegedly, opposed to slavery that insisted that they shouldn't count at all. (My guess is you would have been right there with those assholes.) If you don't believe me, read some history.

In fact I already know that history -- where do you think I came up wtih "three-fifths"? Out of my ass? How's that been working out for you?

I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your usual drivel but this is a rare occasion and warrants it:

That is--- mark the date and time here and you'd better sit down for this...

You are correct. I would indeed be with those "assholes" opposed to slavery.

Which .... kind of tells us more about you than me if you get my drift.

That said, the mere fact that you do not regard atheism as a religion in no way obligates other atheists to have the same belief, but feel free to keep claiming that me pointing out that some atheists insist on that designation proves I am delusional.

Since we're already here -- where does your linked organisation ever call itself a "religion" -- or any part of one?

Let's check it out, shall we?

On its front page the FCA (a few miles from where I grew up) describes itself thusly:
"A community for atheists and Network of our local chapters"

Oopsie.

Under "Ordination" It describes its members as from "every race, ethnicity, age, and creed"

Over to our intrepid reporter Dictionary.com again:

creed

[kreed]
noun
1.
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
2.
any system or codification of belief or of opinion. ​

Oopsie again. This community seems to include all kinds of creeds, whereas a real "religion" IS a creed.

Leave us chek the FAQ then. That should tell us something.

>> Can atheism really have a church?

A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist. <<
​

"Church" in the sense of "community". Which is what Carla has been pointing out the entire time..

Not a "religion". Strike three.

But wait -- there's more. NOW how much would you pay....
The whole purpose of the FCA seems to be to ordain "ministers" who can conduct civil services such as marriages -- without the legal state heavy meddle of requiring some kind of OR as a qualifier.

In other words it's a way around faults of the law as practiced. A scheme to force the First Amendment to protect what it's writ to protect. The same legal system you put in a snake oil bottle and tried to sell as a "definition".

Perhaps you should try reading not only your own posts but your own links as well, before ass-uming they mean what you think they mean.

That's all. Dismissed.​

 

[asaratis]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion. I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines natural to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion. I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines natural to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.

No, it is not defined as a religion.

 

[asaratis]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion. I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines natural to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.

No, it is not defined as a religion.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....must be a duck!

 

[Hollie]

......<snip>

I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.

1. Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
   Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
   
   Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
   
   Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
   
   “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.

You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.

 

[asaratis]

......<snip>

I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.

1. Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
   Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
   
   Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
   
   Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
   
   “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.

You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.

Absolutely not. I am desperate about nothing...except maybe about having my next meal. The premises I stated are not false. The explanations in the rebuttal thereof are.

Don't expect me to trust you.

I don't push my religious beliefs on anyone. Atheists do in their incessant attacks on all religions except their godless Atheism.

You must have faith in the belief that gods do not exist because you cannot prove it....just as I have faith that God exists because I cannot prove it.

Why don't you switch to Agnosticism? Then you can safely claim there is no religion that describes what you think about gods and such.

But I guess it is repugnant for you know-it-all Atheists to say something as hideous as, "I don't know!"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are a sick puppy. You continue to deny the dictionary definition of natural just to save face and appear to be intellectual.

I have made my position clear from the start, and even explained it. I don't see why me explaining why I think the dictionary definition is inadequate somehow makes me a sick puppy. After all, you made the point that your posts are your opinion, and stuck to them even after I pointed out that your opinions are not grounded in reality. Maybe your problem is that you are inconsistent in applying the standards you expect others to use to judge you.

I never claimed that we are not part of nature. I never claimed that we control nature. We survive by adapting to it. We make the things we need from it, like bridges, silk flowers, plastic. aircraft carriers, ad infinitum. The things we make are not considered to be naturally occurring things. The are artificial things.

Funny, I bet you can't find a post where I claimed you said the things you just made a point of saying you did not say. That makes me wonder why you are going out of your way to make it look like I made any such allegation.

God necessarily came from outside the universe. Something outside of the universe had to set it all in motion...with the big bang. That something was God. God lit the fuse....then watched as nature formed all of the natural things in the universe....over billions and billions of years (our constructed metric) time...including mankind by way of evolution.

Why is it necessary that God comes from outside the universe? What proof do you have that this is a prerequisite of a being claiming the title of God? Given that you have repeatedly claimed you are not a Christian, I fail to see why you insist that the only possible God is the one popularly associated with the Abrahamic religions.

I'm done with you.

You got the asshole part right, thanks for the compliment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In fact I already know that history -- where do you think I came up wtih "three-fifths"? Out of my ass? How's that been working out for you?

You know the history? Are you aware that the slave owners are the ones that insisted that slaves counted the same as non slaves for representation, or did you simply pull the 3/5ths out of a book and ignore the history behind the debate?

I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your usual drivel but this is a rare occasion and warrants it:

But you have an obsessive need to actually win an argument with me because you have lost every single argument we have had on this board.

That is--- mark the date and time here and you'd better sit down for this...

Yawn.

You are correct.

I would indeed be with those "assholes" opposed to slavery.

I didn't say you would be with the assholes opposed to slavery. If you had read my post you would have noticed the key word you missed, that word being allegedly. I even set it off in commas to make it clear that it was important. Then again, you have trouble with the word it, so I can understand why you missed what that word did to the sentence.

To be clear, I said you would be with the assholes that were opposed to counting the slaves as a single human being. The same assholes who profited of the slaves by passing laws that forced free states to give the slaves back to the owners if they escaped to the North. The same assholes who were happy to take advantage of slavery to make money for themselves. Those are the assholes I said you would be with.

That, again proves you do not actually read anything anyone else says, you just jump to absurd conclusions based on your delusions.

Which .... kind of tells us more about you than me if you get my drift.

I have to disagree, but feel free to prove me right by making another point about how stupid you are.

Since we're already here -- where does your linked organisation ever call itself a "religion" -- or any part of one?

In the filings it provides to the IRS, oh he who thinks he knows everything.

But wait -- there's more. NOW how much would you pay....
The whole purpose of the FCA seems to be to ordain "ministers" who can conduct civil services such as marriages -- without the legal state heavy meddle of requiring some kind of OR as a qualifier.

In other words it's a way around faults of the law as practiced. A scheme to force the First Amendment to protect what it's writ to protect. The same legal system you put in a snake oil bottle and tried to sell as a "definition".

Perhaps you should try reading not only your own posts but your own links as well, before ass-uming they mean what you think they mean.

That's all. Dismissed.

Seriously?

May I pint out that the Society of Humanist routinely jumps through the same legal hoops without calling any of their their members ministers? They use the word officiant for people that are legally allowed to perform weddings.

Want to tell me again how clever you are?

 

[Pogo]

Poor Windy.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

 

[Pogo]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

 

[asaratis]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

 

[Pogo]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

 

[PratchettFan]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

 

[Pogo]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist. It's a relative term - hence the scale. The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities. Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion. I could redefine things and make myself a Saint...just like QW redefines natural to include all things made by man simply because man is a part of nature.

Lets see you do better...

 

[Carla_Danger]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

 

[Pogo]

"Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion" doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than grapefruit or a piano bench does. They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.

Basically what the revisionistas are doing is: