From a biological perspective, there is no reason to assume that atheism is not a religion

Atheism is a religion, fagdoras. The fact you can't see it is proof of your ignorance.

Explain, I saw this in another thread and im just not getting it.

Atheism in its original, dictionary meaning is not a religion, but an absence of one.

Atheism colloquially is absolutely a religion.

>Yes, all religion is bad.
A purely simplistic black and white world view.
>The true enlightened path is agnosticism
That's like the most unenlightened path. If you would have said something like perennial traditionalism, or along the lines that every theology has some value in places and perhaps problems in others, you might be on to something. Agnostics are just
>dude, we can't know anything (even though people do when they put the effort in) and all organized religion is bullshit because giving something as broad as organized religion any value is inconvenient to my lifestyle and pre-conceived notions. Also i'm too lazy to understand the nuance of organized faith and instead will only bother to look at them all at the most superficial level.
>in which you're not arrogant enough to assume knowledge of the creation of all existence.
Christianity leaves most of the workings of the universe as a mystery. Moreso than other faiths, actually. Which religion actually purports what you claim?
>Enlightenment is accepting your ignorance.
Ironically you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't be so sure of yourself. Agnostics are no better than "apatheist" who despite claiming to apathetic towards the divine fixate upon it constantly.

>Atheism in its original, dictionary meaning
As defined by Marx it IS a religion which is its original meaning

I'm not sure what mutation has to do with it. The thinking goes that all information that goes out of the brain so to speak, is essentially the same. We can make distinctions but those are cultural not scientific.

It is like saying red hair is not hair. It is distinct but not the same. Would you consider different kinds of poop as non-poop? You can make distinctions between them, but they are all poop.

Atheism isn't really a religion, that's a joke, but religion, ideology, knowledge, are all the same. Call it information, memes, semiotics or whatever. What matters is that it is all produced by the same organ and so that it is essentially the same. There can be variation, but it comes down to the same.

>We can make distinctions but those are cultural not scientific.
Note: in case of information.

That is by far, the most retarded Wojak I've seen.

This may astound your stupid christian ass, but literally every nonhuman animal is atheist.

>This may astound your stupid christian ass, but literally every nonhuman animal is atheist.

Do you think dogs believe in God? Oh no they are too stupid to conceptualize the idea of cause and effect like us so they are atheist by default. Humans are not naturally atheist religion is one of our instincts thats why we tend to mindlessly believe in magic no matter what race we come from, and why braindead savages like blacks still have their own tribal religions. Humans only become atheist when they are too intelligent to get any emotional pleasure from being religious thats why most scientist are atheist, or when religion is proven false and the logical thinking overrides the emotional faith. Christians are not stupid they are insane they ignore aspects of reality to keep their faith but this is how religion works you just believe and believe and dont question anything.

I'm not Christian.
Religion, ideology, knowledge are the same and are semiotic structures to make sense of the world. I need to read biosemiotics before I can say something about animals and semiotics.

But I think animals are only atheist in the sense of being godless, but they might still perceive their world in biased ways. That is largely what this is about.
I can't compile a list of sources right now that made me come to these conclusions but the following are important:
>Avi Tuschman, Hibbing (Predisposed), Crespi

That was not me (OP).
That user uses this thread in a different way.

Not the guy you responded to but

>Oh no they are too stupid to conceptualize the idea of cause and effect like us so they are atheist

This was the only good part of your post.

Animals dont even know fucking creates kids you think they can ABSTRACTLY THINK? They live in the moment.

I don't say that smarty pants. I say their perception might not be rational. But rational and irrational are fuzzy concepts. When can a sensory system not be rational, ever? Maybe it is better to speak of reality, we and animals do not see real reality, but sensory reality.

Atheism is just a word invented by christians to name (thus stigmatise) those who wouldn't swallow their fairy tale.
It's like having a word for those who didn't catch a cold, hilarious.

B-B-B-But, fedora meme hat xD

Karl Marx was not a christian

?
What if you tried a complete sentence?

Not really.
Maybe I should've posted this at Veeky Forums. Since the biological part is more important. But you can't have humanities without biology because everything is gene x culture.

The term atheist goes back to ancient Greece you retard.
t.actual fedora

>oh, so you aren't racist?
>let me shift around definitions for a sec
>ha! now you're racist!

The word existed but the concept was anecdotal, that's the christians who used it as a social category ("the others" so to speak).

The term atheist was always used to separate deviants from normal people. That's why atheism was a frowned upon capital crime in Ancient Greece .

God I hate the wikipedia article for Atheism.

In it's broadest sense... NO. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP. ATHEISM SHOULD BE DEFINED HOW IT IS. I REALLY DON'T THINK A 'BROAD SENSE' IS NECESSARY IN DEFINING IDEOLOGICAL FORMS.

It is my solid belief that about 80% of atheists really mean they are agnostics because they are too stupid how to use words.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in something. It's not a religion.

>The term atheist was always used to separate deviants from normal people.
That's a weird interpretation of the definition. Being religious IS the specific behaviour, not the other way around. Normal people don't invent sky daddies.

>atheists eat their own poop and hump legs

Behold, an atheist.

The term agnostic is pointless and calling yourself that is just ignorant. I know because I used to call myself that before I realized EVERYONE is agnostic. The word literally has no purpose but to let pseudo-intellectual fence-sitters have something to call themselves. Congrats on not knowing enough about what you believe and why yet. Fag.

>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

You can‘t know that

What about every human animal?

In the same way that not being registered to a political party is not being registered to a political party, not being religious is not being religious.

The only uniting factor is not believing any of the established narratives. It's really not complicated.

No faggot, I'm angry that you pushed a thread off the board for this shit.

>>Explain using biology, or neuroscience, why there is a difference between ideology, religion, knowledge, etc.
No and fuck you. Culture matters, definitions within a given culture matter. I reject your false framing. A lack of religion is not a religion. No amount of hand-waving or special pleading will change this either.

B-but not believing in myths is the same as not believing in myths!!! XDD

Daily reminder that Veeky Forums christians are just contrarian fuckholes who can't stand being remotely similar to normal people.

this