Alright, so this is a generalization, but I do have a basis. I have noticed that many atheist's in the forums follow the same line of thinking as atheist idols such as Darwin and Dawkins in a religious following rather than an individual belief. Example, say the words intelligent or design and most atheist minds will almost instantly jump to assumptions and conclusions in their belief through faith that a person has a particular belief of a god/creator for simply mentioning the ideas. Is this an atheist religious mechanism to keep out ideas that disagree with their beliefs? Doesn't look logical to me.
Hi friend marinealways24
Don't you worry please; the Atheists Skeptics follow Atheism Skepticism very religiously; yet they say they have no religions; so they could be best described as a "meme".
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
This may be the first time I have enjoyed seeing something you have written. But, I am sorry, I think Islam is just as silly as atheism and christianity.
So you don't believe in a god, atheism or that people can have original thought. What do you believe?
No, I think there is individual thought, but it is rare for everyone wanting to believe what others believe. It is harder to come to and believe something without others support. I think all life is conscious displaying both design and intelligence which is proven through evolution. I don't know what first caused it to start.
Gosh, so what you're saying is that atheists don't believe in gods. Astonishing! Keep us apprised of any other new developments.
No, i'm saying they follow others beliefs religiously the same as religions that believe in a god. They follow the same thought patterns as their idols without being able to think for themselves often.
"They follow the same thought patterns as their idols without being able to think for themselves often."
"Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person's own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings."
I think my work here is done.
lol like I said, atheist follow others thoughts such as quoting their idols instead of thinking for themselves. Brilliant.
You should be more careful when you assume what a person's beliefs are
This argument is beyond old. Atheists are not religious.
By your definition, if I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson's opinions about god's place in the scientific world, I'm not thinking for myself if I reference his studies on the subject.
Are you really expecting people to compile every tiny piece of data independently? Ridiculous.
People sharing a common idea (not religious) is not the same thing as people blindly following the idea (religious).
I was careful, I gave the disclaimer that it was a generalization in the beginning.
If atheist didn't have religious faith in their non materialistic belief title, none would get offended. Logic wouldn't put so much religious faith into a belief or non belief title.
No, I am talking about mechanically following the groups information as absolute to where it triggers reactive faithful assumptions simply for someone mentioning 2 words. I think a logical belief could control themselves from jumping to assumptions so quickly.
You are trained to think I am promoting a God. Who said anything about God? Ridiculous.
I know that you aren't promoting a god, marine.
The problem I have with the argument is this:
You are using a broad overstatement to categorize people who make broad overstatements.
What triggers your assumption that atheists are religious?
Of course there are atheists who jump on the bandwagon without educating themselves.
There are also christians who do this. And republicans, and democrats, and Yankees fans. (And the majority of the Tea Party.)
I do not have religious faith of any kind, but I do get offended when people make assumptions about my beliefs and then try to classify my thinking. There is no standard philosophy attached to atheism.
Some people are just plain sheep. It's got nothing to do with believers and non-believers.
This is not a broad overstatement, it is common knowledge that thinking follows patterns based on the groups thought. Christians try think like the bible tells them, evolutionists try to think like darwin tells them.
If your belief was logical, you wouldn't get offended at my comments. Logical belief separates emotions. Atheism is the standard philosophy of religiously having faith in the impossibility of intelligence and design. If not, there wouldn't be predictable responses and assumptions when the words are mentioned.
regarding philosophy, I won't argue.
But let me try to explain why it is offensive to me to say atheists are religious:
Religion goes hand in hand with blind faith. Atheists do not have blind faith.
Religion imposes morals* and requires people to adhere to commandments beyond the scope of the established secular laws of the community.
Religion requires surrender, in varying degrees. Surender your soul, surrender your thought, surrender your money to the collection plate.
All of these things are offensive to me.
I'm not a "went to church and didn't like it" kind of atheist. I'm the "never believed the fairy tale in the first place" kind.
If you ask me why I care enough to spend time discussing it, the answer is easy. I'm so offended by religion that I can't sit quietly about it. It restricts people and represses them by exploiting natural human qualities - fear of the unknown, need for comfort, need for social connection.
If the devout were free thinkers instead, and put their effort and intelligence to use in other areas, imagine all of the ideas and solutions and innovations we would have in society.
Pardon my rant marine
but this is why I'm offended by the implication that I'm religious.
*Yes atheists have morals, we covered that in a different thread - the christian nation I think. Not gonna re-hash it here.
There is a fundamental difference.
Atheists have listened to the arguments of their "idols", checked the logic of what they have to say, examined the evidence and come to the conclusion that they agree.
Having done that, they don't need to keep going back and revalidating. Although they are always interested in debating new evidence one way or the other.
Believers, on the other hand, have listened to the claims of their idols, failed to check the logic (because there isn't any) and then blindly have faith in something they can't prove.
Spot on the money Marisa. For some unaccountable reason religionists fail to grasp this simple truth.
Atheist or Religious, any individual that lets others or a group define their belief or non belief are religious of that person or groups belief. Atheism requires faith in the idols the same as religion. I will give it to you that atheism usually examines evidence, but too often they will jump to faithful assumptions of what they have been taught using only faith.
I believe in 4 cylinder multi valve motors. I must be a carist!
What a nonsense. Because someone does not believe a pile of ridiculous crud does not make them anything other than sane!
Is it sane to believe evolution of life as just an ignorant non random machine?
That depends on how many ignorant non random machines are making that claim.
lol So the more people that believe, the more you believe? Religious.
RICHARD DAWKINS HIMSELF SAID, HE MADE A MISTAKE CALLING IT MACHINES.
He said I should have titled it the Altruistic Vessel. he said:
...Just as one can put oneself in the position of an imaginary light beam, intelligently choosing the optimal route through a cascade of lenses and prisms, or an imaginary gene choosing an optimal route through the generations so one can postulate the individual (...) calculating an optimal behavioral strategy for the long term future survival of her genes...
Then he goes on to say about the runt:
That is to say, a gene that gives the instruction 'Body, if you are very much smaller than your litter-mates, give up the struggle and die'.
Isn't this Atheist poster child saying that the light beam is consciously deciding the fate of genes?
So (some)atheists who are saying evolution is random obviously say it to say that a G-D did not create order. life is as chaotic as their conception of it, because well order eludes them. They can't even make sense of their own lives! So hence no sense...other than maybe aliens from other planets engineered them.
My point is Atheism is sometimes a not so bright person's excuse to "i seriously don't get it!"
The self reference against theism should alert you already.."I am against religion, order, mathematics, phi, fractals because I have no idea what they're saying".
"and I'm too lazy to find out, because hey if there's a god I'm screwed." (shadow belief in punishment...ha ha ha)
Ah, my little puppy, ya still are a bit confused, but I do see the reason why. Atheists can appear religious in the way they defend their beliefs. And one can say it's a belief to not believe in a higher power.
However, you are placing religionists and atheists together by associative behavior, which is much like saying 'monkeys scratch themselves and dogs scratch themselves, so they must both be primates'
Yes, it sounds silly, but the point you are making isn't. And that point is that both religionists and atheists are very passionate in their beliefs. In fact, it shouldn't surprise you to know that most, if not all of us, are passionate about some or all of our beliefs. That's what makes us the passionate thinkers that we are.
However, we still can't lump the two together as they are defined as polar opposites. Religionists believe in a higher power and atheists do not. This is the same schism as those who believe in a round Earth and those who believe in a flat Earth. You can't belong to both clubs as membership in one automatically bans you from membership in the other.
If you revert your argument to one of how both sides are very passionate in their beliefs (and in expressing them) then I think you would easily have everyone on-board. And I do believe that is actually what you were saying.
evidence of what? the investigation is still on-going. you can judge that the bible is not historical and most likely entirely literary in nature--fiction with the intent to impart message, but what it stands for, is another matter entirely.
Not believing in the sky fairy, or leprechauns, fairies in the garden or flying pigs is a religion?
I thought that was called common sense! One does not need to have a religion to not believe in bullsh*t like religion!
lol Yes, it has become a religion. Many atheists I have talked with on here follow common thought patterns simply repeating what Darwin and Dawkins write without thinking for themselves. What does leprechauns and fairies have to do with discussing design or intelligence in how life formed?
Those are called, "critical thinking skills."
No, critical thinking relies on individual thought, not trained group thought simply replicating what you have read from others.
No scientist can claim they know exactly how the universe came to be. Just because they can't doesn't mean they are willing to jump on the religious band wagon.
The thing about evolution is that it makes sense. There is solid evidence. There is even a continuance of evidence since Darwin's death. Experiments Darwin could never have run because the technology wasn't around when he was alive prove him to be correct in at least some of his findings. We are only just scraping the surface of our understanding of DNA for example but Darwin seems to be there. He shone a light in the darkness of ignorance. Check out the Scopes trial if you will for examples of ignorance and stupidity created by religion.
There's a museum in the USA dedicated to Noah's Ark. It has dinosaurs. I find this to be ludicrous. Was there a Noah's Ark in real life. Possibly. There is evidence of great floods occurring in the right part of the world to give the story some scientific truth. Were there dinosaurs on the Ark? I can't really see this as much of a possibility. T-Rex for example was long ago extinct before humans came on the scene.
My thoughts are my own. Human nature is such as it is that we do seek out people who agree with the way we think. I don't see anything religious about that.
Hi Earnest x
Its Doctor Von Scratch and Sniff here hope you are ok x
Real nice to see you guys!
Have any religious view of religion?
Well you know my view lol its difficult as I was born a protestant, raised a catholic and sent to methodist sunday school as a child, how ever religion to me is simple I dont go to church to prove I believe, but I follow the commandments if that makes any sense lol
And I think my beliefs are understood here. I follow the commandments except for the fourth one! The ten commandments are simply common sense!
I was bought up Catholic and C of E then became an evangelistic baptist!
Then I started to read, and had enough logic to see my way out the other end. It took years to get over the indoctrination though.
So we are pretty much the same their lol
We live by the commandments that is common sense to me too. lol
There are another 600 or so commandments, some of which I know you would not agree with!
Yeah I have seen them at the back of the bible, but its the main ones I follow,
613 for Jews,
10 for Christians
7 for everyone else
they are just expansions and elaborations of 10, and ten is just a fleshing out of 7
and in mysticism the number 10 is called the ten that are seven
but really there is one (1+0=1) commandment.
Recognize your self in all. (I and the Father are ONE)
LOL! Of course Atheism is not a Religion !
Why do you think that? Not very logical to state your opinion without explanation or proof. Are you religious?
Why do I have to explain to you the obvious ?
Religions are about Faith in a God. Atheism isn't.
I believe in God.
Religion is when someone has emotions and faith in something rather than evidence and logic. It is emotion and trust of atheist idols when many assume another is religious for simply mentioning intelligence or design.
Face facts marinealways24, people do automatically think of intelligent design when someone they know or suspect of being religious in a Christian way mentions the two words in the same sentence or even paragraph because we have been bombarded with this nonsense for some time now. It has made its way into some schools in the USA as 'science' when in fact it isn't science at all but religion and shabby religion at that.
There are such things as Christians who believe in evolution. Yes they are religious in a Christian way but I wouldn't call them religious in an evolution way. What's more, Darwin was a Christian. He could see how he could keep his faith and also keep his beliefs in his scientific studies. I have a lot for and absolutely nothing against Christian scientists.
So, why are atheist's so against the possibility of life having intelligence or design? What does nonrandom and selection mean to you? Do you only have so much faith it doesn't have intelligence or design for following other atheist's thought patterns of the group belief?
Websters Dictionary Ninth edition. ??
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality -or- diety < a person >
Sounds as though religious can apply to other than faith in GOD. My wife religiously watches "Iron Cheff" Morimoto.
My neighbor religiously washes his car every saturday.
Does it take faith to watch tv or wash a car?
Just stating that they religiously follow the belief that it had to be done.
I was agreeing with ya if you couldn't tell !
erm ... by definition atheism is a belief that a higher power does not exist, whereas religion is a belief that it does. While they might meet in the middle on their willingness to protect their beliefs while protesting those of others, this does not make them one in the same.
So to speak ... if I believed my PC was actually a white rhino that would not be a religious assumption, nor would it be the makings of a very good cult.
But it is religious assumptions when there are trained atheist mechanical responses to assume what is taught by atheist idols. Religious belief is belief through faith, atheism uses a lot of faith. The atheist belief in a higher power is Darwin and Dawkins.
"Trained atheist mechanical responses " ......lol
[swings arms robotically] I---do--not--believe--you--christian
Seriously marineal, perhaps it does seem atheists are arguing from the Dawkins/Hitchens handbook but that's because many of the arguments are rational responses to an irrational claim and have have been used many times before....way before The Hitch or The Dawk were even in nappies [diapers for you Americans].
That doesn't mean we are slavishly following a decree from on high, all think alike...or have never had an original thought on the topic. Sometimes an atheist might come up with a completely original idea or a way to argue a point that's never been used before,...but it's true that the same sort of arguments on both sides go round and round in an endless circle of futile debate.
So yes, you will often hear the exact same criticisms of theism from different atheists...but that's because you guys never listen to reason!....so we have to keep repeating ourselves.
You don't have to believe me, you making the assumption that I am a christian is observational proof for everyone to see that you are just another mechanical extensions of your atheist idols.
Slander the americans because your idols tell you the large majority that doesn't believe evolution. Predictable.
The debate is futile because many can't think outside of what they have been taught to think.
Lol Who is you guys? How much reasoning is in your false religious faithful assumptions? lol
You are assuming I was directing that robot joke to you personally....
How have I slandered the Americans...lol?
I don't idolise Dawkins at all...I do think Hitchens is entertaining, but I don't agree with everything he says.
lol I misread, sorry, you didn't slander americans, but you was probably thinking it.
I was so used to getting angry atheists on the thread that I wasn't expecting one to be logical, friendly, and joke.
I also like seeing "I don't agree with everything he say's". I think most of the time we agree with everything someone says, it's mostly because we want to agree. I will check out Hitchens, I haven't read anything on him.
Those who are free from popcorn religion will call themselves another name. Not religious, not non-religious, not believer or non-believer but SEEKER. Seekers seek the truth and will pursue it regardless of where they get it. The point is to get the bottom of the mystery of existence.
CRITICAL THINKING is choosing what not to believe. I find that a fancy way of saying be a skeptic if you don't understand it.
How about instead, calling it THINKING. which includes all scopes of thinking critical, creative, logical, intuitive...you know using the entire brain not living only in the upper east side (a lot of great finds in the lower side and nice beaches up town)
I consider myself an atheist, but I have never read any books about it. I just don't believe...end of story. When I argue against "intelligent design" or creationism it is because it does not make sense.
Hello Ms. Writer, I will try to be nice because I know you always or most of the time try to write respectful comments, but this I don't understand. This sounds religious to me. How many religious read the bible, yet atheist know the bible better than them? By not reading books on atheism, how do you know I don't know atheism better than you when it is your non belief?
What doesn't make sense about evolution designing intelligent life? Without intelligence, life wouldn't have evolved.
I have heard of the expression to be "religiously non-religious" but I don't think this applies to all atheists. Hell, there are some people that simply don't believe anything unless it involves their limited scope of awareness and/or their current spectrum of ignorance. ...Some Atheists are not religious about anything.
On the other hand, I have met some atheists that almost seem to get excited when someone else agrees with their thoughts of there being no god or whatever - sort of like joining their team, and to me, this seems like a religion in its own right.
I take no part in any 'name & title' beliefs, unless you call "self-awareness" a religion. Ha-ha!
There is no truth. Everything is a belief. Atheist don't have to be religious to be followers of other atheists’ beliefs. Some follow only themselves. Some contemplate "knowing thyself" until they realize that they are their own imperfect god. To some this is fine. For others, this is the point where they decide to believe in themselves or an infinite God.
If you believe that there is truth, then I question your reasoning. I don't mean materialism, like is the chair I'm sitting on real or not. I mean truth as a concept or ideal. What makes a concept real? Maybe you think that if you surveyed the world about their concept of truth that the most popular answer would win. I would say that it would be interesting but not absolute.
I don't believe in the ball-bearing bird, so that must be a religion.
This thread is ridiculous!
Logic is the casualty here.
I don't know exactly what sock puppets and ball bearing birds are, I have no point of reference. It becomes difficult to communicate when people make up their own language. But, here's another point, even language has it's subjective element. The concept of human truth is very subjective. People are basically locked within their own subjectivity. I think existentialism explains this phenomenom well. It's from this perspective that I consider everything to be belief.
That doesn't mean that reality or God do not exist, but without having met Him and without being omni intelligent and knowing everything in the universe, then even science becomes subjective. The moment something new is discovered, the discovery is already dead and old news.
dgager, a sock puppet is someone who does not have a legitimate presence but uses different names just to post on forums, often having many identities for this purpose, and so they can support their own comments as a different person.
The ball bearing bird is from a little nonsense song I thought many would know. Part of the lyrics may explain my meaning.
"The ball bearing bird, the ball bearing bird, has never been seen has never been heard. It's said to be known, to be roaming around cos it scatters ball bearings all over the ground"
Hope this helps.
Science does what it should. Change and grow in the light of better information. I have never seen a religion do that!
Marine, I need to stop lecturing at walls, so before I bother joining in explaining where you've gone wrong here, I need to address this thing where you basically say that atheists are religious, and if they disagree that just proves they're religious.
It's pretty much on the same level as when kids in elementary school write "So-and-so loves so-and-so TRUE IF ERASED."
And if that's gonna be your level of discourse, there isn't much point wasting words trying to explain things to you.
I agree with The Paul!
The way I see it is that both religious people and atheist can be fundamentalist. I simply suggest looking at both atheism and religion existentially. In this way, it transcends religion altogether.
Some refer to any literal-minded philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, theologian Alister McGrath has compared Richard Dawkins' atheism to religious fundamentalism, and the Archbishop of Wales has criticized "atheistic fundamentalism" more broadly. Richard Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position.
A Wikapedia reference.
I was referring to people believing in objective and literal truth, when applied to concepts and ideals.
Well that's OK, but I think it is misuse of the word by both unless I see otherwise in a dictionary.
I take the same position as Dawkins on that point.I am willing to change my beliefs at any time if provided with better information that challenges what I believe now.
How about "truth as I understand it now but open to change"?
I understand why religious believers need to suggest that any one who disagrees with them is acting out of faith. This is called "lying for Jesus" and an attempt to disguise the difference between a belief based on verifiable facts and a blind faith belief such as that in a god.
This dishonesty amongst believers is one of the reasons I came to the conclusion that it was all garbage. Why would they need to lie and attack others if they genuinely believed? Easy - they do not.
Religion involves a belief in something unseen and un-verifiable. the fact that I personally think this is evil and am prepared to argue against it does not make me religious.
But - I totally understand why religious people need to lie about this. That is how they spread their religion.
Look at some of the religionists here - 50/50 chance that there is a god means Jesus came to save me? LOLOLOL
Lies. Pure and simple. Politics would be another word for it. Poor behavior behavior that prevents us from moving forward as a species, and has convinced me that there are no morals to be handed down from a god. All the time there are people prepared to kill for God - we will never move out of the bronze ages.
But - the problem is - this is the easy option. There is no work involved for these people - they just need to regurgitate the myths and cause fights. That is what religion does.
Instant authority for these people. Parasitic priests have been scrounging from scared people since the idea of a god was suggested. They are worse than the political parasites "representing us" in politics.
Take away their power as an authority on the unknown and what do you have? Nothing. Their entire life is based on the ability to regurgitate nonsensical myths and be an "authority". Challenge them and wars ensue. See any history book.
They will attack you in all sorts of ways to defend this belief. They will move to South America to have authority to preach. They will lie and kill for this belief. As far as I am concerned - that is proof positive that there is not a god.
I can't disagree with that Mark. They way any god has been presented gets down to playing with reality and the truth. The very idea of an unknown benevolent entity is an insult to common sense in a world with billions of people wasting there lives making weird noises to their gods while they ignore the plight of other people simultanously claiming their god is looking after them because they are better, and smarter than what the other half or third of them are and so have the only true fairy.
I was convinced by the behaviour of religionist to abandon my indoctrination which is never easy with religion as you would know I'm sure.
Fortunately I have myself back in my later years and life has been what it really is. Bloody marvellous and real again!
Not perfect, just as it is
If you want to define fundamentalism as being unmoving in your belief and unwilling to consider the possibility you are wrong I suppose it's possible to be a fundamentalist atheist. (though that doesn't make it a religion in anything but a broad sense in which political affiliation and Coke/Pepsi preference are also religious)
But my experience has been that few atheists really fit that description. In the rare scenario where a believer would rather set their beliefs and what they hold to be true out in a concrete fashion, than play word games or shift goalposts there's never a shortage of atheists willing to take a look.
Usually no one's expecting anything terribly monumentous, mostly because the sort of atheist who makes a point of attempting to investigate the religious mindset has seen it all before, but the willingness to examine is there.
I never said I believe God is truth in a human sense of knowledge and truth. I fully admit that my relationship to God is fully subjective.
I studied truth and philosophy for years expecting to find an absolute truth and could not, excluding what is material or mathimatical. I could say this is my truth and that is your truth. However, I hoped that mankind could find universal truth. Truth as an ideal, is also unsatisfactory because I can redefine my concept of my image of truth to the nth degree and never arrive.
In a sense it makes no point at all to argue the point because I don't share the same reference or argue by the same category of concepts. Concepts do not resemble the physical world. Concepts exist only in the mind of man. Even empiricism believes the concepts of truth are subjective. Rationalism really only limits its techniques to the physical world and mathmatics.
Christianity may call me a heretic for my belief in existential Chrisitanity but, how else can I experience God. I first have to believe to accept the Bible as an authority.
There are no absolute truths and you are wasting your time looking for one.
If an absolute truth existed, we would all know it and agree.
Indeed, because the instant anyone perceives Him, they must literally be out of their mind. Human thought -as we use it- is where the problem rests. Most do not grasp the meaning of 'knowing' the difference between good/evil versus understanding them to the place where we live beyond that stasis of consciousness.
Why only subjective? Any moment in the stasis of Grace is all three: project, absorb, reflect. These are the trinity of light, atoms, etc...
...just a thought
Then why do people who do not have a Christian belief or Religious Belief or interest in the subject post under the topics of Religion & Beliefs or just Christian Beliefs category? Everyone argues as if their truth is the only truth. Is it just to say other people are stupid?
Not necessarily, just indoctrinated. Religions have been offering absolute truths for years and have not produced a single victory in that regard. Religions have been forced to change their views as we learn more about the world around us. That isn't very absolute, is it...
I thought in most cases that would be self explanatory dfager.
Someone puts up a religious thread.
The premise in the title being one of the following in many cases.
"If you don't believe in my god, you are going to suffer and so are your children" or " I believe this, so a sky fairy loves me but not you" or "I'm better than ... and know more than everybody who doesn't belief in the bible or quoran as I do"
and then after making threats of hell and damnation scream
"You are attacking my beliefs!"
Hope that clears some of it up for ya!
I agree with you earnest lol its the same with people in every forum when people don't get the response that they wanted lol
Hi cal. I noticed you have already done 64 hubs you little beaver you!
I know as the saying goes "slowly slowly catchy monkey" lol
im nearly at 2000 views only 7 more to go then we can celebrate lol
Just took a break to read your TV ads hub. A blast! I left a comment.
Beelzedad, I do not see the difference between religion and science in relation to absolute truth. I never claimed believing was the same thing as knowing. I think believing is more open to more possibility of the unknown than knowing. Knowing seems to imply having arrived. Believing is never arriving yet it like a paradox instead. Believing is not obtaining perfection oneself but gaining perfect love nonetheless.
Besides, what does science have to do with the concept of love anyway? Love is more than the process of machinery or chemical reactions.
The difference should be blatantly obvious from just reading what the scientific method entails and any religions claims about the world around us. There really is no comparison.
Believing can only be open more to the possibility of being wrong as it is no different than guesswork. You are simply accepting something without applying any critical thought.
Not really, knowing is simply having knowledge that best explains something. It isn't absolute by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand that.
Without using magic, I would like to hear how love is more than just chemical reactions in a process?
Nicely observed Marine. I agree, as observed on the many threads pertaining to the two items denied by Atheists: religion & belief systems. Nothing logical about it, per say, unless we include basic instinctive reason (thought-scapes) alone as logical, which is not the case.
But again, there are not many 'true' atheists out there who have absolutely no practical belief systems (religion by definition). Most would be Agnostic or Antagonistic.
It is "The Ism" -a classic left wing perspective of the romantic right wing side of an otherwise highly unstable house.
Not too many wars created around Atheism. (I consider Hitler to be an Agnostic rather than a full on Atheist because he did have some twisted religious beliefs but nothing to do with any particular type of Christianity). A LOT of wars created around religion of one sort or another. The so-called Cold War might have really heated up and gone nuclear if both sides has a stronger grasp on religious belief.
And the Vietnam War was not without its religious elements so it can't really be brought to the fore to defend religion. The Americans promoted Catholicism in the south and there was some effort made to put down local Buddhism. The Vietcong were more nationalists than communists, something the west really didn't grasp at the time.
Brilliant Earnest! Maybe throw in string theory too? Might make a good climax.
I would say science is very religious in many aspects. It is a different kind of expression compared to 'standard' sensationalism. But it does have a series of ritual steps and methods used to achieve a goal, in most cases a discovery or explanation of such. Though I cannot support the 'factual evidence' notion, science has fashioned an interesting medium to 'prove and establish itself as the 'new' world belief. The artifacts alone of fossil, pottery, etc. do resemble closely the relics of romanticism (what is defined as religion). Technology is, IMO, an inorganic set of tools versus religions who prefer organic. Even the Smithsonian (which I adore visiting and had a relative work for years) always reminded me a massive cathedral, less the incense and very odd angelic cantor.
The system used to prove its findings strikes me as a very unique, practical, ritual belief system -aka a religious one. It makes sense to a scientist the same way any other belief system makes sense to a romantic or a painting makes sense to an artist.
...just a thought.
One thing I was getting at is that you can be a scientist and a Catholic or a Protestant, etc. They are not mutually exclusive.
One thing science runs on is the fact that you can run the same experiment a great many times and provided there are no variables in the way you do so you will arrive at the same results.
When you get to things such as String theory your argument Twenty One Days holds up best. It has romanticism and mysticism but, on the other hand, scientists have argued at just how scientific it happens to be.
The moon rises every night. Fact. We can look through a telescope and see the moon in more detail. Fact. When the moon is full we can see craters on the moon's surface. Fact. We don't have to believe in the moon or in the telescope or in science to know all this is true. On the other hand to believe that the moon is perfect without any blemishes such as craters you really do have to be religious because this goes directly against what can be observed. And yes the Catholic church at one time did believe that the heavens and the heavenly bodies were perfect and therefore the moon being a heavenly body had to be perfect despite what could be observed.
Indeed, which -even by this explanation sets both in the same classification.
I do feel the left side has used more mechanic, testable methods v the romantic -which is much more existential therapy.
I joke often, how it was science that empowered sensationalism from its Baal beginnings, expressly seen in Egyptian, Mayan even American Tribal societies. Fashioning the weapons, elements, relics, etc for them to wear and war -no matter the 'demon | denomination', which today has brought about a global paradigm shift: quality of life v. manticore warfare.
Personally, cannot accept either sides discovery as fact or infallible proof since they are constantly changing there positions, updating their belief systems daily, unless I rigorously test it for myself and come to some kind of conclusion within the playing field of both. Outside of them is something far beyond the scope of The Ism, beyond choice/decision. Not faith as generally defined, but Free Will.
People who think "Atheist's Are Religious!" are clearly grammatically lacking.
Twenty One - Love the new pic!
I'm not sure on this, but it does tend to "justify" why you see a lot of them "religously" hanging out in the Religious Forums.
And a whole lot of them using the words Jesus and God in almost every sentence that they use in everyday speech.
Just kidding of course.
My personal opinion of the term atheist, it's used for those that do not believe in a god or any type of greater being. If you and I were having a personal conversation on the subject, I would say they are disbelievers.
Do I think that's wrong? Do I judge them for that? No. Although I have (and these are growing stronger) an opinion on political correctness and the ACLU, but that's another topic.
Is atheist a bad word? In my mind, sometimes, though if you'd asked me this 10 yrs ago I'd have said no.
I'm guessing your confusion is that you don't fall into on of the two categories either creationism or evolution. Am I right, or way off?
First of all I do feel that you can be an atheist and know right from wrong, live a moral-based life, and not be anti-Christian. I have had friends whose families have said they were atheists, but then as I got to know them realized they were spiritually driven, studied theology, were well versed in the bible and believed that Jesus existed (though their views of Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection were muddled).
Is that atheism?
One friend, Jen, after doing much soul searching in high school and college does now regularly attend a non-denominational church. Jen realized she believed in more than she didn't believe in and grew in discomfort of not praying regularly. She was from one of the said atheists families. Her parents were concerned for her well-being when she said she wanted to go to church. They, for generations, have only believed in the tangible (science...most are research scientists, specialized physicians, in her family tree). Now, they see it's doing no harm and brings her a sense of peace.
I don't think of her family of atheists, but they do. I think we might be back to that SHADE discussion here, but instead of politics in religion.
by HannahRiley18 months ago
Does it make me close minded if I can't understand why people are atheists?I guess how is the better way to say it. I seriously question everything...like facts from history, ect...but for some reason Ive never...
by aka-dj6 years ago
bother posting AGAINST beliefs?If the Atheist can "convert" any believer to Atheism, then, they can be compared to evangelists who do it the other way.Any thought?
by il Scettico4 years ago
Many believe Atheism is not a religion because it does not follow traditional beliefs. Others believe it is a religion because it has to do with existentialism. What do you think?
by Tom Caton7 years ago
Why is it that people find it so hard to accept an atheist's lack of belief?
by Eric Dierker22 months ago
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?It seems like the notions that there is a God or there is not a God, are both founded in belief because there is not proof either way. Well there is proof,...
by PhoenixV3 weeks ago
Why Don't Atheists Believe In God?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.