<p>^ The main issue is that many religious people disbelieve Evolution as I do (though I do not disbelieve it on religious grounds).</p>
<p>Capitalism and not believing in Santa Claus are not science. you’d be insane to label those as scientific concepts/theories. Do you honestly think not believing in Santa is a form of science? My god… Capitalism is an economic philosophy; not believing in Santa isn’t really much of anything - it isn’t anything about the study of the physical world.</p>
<p>Saying that atheism says that religion is bad is a strawman. Many atheists don’t think religion is bad; many just don’t care about it or aren’t gullible enough to believe it. </p>
<p>And you also said that atheism is a religion (which is false). So you are saying atheism thinks that ITSELF is bad. You need to either concede that you falsely labeled it as religion or admit that you’re speaking contradictory gibberish.</p>
<p>Saying that it’s wrong to believe in Santa Claus is not a religion. Your thought process is very weird. So if I say that it’s wrong for anyone to pee in my backyard that’s a religion and it makes me a religious person? </p>
<p>About your evolution thinking, you do reject on the basis of religion. You’ve been indoctrinated into the fundamentalist creationist attitude, which is pure religious piety. You believe that trash and remain in denial over the massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution. You grew up believing the god did it crap and you don’t want to change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Capitalism and Santa Denialism are both scientific beliefs. The first is a belief that a certain economic arrangement will lead to a certain physical result, and the second is a belief that a certain physical observance is not caused by a certain physical object.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those atheists are far less of a problem for me. The ones I have a problem with are the ones who viciously attack people who have certain beliefs, who advocate the suppression of those beliefs, and who compare those beliefs with the trivializing of one of the most horrible atrocities ever committed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Atheism is a religion, a fact which many of its adherents do not understand. Those that do, do not attack religion in the same way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, in the sense that it demonstrates your belief in an overarching standard of “right” and “wrong”, which is a religious belief, not a scientific one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you support this statement? I have repeatedly asked you to present your evidence in favor of evolution, and I have repeatedly explained my non-religious reasons to consider this evidence insufficient to form “overwhelming proof”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rejecting a person’s arguments by psychologizing them is essentially ad hominem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t say that someone has “scientific beliefs.” I don’t “believe” in atomic theory – I’m aware of the evidence, which is completely different. Capitalism is a political and economic system. Nothing about it falls under the def’n of science. I don’t believe in purple pixies - thats not science and it isn’t religion either. I don’t believe in any cloud-guy either, which isn’t science, religion, philosophy or whatever else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you just can’t accept the simple absence of religious belief. It doesn’t involve any beliefs outside of absence of belief in gods. Its something that you just don’t comprehend. Its like saying that not playing baseball is a sport. </p>
<p>Religion is a system that requires ritual and belief. There is not credo, holy book or anything about atheism. You can’t be atheist and religious. One is the absence of the other. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its not “viciously attacking” people. It’s about challenging people who hold to ancient mythology and say something is true with NO proof. Its about people who spread lies about evolution and atheism (like you). You’re just saying “I want this to be true so dont challenge it. I don’t have any proof but it is true.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wanting to avoid something done on my property is not religion. Chimps have a sense of right and wrong but they don’t follow any religion. There is no evidence that right and wrong is because of religion. If someone says that they wouldnt have any sense of right and wrong if it wasnt for their religion, then they’re innately an immoral person.
</p>
<p>I have presented evidence for evolution. Multiple other people have posted it but you just lie that it really means X (not what scientists confirm) or ignore it. Your evolution denial comes down to your belief that a god made things the way they are (which is heavily contradicted). It’s just willful ignorance and a poor scientific background on your part. In fact, you can’t even honestly determine what is science and what isnt let alone understand it correctly and intelligently discuss it. Thats why its pointless to talk about anything with you. You have no concept of good judgment or evidence. I think once you get to college you’ll finally understand what some people are trying to tell you. </p>
<p>[The</a> Evolution Evidence Page](<a href=“http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html]The”>http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone who labels themselves as a fundamentalist creationist has to reject evolution. It’s not a personal attack to point that out.</p>
<p>^Did he actually label himself as such, or did you infer that he is a fundamentalist creationist simply from what he has said? Even if he is…did you ever think that maybe he is a fundamentalist creationist because he has rejected evolution, and not the other way around? </p>
<p>
This is psychologizing and is not merely pointing out that he has to reject evolution because of some label.</p>
<p>^ What IS a fundamental creationist? The definition most people seem to use is “A person who believes that the Bible is infallible truth, that it states how the world came about in Genesis, and that therefore the world did come about in this way and anything contradicting this must not be true”.</p>
<p>By that definition, no, I’m not a fundamental creationist. I do share some of their conclusions, but not their arguments.</p>
<p>For many Christians who identify themselves as such, fundamentalist means “a person who holds strongly to the fundamentals of the faith, as opposed to someone who adds their own philosophical framework over it.”</p>
<p>This definition doesn’t really have much to do with Evolution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Define: Economics:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just sayin’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And your awareness of the evidence causes belief, does it not? Unless further evidence contradicts it, you will continue to accept the atomic theory (or anything else you consider supported by the evidence) as the closest to the truth that is available.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then what is it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I refer you to HarveyLewis’s excellent response to your stamp collecting analogy.</p>
<p>^Supposing that all atheists frantically oppose any possibility of a Higher Being and then calling this denial a pseudo-religion is disingenuous. </p>
<p>Harvey’s post relates an obsessed group of atheists to some sort of religious cult, as seen by an anti-stamp collector burning any stamp s/he finds. Atheism is a disbelief in religion, not an opposition to religion, and thus an atheist doesn’t need to be a part of any such cult.</p>
<p>On the other spectrum, a theist should be ashamed to make such an analogy. Religion, beyond its ideas of creationism, has a rich history that has largely shaped our past–for better or worse. When you compare organized religion to an atheist obsession against theists, you reduce religion to a random set of obsessive beliefs.</p>
<p>Harvey’s post is clever. The inferred message, however, shames and minimizes both atheists and theists. I’m surprised you refer to it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Live experience seems to suggest the opposite…</p>
<p>^^ I didn’t say that “all atheists frantically oppose any possibility of a Higher Being”. I said that some do. I am sure that reasonable atheists exist. They are not my main concern, as their beliefs can harm no one but themselves.</p>
<p>An atheist who respectfully disagrees with theists is not the same as one who attempts to argue that no theist has any credibility and that it should be a criminal offense to teach thesim and creation to others.</p>
<p>It’s your own business whether you collect stamps or not. It’s even reasonable for you to have and share your opinion that stamp collecting is not a good hobby. But if you speak out viciously against stamp collectors and try to prevent anyone from ever giving stamps to other people, you have crossed the line of reasonability.</p>
<p>
Lawl, I feel like Shakespeare, with everyone dissecting and interpreting my post. If mifune comes on now and writes one of his 1000 word dissertations on how the stamp collector is only collecting stamps because of a magpie instinct developed over the ages, I think my literary career will have reached it’s culmination. I suppose it’s too much to hope for :/</p>
<p>A scribe there lived HarveyLewis by name
Who lit his allegories with a flame
Of learn</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So we agree that atheism is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby, because not all atheists “burn stamps”–i.e. “religiously” bash theism.</p>
<p>If you don’t agree, then explain this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^ Atheism is a religion, in the sense that it is a belief about the meaning of the universe, and in turn, the concepts of “right” and “wrong”. Ironically, for most atheists it is also the belief that this absence of belief is in fact “good”, which contradicts itself.</p>
<p>If it were truly an “absence of belief” it would have no reason to try to suppress the alternatives. Maybe some atheists out there really do have simply an “absence of belief”. Maybe you are one of them. In any case, those atheists are not following the same set of beliefs as the ones toward whom my arguements are directed.</p>
<p>Atheism in and of itself gives no meaning to the universe, no guidance of “right” or “wrong”, and no explanation of how the universe was created.</p>
<p>Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of a supernatural explanation (religion) as to how and why anything exists. Most atheists believe in some explanation, such as the big bang theory, but this is in no way tied to a disbelief in god(s).</p>
<p>blah blah thread tl;dr but atheism isn’t a religion. “Well if it isn’t a religion, then what is it?” It shouldn’t <em>have</em> to “be” at all. The only reason people are forced to say that they’re “atheists” is because of the religions of other people. It’s just a distinction. It’s like saying “Hi what fairy tale do you believe in?” “None of them.” “OH that one’s my favorite.” They shouldn’t have to say that they <em>don’t</em> believe in a fairy tale because it’s made up anyway :P</p>