Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[Tusk]

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Word Origin C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god.

Belief an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.



An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Atheism is a religion.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Word Origin C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god.

Belief an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

Atheism is a religion.

That was a very simple way to put it. Yup. Atheists believe (without proof that there isn't a God) that there isn't a God. Even scientists don't know for sure how everything got here.

[Beliathon]

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – "atheism is a religion". Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.  Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this:

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly

or this:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.

What Is Religion?

I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much.  To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic:

Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith.

The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far.

So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED.

Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above.  Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are:

They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.
Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above.
Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do.

In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion.  Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”.

Evidence and Extraordinary Evidence

Some religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary Claims

This needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence.

So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is.

On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place?  The truth is, they accept it on faith.  In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with.

Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required.  Atheism requires no belief in anything.  The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist.  Here we go.

More Faith To Be An Atheist?

The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.  That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.

One last thing.  Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc.  This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak.  It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.

Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion.  If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby.  Or a religion.

[zenitzz]

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – "atheism is a religion". Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.  Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this:

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly

or this:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.

What Is Religion?

I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much.  To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic:

Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith.

The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far.

So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED.

Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above.  Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are:

They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.
Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above.
Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do.

In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion.  Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”.

Evidence and Extraordinary Evidence

Some religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary Claims

This needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence.

So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is.

On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place?  The truth is, they accept it on faith.  In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with.

Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required.  Atheism requires no belief in anything.  The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist.  Here we go.

More Faith To Be An Atheist?

The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.  That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.

One last thing.  Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc.  This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak.  It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.

Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion.  If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby.  Or a religion.

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

[Beliathon]

We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.

Precisely. Had there existed a long history of Unicornist burning heretics alive and continuing to cause a subset of innocent youth to kill themselves in the present day with their ignorant hatred, we would bother pointing out the total lack of evidence to support the existence of Unicorns.

[the joint]

We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.

Precisely. Had there existed a long history of Unicornist burning heretics alive and continuing to cause a subset of innocent youth to kill themselves in the present day with their ignorant hatred, we would bother pointing out the total lack of evidence to support the existence of Unicorns.

Lol would you give it up with your fallacious 'lack of evidence' garbage?  How many more academic references would you like to show you that you're just wasting your breath?

There is a good reason to not believe in Unicorns based upon a lack of evidence because Univorns are theoretically empirically falsifiable/verifiable.  An intelligent designer is not theoretically empirically falsifiable/verifiable.

It's a false analogy.  This point is non-debatable.

The supporting rationale is common academic knowledge.

[the joint]

Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion

This is a refrain I’m hearing a lot from religious apologists – "atheism is a religion". Also its equally fallacious siblings, science is a religion and evolution is a religion. It’s a sign of their desperation that the best argument they have is not that atheism is wrong, or that god does exist (supported by evidence of course), but that atheism is a religion too. A strange argument for a religious person to make on the face of it.  Is it supposed to strengthen the atheist’s position or weaken the theist’s one? In reality it’s a sign they have run out of arguments.

Still, this argument is widely made, and so it needs to be addressed. Atheism (and here I mean the so-called “weak atheism” that does not claim proof that god does not exist), is just the lack of god-belief – nothing more and nothing less. And as someone once said, if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That really ought to end the discussion right there. Clearly, a mere lack of belief in something cannot be a religion. In addition, atheism has no sacred texts, no tenets, no ceremonies. Even theists making this argument must know all that. So they must have something else in mind when they trot this one out, but what is it? What are they really thinking? Well, if you look at various definitions of religion, the only things that could possibly apply to atheism would be something like this:

6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly

or this:

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously I don’t know if that’s what they mean – I don’t read minds. But I can’t see what else it could be. They must be referring to certain activities of atheists – writing books and blogs, financing bus ads, joining atheist groups, etc. They think atheists are “religious in their atheism” as one person put it to me – the word “religious” being used here colloquially to mean something felt very strongly, or followed enthusiastically. But this definition of religion is so broad that virtually anything people enjoy doing very much, or follow strongly or obsessively, is a religion. It’s a definition of religion that is so broad that it’s meaningless. In reality, most of the things that people follow enthusiastically, are just hobbies. And ironically, although not collecting stamps is not a hobby, getting involved in atheist activities (writing books and blogs, attending atheist meetings) might well be a hobby for some people. But it is a hobby, not a religion.

What Is Religion?

I’m sure that argument won’t convince all theists to abandon this rhetorical trope they love so much.  To really address the argument, we have to define religion, and then see if atheism fits the definition. While I don’t think I can define religion completely, I think I can state the minimum that religion has to have to still be a religion. And it seems to me that there is one thing at least that is common to all religions. It’s this. In my view, religion at a minimum, has to have the following characteristic:

Religion must include something you have to accept on faith – that is, without evidence commensurate with the extraordinary nature of the belief.

Most religions will include other things too, but they must require faith. Of course, not all things that require faith are religions, but all religions must require faith.

The minimum definition covers all the religions I’m familiar with. For example, it includes any religion that involves belief in god or gods – something you have to believe in without evidence. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism… all require you to believe in god or gods as a minimum, without evidence. The minimum definition would also include religions that don’t require belief in god, but require faith in other things. For example, I believe it would include Buddhism, which (for example) includes the belief that living beings go through a succession of lifetimes and rebirth. It would also include Scientology – no evidence for Xenu, that I’m aware of. Maybe you can think of some actual religions that would be excluded, but I haven’t been able to so far.

So religion requires belief without evidence. And by that definition atheism cannot possibly be a religion because atheists do not have to believe in anything to be an atheist – either with or without evidence. QED.

Now, some religious people may say, “but that’s not my definition of religion”. To which I say, OK, then give me your definition. Give me your definition of religion, that doesn’t require belief without evidence, that includes your religion, the others I named, and atheism. And it needs to be better than the two dictionary definitions I cited above.  Give me that definition. Because here’s the thing. The problems I have with religions are:

They are not based on fact or on any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. In many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.
Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions by others. This despite (1) above.
Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit 1 (or 2) above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. If your religion does not require belief without faith, then I probably wouldn’t have a problem with it. Assuming, of course, all the tenets of your religion are actually backed up by evidence extraordinary enough for the extraordinary claims your religion makes. But they never do.

In my view, theists will have their work cut out to deny this minimum requirement for religion.  Come on – they even refer to their religion as “my faith”.

Evidence and Extraordinary Evidence

Some religious people will claim that their religious beliefs are backed by evidence. This is where it gets tricky, because many religious people genuinely believe their religion is rational and backed by evidence. For example, one Christian I debated cited that the evidence Christianity was real, was (and I quote), “the resurrection of Christ”. Of course, the resurrection of Christ, if it had actually happened, would be pretty good evidence for Christianity. But, unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the resurrection. Certainly, nothing close to the extraordinary evidence we would need to accept this extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary Claims

This needs explaining in more detail. Why do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Well, all claims require exactly the same amount of evidence, it’s just that most "ordinary" claims are already backed by extraordinary evidence that you don’t think about. When we say “extraordinary claims”, what we actually mean are claims that do not already have evidence supporting them, or sometimes claims that have extraordinary evidence against them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they usually contradict claims that are backed by extraordinary evidence.

So why is Jesus’ resurrection an extraordinary claim, and why is the Bible not extraordinary evidence for it? Well, the resurrection goes against all the evidence we have that people do not come back to life, spontaneously, after two days of being dead. Modern medicine can bring people back from what would have been considered in earlier years to be “dead”, but not after 2 days of being dead with no modern life support to keep the vital organs working. In fact, it is probably reasonably safe to say it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that people cannot come back to life after being dead for two days without modern life support. So, extraordinary claim it is.

On the other hand, the evidence we are offered in support of this extraordinary claim consists only of accounts written decades after the event, by people who were not there when the events described were purported to have occurred. We are offered nothing but hearsay anecdotes from superstitious people with a clear reason for wanting others to think the story true. This is hardly acceptable evidence to counteract the fact that this never happens. Christians might ask, what evidence would an atheist accept for such an extraordinary claim? And in reality, it is hard to imagine that there could possibly be any evidence good enough for us to accept the resurrection as true. Christians may claim that this is unfair, or that we are closed minded, but the fact that you are unlikely to find extraordinary evidence for this event 2,000 years after the fact, is hardly the non-believer’s fault. The real question, considering the weakness of the evidence, and the wildly extraordinary nature of the claim, is why would anyone believe any of it in the first place?  The truth is, they accept it on faith.  In fact, the acceptance of this story on faith alone is usually considered to be essential to the true believer. And although that was just Christianity, the same lack of evidence, and belief based on faith alone, applies to the claims of all the other religions that I’m familiar with.

Religions require belief in extraordinary claims without anything close to the extraordinary evidence that is required.  Atheism requires no belief in anything.  The contrast couldn’t be clearer.

But the believer has one final shot – one last desperate rhetorical item to fling at the atheist.  Here we go.

More Faith To Be An Atheist?

The final argument many religious apologists throw into the mix is it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in god. That certainly took me by surprise the first time I heard it. I think what they’re trying to say is this. Atheists think matter just appeared out of nowhere, that something came out of nothing. But where did the matter come from? To think that matter appeared out of nowhere requires more faith than to think a creator made everything. Why is there something rather than nothing? To think that matter just appeared by itself, requires faith.

Atheists don’t think matter came out of nowhere. Atheists say we don’t know where matter came from; we don’t know why there is something rather than nothing. Maybe one day we’ll know, or maybe we won’t. But we don’t know now. Theists are exactly the same. They don’t know either, but the difference is they make up an explanation (god). But it’s just a made up explanation – they have no reason to suppose it’s true, other than that they just like it.

And it’s a useless explanation. Unless they know something about this “God” – how he created everything; why he created it; what he’s likely to do next - it’s a lack of an explanation. It’s just a placeholder until a real explanation comes along. Except that the theist won’t be open to the real explanation when and if science is able to provide one. The god placeholder prevents investigation into any real tentative explanations. The theist who says god created everything, is the one with the faith – faith that “god” is the explanation and that no other is possible. The atheist is content to say “we don’t know”. For now, anyway. And it’s obvious that saying “we don’t know,” requires no faith.  That may be a hard thing to do for people who want all the answers, but it certainly isn’t religion.

One last thing.  Some theists have responded to the “if atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby” argument by pointing out that non stamp collectors (aphilatelists?) don’t write books or blogs about not collecting stamps, don’t post anti stamp collecting ads on buses, don't ridicule stamp collectors, etc.  This is meant to demonstrate that the “stamp collecting” analogy is weak.  It actually demonstrates that the analogy is very good, since it highlights one of the main problems atheists have with many religious people.

Here’s the thing they are missing, and the real problem most atheists have with religion.  If stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors probably would criticize stamp collectors in the way atheists criticize many religious people. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby.  Or a religion.

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

You do understand, however, that Science conducted upon observation carries assumptions that are empirically unfalsifiable, right?  It must, by definition, take for granted the assumption that observation has no causal effect on that which is observed.  There is precisely zero evidence for this assumption.

In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support the entire methodology of empirical exploration. 

[BADecker]

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

[TheBlueEyedBitcoinDragon]

You do understand, however, that Science conducted upon observation carries assumptions that are empirically unfalsifiable, right?  It must, by definition, take for granted the assumption that observation has no causal effect on that which is observed.  There is precisely zero evidence for this assumption.
In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support the entire methodology of empirical exploration.  

I'd like to come in and comment about that. You point out a very interesting issue with an empirical philosophy. We must assume that our senses are reasonably reliable and that what our senses "show" to us is the reality around us. The brain in a jar problem comes up (the matrix, etc). I take this issue to be irrelevant to the validity of empirical research (science), because of a pragmatic stance. Does it work? It seems to. It got us fast transportation, it got us off the ground in planes and spaceships ^{To the moon! ┗(°0°)┛} . We have computers and TVs that work on principles found by doing empirical research.
Now, that doesn't solve the problem. I might still be a brain in a jar being fed electric stimuli to emulate the feeling of typing up a response to a comment, or we might be in a matrix-like network (for whatever reason), or our senses are fooling us all in some odd way that makes certain real things seem like something else under our perception of them. I don't think that problem has a solution. I don't think it necessitates God to come solve it, I don't think God solves that particular problem.
Maybe God can bypass our senses and reveal things to us directly into our consciousness... but how do we know them to be true? How do we know them to be accurate? We take God's word for it? You might say God is the source of all good, the moral law giver... but I'm sure fucking with our perception of reality could be done to spare people pain and suffering, perhaps even death. Who are you to say that God doesn't make us all think we're mortal, when in fact God grants immortality to all, removing people from earth at time of "death" and sending them off to a heaven/hell/purgatory/etc that exists within this universe?

I don't think god solves the problem because we could never know for certain whether God was fucking with our perception of reality (if this is reality, and not some God-created simulation to temporarily place us in) to serve a good our minds can't even begin to comprehend. That's just what I think. And at the end of the day, our senses seem to be the only things to guide us in this universe, be it a simulation, hallucination or something completely different.

[the joint]

You do understand, however, that Science conducted upon observation carries assumptions that are empirically unfalsifiable, right?  It must, by definition, take for granted the assumption that observation has no causal effect on that which is observed.  There is precisely zero evidence for this assumption.
In other words, there is a total lack of evidence to support the entire methodology of empirical exploration.  

I'd like to come in and comment about that. You point out a very interesting issue with an empirical philosophy. We must assume that our senses are reasonably reliable and that what our senses "show" to us is the reality around us. The brain in a jar problem comes up (the matrix, etc). I take this issue to be irrelevant to the validity of empirical research (science), because of a pragmatic stance. Does it work? It seems to. It got us fast transportation, it got us off the ground in planes and spaceships ^{To the moon! ┗(°0°)┛} . We have computers and TVs that work on principles found by doing empirical research.
Now, that doesn't solve the problem. I might still be a brain in a jar being fed electric stimuli to emulate the feeling of typing up a response to a comment, or we might be in a matrix-like network (for whatever reason), or our senses are fooling us all in some odd way that makes certain real things seem like something else under our perception of them. I don't think that problem has a solution. I don't think it necessitates God to come solve it, I don't think God solves that particular problem.
Maybe God can bypass our senses and reveal things to us directly into our consciousness... but how do we know them to be true? How do we know them to be accurate? We take God's word for it? You might say God is the source of all good, the moral law giver... but I'm sure fucking with our perception of reality could be done to spare people pain and suffering, perhaps even death. Who are you to say that God doesn't make us all think we're mortal, when in fact God grants immortality to all, removing people from earth at time of "death" and sending them off to a heaven/hell/purgatory/etc that exists within this universe?

I don't think god solves the problem because we could never know for certain whether God was fucking with our perception of reality (if this is reality, and not some God-created simulation to temporarily place us in) to serve a good our minds can't even begin to comprehend. That's just what I think. And at the end of the day, our senses seem to be the only things to guide us in this universe, be it a simulation, hallucination or something completely different.

Empiricism works because we can defer to the rules of sound inference as they pertain to inductive reasoning.  We simply must blare this inductive limit at all times -- it is precisely because this limit exists that empirical conclusions carry a margin-of-error.

While empirical conclusions carry a margin-of-error, knowledge of the inductive limit itself does not -- we know this at a 100% level of confidence. 

We can know things logically at a 100% level of confidence because logic is self-referential, i.e. logic validates itself.  This is why logical consistency is recognized as the trump card in theory-making.  Because any theory of anything must be consistent in a logical way in order to be true, knowledge of this self-referential property of logic, and its structure, serves as a root of all conceptual understanding -- it is a limit of theorization itself.  Utilizing this limit, if we can evoke categorical relationships between this limit and objectively real content, then we've devised a logical way of forming tautologies at the height of generality.  This is the next step in scientific understanding.

[zenitzz]

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

You said "I do not believe God exists" so what is your religion? or you are Atheists? and I do not agree with this too "you operate in faith and belief rather than fact"
facts are facts and it is different with faith

[BADecker]

This appears to be an argument by people so caught up in their own religion that they cannot imagine any person living without religion of some sort. In fact, atheism fulfills none of the properties generally held to characterize religion.
 We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.


Atheism involves no belief, no dogma, no faith: it is simply the absence of theism. It does not involve any kind of worship, rituals, faith, prayers, etc, and it has no spiritual leader and no sacred text. Although individual atheists have philosophies by which they live (whether they be based on secular humanism, objectivism, etc), there is no clearly defined philosophy common to all (or even most) atheists.

In fact, perhaps the only thing on which atheists would agree is the wrongheadedness of the single main characteristic of a religion: a belief in supernatural beings or gods.

If an individual does not believe in astrology, for example, such disbelief would not be held to constitute a religion (anastrology?). Alternatively, we could ask: “Does 'not collecting stamps' constitute a hobby?” or  “If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”.

Religious belief requires a leap of faith because it postulates the existence of entities that we have no good evidence to believe exist. Atheism, on the other hand, does not require faith because it involves believing in nothing beyond that which we have evidence for and experience of.

Currently, science believes officially that there is nothing more than the physical to life. All of the supposed consciousnesses and free-will activities are nothing more than bio-electric activities of the brain and nervous system. This means that everything operates by cause and effect. Why? Because some many things stimulated the brain and nervous system to act the way it did... produce the illusions that we call consciousness and free will.

However, even if science gets to the point where it literally discovers that there is some outer thing that is a part of us, and upholds or acts with or is upheld by the brain and nervous system, even then science will have to prove that this thing is not operating through cause and effect.

Cause and effect rules in everything that we see, know, and understand, especially in science. Even the quantum mechanics and quantum math that suggest that in some cases effect can come before cause, have to do with the manipulation of the order of things in the universe by mankind. Thus, there is cause and effect in all that seems to be the reverse order of cause and effect. But it is reverse cause and effect that is caused by man, making cause and effect to still rule.

What, if anything, was the Great First Cause that started things going?

----------

There is extreme complexity in the universe. This complexity includes the mind of mankind, the illusions of free will and emotion, math that is so great that we haven't been able to thoroughly calculate dimensions beyond 6 or 8, even though we have parts of as many as 30 dimensions or more, mathematically.

----------

We see nothing other than entropy in all things. Everything is wearing out, eroding, falling to pieces, etc.  The more complex something is, the faster it seems to wear out with regard to its complexity. This is why life doesn't last much more than a hundred years for people. Yet, in all this entropy, we don't see anything that could have started the complexity. The complexity is dying, but we don't see anything that could have started it.

If the mind of man wasn't so complex, if he wasn't so able mentally, then we might be able to say that whatever started the universe might have been backward. But this isn't the case. Even today, after thousands of years of entropy, the mind of man is still great. Obviously, by the way cause and effect, and entropy work together, the mind of man must have been far greater in the distant past. After all, entropy doesn't suggest evolution. It suggests devolution.

Because the mind of man - and even the whole universe - was far advanced in the past, much more than entropy has allowed it to remain, the THING that was able to start the whole universe going, the THING that was able to dictate the multiple thousands of years of cause and effect ('cause that's what we see in everything), and WHATEVER IT WAS that was able to produce such extreme complexity back then, must have been way more complex in itself that anything we see.

Advancement does not arise from entropy. And we see nothing other than entropy, operating through cause and effect. And a thing that could cause-and-effect the mind of man into existence way back before there was much entropy (or any), certainly falls into the category of God Almighty... at least with relation to anything that mankind can think of or be.

----------

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

You said "I do not believe God exists" so what is your religion? or you are Atheists? and I do not agree with this too "you operate in faith and belief rather than fact"
facts are facts and it is different with faith

No, I said:

If you don't like the above, change your science. Because what is above is essentially what the laws and facts of science say.

If you are going to go against pure science, you have a religion, you are operating in faith and belief rather than fact.

The closest thing you can say is "I don't believe God exists. It is an act of faith on my part, because science shows that He does." Some day we may have science that shows something different. But we don't have such now, or else don't use it at all today.

In other words, if you follow science, you essentially believe God exists, according to some of the basic facts of science.

If you accept science as fact, and you don't want to accept that God exists, you have essentially turned science into a religion for yourself, by believing something that does not go along with scientific fact.

[Beliathon]

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

[BADecker]

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 

[BADecker]

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 

The point is, if there weren't any atheists, and if there weren't any believers in a false God, chances are that God would move all of us to His new universe where we could REALLY live in peace, love, and harmony, forever with God.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Most Christians mind their own business.

Most Christians want their children to go to heaven so they will continue to teach them to trust in Jesus Christ, which I guess is what you're calling brainwashing. But children in the public school are brainwashed and left to that alone would never consider any other points of views.

Children Christians can grow up and ask if there is something else. You did, right?

The ones who brainwash and don't encourage asking questions are the schools these days.

[BADecker]

Christians need to learn to mind their own business if they want to be tolerated in twenty-first century society.

They will also need to accept twenty-first century ethics, which means they won't get to continue brainwashing children during formative years.

Using the science of atheists to prove that God exists IS what good Christians DO to mind their own business. After all, their business is to spread God's business among all atheists, one way or another.

We love atheists. Their existence gives us purpose for our lives.

 

The point is, if there weren't any atheists, and if there weren't any believers in a false God, chances are that God would move all of us to His new universe where we could REALLY live in peace, love, and harmony, forever with God.

Come on! Why do you think God is waiting? He doesn't want anyone to be lost. He is giving us time to repent.

[Insertion]

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

It should also be mentioned that antitheists don't necessarily "hate" religion, though; but antitheists are oppositional towards religion. Atheism really has nothing to do with religion.

[BADecker]

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.

It should also be mentioned that antitheists don't necessarily "hate" religion, though; but antitheists are oppositional towards religion. Atheism really has nothing to do with religion.

Except, of course, in the face of all the science that virtually proves that God exists, atheism is more of a religion than all the God-religions are.

[the joint]

Einstein on the relationship between Philosophy and Science:

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment….

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken.