Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Gerald Kelleher]

Gerald,

I'm not sure I'm understanding you here... are you (still?),somehow lumping the NA in with social darwinism? How did you get there again? If you are, got a citation?

It is just wheeling around in circles trying to not notice that Darwinism is a transposed social/political manifesto rather than a 'law of nature' imposed on biological evolution. It may constitute a phenomenon in itself where the mind refuses to accept what it is reading as Darwin didn't attempt to disguise between the antecedent cause using population control in terms of civilized/savage and the entire working of creation across millions of years.

Evolution squeezed into Darwinism is toxic to the point where the empiricists managed to create a viewpoint that rejecting the social/political core of Darwin's cause for the appearance of complex life from simple forms is tantamount to rejecting evolution itself. There is not one but multiple major issues involved and none of which center around whether the creation narrative of Genesis is true as compared to the Darwinist view which in turn is meant to distinguish science from religion.

 

[Laika]

It wasn't a theory, it was expressed as a 'law of nature' which ran in parallel with the 'laws of motion' with both being incredibly drastic concepts and an assault to these 21st century eyes.These would normally be huge points of discussion but they have,so far, slipped into secondary or tertiary issues.

agreed.

So, the impact depends on the reader's own conceptions of themselves and what they hold to be true,what they allow in and what they don't. For the less courageous it means prefacing Darwinism with 'Social' as though it softens the impact of its roots in social supremacy of civilized and savage.

A major issue is that the view of ethics as scientific often entails a hefty amount of nihilism is rejecting "prescientific" morality, though the conclusions are not inherently nihilistic as the scientific nature of the ideas gives an ethical system it's objective source; in the Nazi's case, racial purity and the communists, class struggle. relativism factors in as well as the claim to scientific status also leads to the conclusion that such a morality is superior to all that preceded it.

There is nothing that is done in a corner here, the texts are freely available and although only part of the story, the narrowing of evolutionary sciences to Darwinism tends to set the stage for something even worse.

I know what you mean, but that is very open ended. Evolution- when applied to society- does undermine our conception of rights as derived from judeao-christian and liberal humanist sources, so the advance of scientific knowledge of man gives us new powers and new dangers.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I know what you mean, but that is very open ended. Evolution- when applied to society- does undermine our conception of rights as derived from judeao-christian and liberal humanist sources, so the advance of scientific knowledge of man gives us new powers and new dangers.

It was society applied to evolution with cultural stereotyping as a foundation that marks off Darwinism so there is no room to apply evolution back into society as though there was such a thing as 'social Darwinism'. It might get you off the hook if you wish to reduce religion to the Genesis narrative as evolutionary fact while promoting Darwinism as an contrary evolutionary fact in line with logical reasoning but such a victory or advantage is pyrrhic The 'survival of the fittest' as it is expressed as a law of nature may just as well be understood as 'the end justifies the means' for there is no basis for setting Caucasian sentiments of civilized and savage into all natural creation as a principle biological necessity.

There are no new powers but rather old falsehoods that are being addressed.

 

[Koldo]

By means of comparison, I've selected part of a criticism of the ontological argument presented by a Christian apologists and in the book Christian Apologetics (by Geisler). One can then compare this portion to how the argument is treated by the new atheists:
“The invalidity of the ontological argument is illustrative of the point being made here. Certainly, a triangle must be conceived as having three sides and, if a triangle exists, it must exist with three sides. But it is not logically necessary that any triangle exists anywhere. In like manner, it is logically necessary to predicate existence of a necessary Existent and, if such a Being exists, it must necessarily exist. But it is not logically necessary for necessary Being to exist any more than it is for a triangle to exist. Of course, if something exists, then the ontological argument takes on new strength, for if something exists it is possible that something necessarily exists. But the point here is that there is no purely logical way to eliminate the “if.” I know undeniably but not with logical necessity that I exist. And this is precisely the point at which proponents of the ontological convertly borrow the fact of undeniable existence in order to strengthen their argument. They know that it is undeniable that that something exists (viz., one’s self). And once it is thereby granted that something is real, they can move more easily toward providing that it is logically necessary that something exists. But even here their argument is misdirected. For God cannot be a logically necessary Being. If there is a God he would be an actually necessary Being, but it is confusing categories to make conceptual or rational necessity constituative of the reality of God. Further, the ontological argument….” It goes on, but as this is just for comparison’s sake, I’ll spare others the remaining portion.

Is there a need for the ontological argument to be dealt with?
Does it need to be addressed?

I have yet to meet someone who has been compelled to become or remain a theist due to it. It is more of an intellectual exercise than anything else with pretty much no practical usefulness.

 

[Laika]

It was society applied to evolution with cultural stereotyping as a foundation that marks off Darwinism so there is no room to apply evolution back into society as though there was such a thing as 'social Darwinism'. It might get you off the hook if you wish to reduce religion to the Genesis narrative as evolutionary fact while promoting Darwinism as an contrary evolutionary fact in line with logical reasoning but such a victory or advantage is pyrrhic The 'survival of the fittest' as it is expressed as a law of nature may just as well be understood as 'the end justifies the means' for there is no basis for setting Caucasian sentiments of civilized and savage into all natural creation as a principle biological necessity.

There are no new powers but rather old falsehoods that are being addressed.

A lot of what happened was down to the process of industrialization. The rapid socioeconomic change makes a mockery of concepts that we live in a 'natural order' with quasi-permanent and fixed features, and hence some theory of social evolution is a necessary to comprehend the speed and scale of the changes.

With industrialization comes changes in the way we organize our society; we've evolved from isolated individuals working by hand, to machine production based on cooperation of labor. For the most part of the 20th century, it also over-seen by a professional management class, but this appears to have taken a battering because of the development of information technology. The internet has increased the number of people who can work together by making communications near instant and sharing on knowledge potentially world-wide. Notions of economic competition as undertaken by individuals are laughable now as competition is now between large multinational corporations. there remains competition on the lower levels, but it is a different age from the late 19th century when social Darwinism could be used to justify individualism.The role of nation-states has diminished with globalization and hopefully the threat of warfare (the original position that free trade made war irrational was stated in 1913- not a great year to do it given what happened in 1914 ).

The contradiction is mainly between scientific, technological and economic progress on the one hand, and an inability to achieve moral or political progress; our political, legal, moral concepts lag behind the pace of the changes. our conception of copyright can barely cope with the ability of the internet to copy information instantly; we still hold on to traditional notions of privacy and even official secrecy as information technology erodes the distinction between public and private life and between politics and society; nation-states can't regulate the world economy or environment as they still compete against one another, etc. Technological changes led from a massive advantage for defense in trench warfare in world war I, to a massive advantage for offense in world war II, and then finally to the point where warfare doesn't make any sense any more with the threat of 'mutually assured destruction' by nuclear weapons.

There is a case for arguing for social evolution (I'm making a Marxist one), but the problem is how far moral progress is possible. If it turns out that human nature is relatively static and stuck in level of selfishness, the increase in power leads to an increase in our destructiveness. the alternative is that through moral progress, by greater knowledge of ourselves and society we can have not only power, but wisdom too. For now, the evidence does not support the latter view.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

There is a case for arguing for social evolution (I'm making a Marxist one), but the problem is how far moral progress is possible. If it turns out that human nature is relatively static and stuck in level of selfishness, the increase in power leads to an increase in our destructiveness. the alternative is that through moral progress, by greater knowledge of ourselves and society we can have not only power, but wisdom too. For now, the evidence does not support the latter view.

Thank you for your comments however there is a danger that 'evolution' becomes so diluted that it can be inserted anywhere and everywhere where historical developments occur. In a biological sense you evolve from child to adult which is immeasurably closer than using historical developments distinguishing civilized and savage peoples which has no real biological content and forms the core of Darwinism.

Denominational Christians were railroaded into accepting Darwinism as an evolutionary necessity via the generational conduit of the education system but seemingly have no problems with that even though at its core is a social/political opinion that has now been shunted into 'Social Darwinism'. It is all too clever and convenient but it lacks integrity.

The reaction of the other Christians in this forum is as curios as it is expected for they are caught in the issue which exploded out of the emergence of heliocentricity and the reasoning behind it. This is where you are getting the idea that religion handles morality while science handles facts because the Catholic Church opted to dump its astronomical heritage which once sat comfortably with Christians up to and including Galileo. Very few commentators have a good understanding where the fault lines are and less so today where it is proposed as a joke issue that Christianity requires a stationary Earth as a theological necessity.

Again, I have to draw in an external comment without totally agreeing with it in order to demonstrate something far more complicated than readers are used to -

"When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

The issue is not the struggle for existence as per Darwinism but the uneasy balance between interpretation and predictions which will always exist in some shape or form. With the emergence of empiricism in the late 17th century the balance was lost and is still lost. The sad part is nobody wants to know.

 

[Laika]

Thank you for your comments however there is a danger that 'evolution' becomes so diluted that it can be inserted anywhere and everywhere where historical developments occur. In a biological sense you evolve from child to adult which is immeasurably closer than using historical developments distinguishing civilized and savage peoples which has no real biological content and forms the core of Darwinism.

Denominational Christians were railroaded into accepting Darwinism as an evolutionary necessity via the generational conduit of the education system but seemingly have no problems with that even though at its core is a social/political opinion that has now been shunted into 'Social Darwinism'. It is all too clever and convenient but it lacks integrity.

Could you clarify what you mean by Darwinism as a social/political opinion. Do you mean as an potentially atheist proposition that nature and therefore man can live without god? Evolution is not inherently atheist but does do serious damage to literal interpretations of Genesis.
Given you mention education as a political tool, would I be right in thinking you support the position of teaching the controversy between creationism/evolution rather than evolution alone?

The reaction of the other Christians in this forum is as curios as it is expected for they are caught in the issue which exploded out of the emergence of heliocentricity and the reasoning behind it. This is where you are getting the idea that religion handles morality while science handles facts because the Catholic Church opted to dump its astronomical heritage which once sat comfortably with Christians up to and including Galileo. Very few commentators have a good understanding where the fault lines are and less so today where it is proposed as a joke issue that Christianity requires a stationary Earth as a theological necessity.

That is true, as if I remember correctly Thomas Aquinas argued that the proofs of gods existence must be rational and based on evidence. I can wholly respect that position even if I disagree with; it has integrity as you may put it.
The conflict between religion and science is very recent in historical terms as they were both considered part of natural philosophy. A gap grew as secular free thinkers and scientists walked further and further away from religion, whilst religious belief became more and more dogmatic and often resorted to literal interpretations of sacred texts. We have largely forgotten the shared philosophical roots of both sides of the argument which makes a consistent atheist position very difficult.

Again, I have to draw in an external comment without totally agreeing with it in order to demonstrate something far more complicated than readers are used to -

"When the ordinary man hears that the Church told Galileo that he might teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis which saved all the celestial phenomena satisfactorily, but "not as being the truth," he laughs. But this was really how Ptolemaic astronomy had been taught! In its actual place in history it was not a casuistical quibble; it was the refusal (unjustified it may be) to allow the introduction of a new and momentous doctrine. It was not simply a new theory of the nature of the celestial movements that was feared, but a new theory of the nature of theory; namely, that, if a hypothesis saves all the appearances. It is identical with truth." Barfield 1957

The issue is not the struggle for existence as per Darwinism but the uneasy balance between interpretation and predictions which will always exist in some shape or form. With the emergence of empiricism in the late 17th century the balance was lost and is still lost. The sad part is nobody wants to know.

The Marxist conception of ideology sounds more like the catholic church as it leaves so much uncertainty and there were similar conflicts between atheist party ideology and scientific inquiry in the USSR (Lysenkoism as a theory of the hereditary of acquired traits being the most infamous and obvious abuse of the politicization of science).
A major issue with Marxism is that as Karl Popper pointed out, it has a massive confirmation bias in terms of making predictions; in terms of it's interpretation it is highly relativistic but assumes itself superior more for the idea that it can know and control pretty much anything as the basis for "science".

How does Empiricism lead to an uneasy balance between interpretation and predictions?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Could you clarify what you mean by Darwinism as a social/political opinion.

Darwinism is a social/political opinion foisted on creation as a 'law of nature'.

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

It is not that the atheist or non inspired support this as a fact but that the denominational Christians have accepted it and allowed it to flourish as 'Social Darwinism' instead of looking at the notion for what it actually is - Darwinism straight and simple in an attempt to morph social/political advantage to all creation,.In the scheme of things it is therefore not the success of the new atheists riding the wave of an aggressive strain of empiricism but the descent and capitulation of Christians to these horrors where evolution was squeezed into Darwinism.

I can't say why there is no inaction from Christians other than what I said in the previous response but the complete lack of responsibility can be dismaying despite being familiar with the issue for almost two decades in one shape or another.

 

[Laika]

Darwinism is a social/political opinion foisted on creation as a 'law of nature'.

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

It is not that the atheist or non inspired support this as a fact but that the denominational Christians have accepted it and allowed it to flourish as 'Social Darwinism' instead of being what it actually is - Darwinism straight and simple.In the scheme of things it is therefore not the success of the new atheists riding the wave of an aggressive strain of empiricism but the descent and capitulation of Christians to these horrors where evolution was squeezed into Darwinism.

So your argument against 'Social Darwinism' is against the moral implications of the inequality and the strong/weak or master/slave dialectic of struggle for survival?

 

[Looncall]

Darwinism is a social/political opinion foisted on creation as a 'law of nature'.

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of
Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of
his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease,
accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage
races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It
then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are
continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every
generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the
superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive.... The more I
thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found
the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the
origin of species." Charles Darwin

It is not that the atheist or non inspired support this as a fact but that the denominational Christians have accepted it and allowed it to flourish as 'Social Darwinism' instead of looking at the notion for what it actually is - Darwinism straight and simple in an attempt to morph social/political advantage to all creation,.In the scheme of things it is therefore not the success of the new atheists riding the wave of an aggressive strain of empiricism but the descent and capitulation of Christians to these horrors where evolution was squeezed into Darwinism.

I can't say why there is no inaction from Christians other than what I said in the previous response but the complete lack of responsibility can be dismaying despite being familiar with the issue for almost two decades in one shape or another.

Are you confusing a description of what happens in nature with a prescription of what ought to happen in society?

 

[Laika]

Are you confusing a description of what happens in nature with a prescription of what ought to happen in society?

The relationship between natural science and social science has changed overtime; today they are a long way apart, but for the 19th and early 20th centuries they are quite close. The is/ought distinction is partly an ethical response to the totalitarian consequences of this relationship in that if you can predict human behavior as if it were a natural phenomena, it can be controlled as a social phenomena. Philosophers worked to defend liberal institutions from it consequences; I think Karl Popper's criticism of 'historicism' (deterministic philosophy of history) as totalitarian and a threat to an 'open society' is an example of this.

 

[icehorse]

It is just wheeling around in circles trying to not notice that Darwinism is a transposed social/political manifesto rather than a 'law of nature' imposed on biological evolution. It may constitute a phenomenon in itself where the mind refuses to accept what it is reading as Darwin didn't attempt to disguise between the antecedent cause using population control in terms of civilized/savage and the entire working of creation across millions of years.

Evolution squeezed into Darwinism is toxic to the point where the empiricists managed to create a viewpoint that rejecting the social/political core of Darwin's cause for the appearance of complex life from simple forms is tantamount to rejecting evolution itself. There is not one but multiple major issues involved and none of which center around whether the creation narrative of Genesis is true as compared to the Darwinist view which in turn is meant to distinguish science from religion.

I'm looking for the cliff notes here. Does all of this discussion boil down to the source(s) of morality? Is that what you're on about?

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

I'm looking for the cliff notes here. Does all of this discussion boil down to the source(s) of morality? Is that what you're on about?

Cult behavior always circles the truth getting neither closer nor further from it, in this case the issue would be the acceptance of denominational Christianity of Darwinism which has evolved itself as a concept from its original foundations based on social principles of civilized/savage people and extended to all creation as a 'law of nature'. Darwinism is taken off the boil by creating a 'Social Darwinism' thereby undermining the original convictions of Darwin himself which I have repeated often enough that I do not have to do so again.

It is a phenomenon that Darwinist evolution as it was originally framed won't be discussed by Darwinist evolutionists as the precepts show themselves as repulsive when measured against the convictions which drove a nation to expand and subsequently the misery of World War II. The symptoms were dealt with by the defeat of National Socialism but the disease itself has been left untreated or ignored.

Again, several major issues and most of them technical but when denominational Christianity has accepted Darwinism as evolution itself therein is perhaps the point with the greatest priority. If I cannot do otherwise I can also do no more as an individual.

 

[Looncall]

Cult behavior always circles the truth getting neither closer nor further from it, in this case the issue would be the acceptance of denominational Christianity of Darwinism which has evolved itself as a concept from its original foundations based on social principles of civilized/savage people and extended to all creation as a 'law of nature'. Darwinism is taken off the boil by creating a 'Social Darwinism' thereby undermining the original convictions of Darwin himself which I have repeated often enough that I do not have to do so again.

It is a phenomenon that Darwinist evolution as it was originally framed won't be discussed by Darwinist evolutionists as the precepts show themselves as repulsive when measured against the convictions which drove a nation to expand and subsequently the misery of World War II. The symptoms were dealt with by the defeat of National Socialism but the disease itself has been left untreated or ignored.

Again, several major issues and most of them technical but when denominational Christianity has accepted Darwinism as evolution itself therein is perhaps the point with the greatest priority. If I cannot do otherwise I can also do no more as an individual.

What does all this have to do with whether or not evolution is real? If you don't like the consequences of a fact, that does not make it any less factual, after all. If some people use a proposition to promote nasty actions, that too has no bearing on whether the proposition is accurate.

Who cares what "man of his times" stuff is in Darwin's writings? He is not some holy prophet, after all, and the understanding of evolution has progressed since his time.

The disease of revering holy texts becomes very noxious when it spills over into non-religious contexts: in fact I find it noxious all the time.

 

[icehorse]

Cult behavior always circles the truth getting neither closer nor further from it, in this case the issue would be the acceptance of denominational Christianity of Darwinism which has evolved itself as a concept from its original foundations based on social principles of civilized/savage people and extended to all creation as a 'law of nature'. Darwinism is taken off the boil by creating a 'Social Darwinism' thereby undermining the original convictions of Darwin himself which I have repeated often enough that I do not have to do so again.

It is a phenomenon that Darwinist evolution as it was originally framed won't be discussed by Darwinist evolutionists as the precepts show themselves as repulsive when measured against the convictions which drove a nation to expand and subsequently the misery of World War II. The symptoms were dealt with by the defeat of National Socialism but the disease itself has been left untreated or ignored.

Again, several major issues and most of them technical but when denominational Christianity has accepted Darwinism as evolution itself therein is perhaps the point with the greatest priority. If I cannot do otherwise I can also do no more as an individual.

But who's doing that? Hitchens? Harris? Dawkins? Not that I'm aware of. Can you provide a citation where you see them doing this?

 

[outhouse]

I can't

Why cant you drop the philosophy, and speak in terms that can be defending by credible sources?


Almost none of your arguments exist outside philosophy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What? That's not my view. Of course you can disprove god.

Sure, you can prove square circles do not exist, but you can not prove the absence of god.

And no, you can not prove the non-existence of god, no matter how much you may delight in re-wording that fact into an argument you think you can refute.

Sure mate, you can prove some negatives. But you can not prove the absence of god, that was the context.

And, my personal favorite:

LOL No mate, none of the 'New Atheists' rely on such an argument anyway - you are tilting at windmills. They only mention that you can not prove gods absence in response to apologists endlessly trying to shift the burden of proof.

What do the "new atheists" actually say? "Before proceeding with the scientific evidence bearing on the God hypothesis, let us make a quick review of those disproofs of God's existence that are based on philosophy. For a recent survery, see The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt." (emphasis added).
From Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does not Exist.

I really don't need the quote from that one as the title says it all, but it includes a reference to Everitt's The Non-Existence of God, a book devoted to proofs of god's non-existence which you state can't exist.

As for this:

It all depends on which god and how it is defined.

Not only is that not reflected in the new atheist literature and discourse, but even greater claims of proof are found:
"It would be harder to find an easier proof that religion is manmade." (emphasis added)
From Hitchens' God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Now, there are certainly exceptions. After all, Dawkins is a scientist and used to thinking in terms of evidence not proof, but here he just shows that both your much earlier statements about the possibility of proofs and disproofs (in particular, the statement that you can prove some negatives but not in terms of the context of god) as well as this latest back-tracking are still wrong:
"That you cannot prove God's nonexistence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything." (emphasis added)
from The God Delusion.

Now, I maintained that proof is for mathematics, something that it seems Dawkins may agree with (it's hard to say whether or not he realizes that relationship between proof and disproof, in that either one necessarily entails the other), but in any event this accords with your earlier statement about the "new atheists" asserting the fact that you cannot prove god's absence, but says nothing about context and is explicit that no negative proofs are possible (against your earlier claims about the ability to disprove or prove outside of mathematics; additionally, the discussion of proof arose because I thought you might bring up proving a negative and therefore the first atheist quote about disproving god was how the possibility of disproving god arose).

More could be added, including (and without a need to quote) The Non-Existence of God, but so could more views like Dawkins, so I'll restrict myself to one more example. In the nearly 200 page tour de force of intellectual brilliance and unparalleled argumentation, Raphael Lataster solves questions that have concerned the greatest minds- as represented in their many, voluminous works- over the past few thousand years with his There was no Jesus, There is no God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism. I feel unclean quoting this idiot, so I will simply give the title of his concluding chapter: "There was no Jesus, There is no God" (what a creative title).

But you can disprove God

You are in something of a bind here. Knowing your affinity for relying on definitions that you hold are both absolute and determined by you, you might try and separate disproof, proof, prove, and/or disprove or something, but even if you ignore logic and demand that your definitions be used in such a way, you're now contradicting Harris & Dawkins, who explicitly state that one can't disprove anything (rather, Dawkin's uses falsifiability, which is odd given that this Popperian approach to the so-called "God hypothesis" would admit the proof of god's non-existence but not of his existence, and therefore we would be able to prove a negative).

You might try reading some of these books before attempting to represent the positions held and arguments made therein. In particular, the fact that virtually all do in fact deal with the ontological argument, Biblical Studies, the history of Religion, and other things you've state the "NAs" aren't concerned with is hard to square with the assertion that you've actually read any of the founders of the "new atheism".

 

[pro4life]

If you like it or not, Athiesm IS a religion

 

[gsa]

If you like it or not, Athiesm IS a religion

So theism is a religion? Deism, pantheism and polytheism are also religions?

 

[pro4life]

So theism is a religion? Deism, pantheism and polytheism are also religions?

No, only Athiesm.

It is in fact one of the oldest religions known to man. It is disbelief of a creator (major Belief). Athiesm is not just a concept, it is a way of life for a person.