Replies

Indeed, the question of "what is a 'religion'?" is pivotal to my challenges. That is why I included the link, to explain why atheism is considered a religion, especially wrt politics and 1st amendment rights.

I think it should be included for those purposes, because of due process and equal protection considerations. Further, I think some people have created a "religion" of atheism, but I don't think it is necessary.

If a person is atheist or even simply agnostic without considering and/or answering any of the challenges, that is fine. But such a reaction is a belief and thus "materialism" and in particular "scientific materialism" from such a one is on par with similarly biased theological arguments about origins and life. IOW, in that case the notion that a person is atheist by reason cannot apply - scientific objectivity is out the window.

True, but, again, one can be an atheist without having a rational basis for it. The default you seem to be operating under is that "you are religious unless there is a materialistic or rational proof for your opinion." I don't believe that holds.

I've heard someone say the people are atheistic about everyone else's beliefs. As a mental exercise: If you don't believe in Thor, Loki, Zeus, Zarathustra, etc., etc., you probably don't do so rationally. You haven't examined the truth or falsity of every precept of every religious group and every deity that has every been proposed or talked about. Atheists are exactly the same, but they apply that reasoning to Jahovah (or Yahweh), as well. Your belief in the non-truth of Loki doesn't mean you adhere to the "religion" of non-Loki-ism.

Also, "doubt" does not equal atheism. Doubting Thomas was an Apostle, too.

Very true. Doubt is religiously neutral.

Thank you for your reply, WildHorseCrash!

“It” is never an issue until one argues that scientific materialism is “proof” of atheism. (e.g. infidels.org) I will be quite content if we can agree that arguments from answers-in-Genesis and infidels.org are both ideologically biased and should be viewed (and perhaps largely dismissed) accordingly.

I included the “What is religion?” link because it is a challenge to comprehend what atheism is or is not wrt other religions. There are many definitions, of course, but the conclusion drawn at that site is comprehensive and offers many sources and links for the curious.

Personally, I am not bothered by whatever ideological bias one might bring to the science debates on this Forum - as long as the correspondent does not claim a superior position with regard to science, which is to be ideologically neutral.

betty boop and I both notoriously dismiss Lewontin, Pinker, Singer and a few others as authorities on the basis of their well published ideological bias. This is the same order of objections raised to authorities embraced on the answers-in-Genesis website.

I suspect you and betty boop and I will have many exciting debates on the forum because you seem to understand that there is a boundary between the objectivity of science and the ideology of atheism (in particularly evangelical atheism). By agreeing that there are such boundaries, we are free to discuss anything in the middle ground without reproach – and even discuss a biased view with the understanding that the worldview itself is not objective science.