Does the Religion of Atheism exist?

Question

Let's look at religion here. It is an entire belief system founded upon a pile of ideas and theories, and no solid evidence to prove it.

Religion was all until mankind made several discoveries that linked toward what was dubbed the theory of evolution. With solid, tangible support, how can it be challanged by an idolized fantasy novel?

Yet there's a reason why scientists call it a theory, and why many of them are spiritual. They have uncovered nothing that can disprove the existence of a god or gods or some form of higher power. All science has at this point is theories, and Atheists take to heart these theories.

Some of them roam the internet looking to pick apart the religious and prove themselves right, thereby succeeding in turning Atheism into a religion. Ironic.
Do you agree?

Answer 1

Your logic is completely disjointed. Evolution did not precede Atheism. The reason evolution is a theory is that it is backed by extensive evidence, not because it has ever attempted to disprove the divine. Science is not the exclusive realm of the Atheist, just as stupid rhetoric and meaningless arguments are not the exclusive realm of the religious.

Answer 2

I am sure there is a point here somewhere, but I really don't feel like wading through the rambling to figure it out.

And the one thing I got was you misunderstanding the scientific definition of theory. Gravity is a theory too, and we actually understand evolution better. So unless you can float, you do buy into theories. But even if evolution were totally wrong, that wouldn't constitute evidence of a god. It would only mean that evolution was wrong.

Answer 3

Nope. you're incorrectly inverting modus ponens. It boils all the way down to trouble-free propositional common sense. in case you commence with the proposition if P then Q and also you're saying that P is genuine then it follows logically that Q is genuine. it truly is written like this: if P then Q P for this reason Q An celebration would nicely be P="I truly have the flu" and Q="I truly have a sore throat" giving us "If I truly have the flu then I truly have a sore throat." - a real truth, enable's assume for the needs of this argument. this can always produce genuine consequences see you later because the propositions P and Q are valid and the causal link is valid. it is large-spread as modus ponens. you are able to carry out some trouble-free (and under no circumstances so trouble-free) differences on it, and see you later as you do this wisely the top effect can be genuine. as an celebration, it truly is achieveable to attain at excellent right here: if P then Q no longer(Q) for this reason no longer(P) it is modus tollens. "If I truly have the flu then I truly have a sore throat." "i do no longer have a sore throat" "for this reason i do no longer have the flu." back, a real truth. What you're not any further allowed to do, yet you probably did besides, is attempt this: if P then Q Q for this reason P this is a logical fallacy huge-spread as holding the resultant and there is not any thanks to inform if it truly is genuine or no longer. If I truly have the flu then I truly have a sore throat I truly have a sore throat for this reason I truly have the flu this isn't inevitably genuine - there are different causes you've gotten a sore throat. it is maximum ordinarily used (incorrectly) in arguments that bypass as follows: John: All republicans are hostile to gun administration Joe: that is not any longer genuine. My uncle's hostile to gun administration and he's not any longer a republican. Joe looks to imagine he's drawing a end right here yet he's not any longer, because John did not make a truth about non-republicans. Joe's truth is incomprehensible in the context of this argument. and that is what you probably did. You affirmed the resultant, so what you reported has 0 importance and promises 0 assistance to the communique. you won't be able to finish that god exists out of your premise. i wish you gained't proceed to make an same mistake. it truly is an rather undemanding one right here between theists.

Answer 4

You have said nothing to show that atheism is a religion. It is not.
Atheism is the belief that there are no Gods.
There is a whole library of evidence for the theory of evolution.
There is no evidence for the existence of God.

Answer 5

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is disbelief of your God and all Gods. Scientists are less religious then the population they are from.

You wish it was one since it would be easier for you to argue against it. God is a theory and a poor one....

Answer 6

Yes. Look up the definition of 'religion' on dictionary.com and you will see that many of the definitions co-relate to Atheism. It's there and those that have already decided that there is no God are basing their assumption on factless, unscientific rumor.

Answer 7

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a deity of any kind.

Answer 8

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is a stance on the idea of a God. i.e. no Gods.

Answer 9

atheism is a religion cuz its a belief that theres no god
its diferent from "no religion" which is NOT a religion, becuz then u jst dont believe in anything. i think atheism can include like astrology and stuff like that, whereas with no religion, theres NADA

Answer 10

YOU 4R3 RIGHT.....TH3R3 IS NO 3VID3NC3 TH3R3 WH4TSO3V3R FOR 4HT3ISTS TO B4CK TH3IR TH3ORI3S UP WITH...@ L34ST US CHRISTI4NS H4V3 4 BOOK(BIBL3)....TH3Y JUSS G3T W3IRD ID34S ND ST4T3 TH3M 4S F4CT....