Harvest MoonThis is a proposal of how Atheism has become a religion. I am speaking of a specific kind of atheist, not a buddhist atheist, but an atheist who has faith in science, the scientific method, and worships these entities. Simply being an Atheist does not make one a religious-atheist according to this proposal.
Some religions have worshiped statues and objects as their god. I am proposing Atheism is not impervious to Idolatry.
Religious-Atheist: An Atheist that goes beyond the claim of being atheist is to supersede the dictionary definition. Atheism has left its dictionary definition and become a practice When atheism leaps from its dictionary definition into real life to become a practice, an ideal, a faith in those ideals, it has become a religion. Evolution then takes place and it grows symbols, principles, behavioral traits, a faith in technology, and a faith in the scientific method for answering questions, more specifically life’s most difficult questions.
below is an image from the first Atheist Church in London.
Symbols
- the constant pursuit of scientific configuration/grooming
- the story of evolution
- machines, gadgets, transhumanism, technocracy
- Qausi-Humanism, “Atheist-Humanist”
- Anything non-secular is considered heretical
- Faith in science
- Atheist Churches, as well as Atheist conventions that act as churches to preach the doctrines of atheism
- A spiteful and sadistic dogma towards anything non-atheist.
The prophet of atheism is the scientific method, which is intertwined with the atheist-humanist practitioners. Without the atheist-humanist, the pursuit of constant scientific configuration is non-existent. Without the scientific method the atheist has no prophet. Without science the atheist-humanist loses his/her/their religion.
Any claims of a higher being, a creator, is deemed an encroachment on the Atheist-Humanist’s religion/prophet. Where in some religions, a direct show of disrespect is to be attributed to the religion before accusations of heresy can be made, by not believing in Atheism to the atheist is thus heretical, thus paving way in the means of absolute intolerance of all other religion not atheist. The absolute religious intolerance of all other religions is engaged by the radical atheist-humanist practitioners. This is whats known as the “formal atheist debater.” These are the equivalent of a priest, pastor, rabi, Imam of other religions.
Atheism is a religion built on secular subjectivism while claiming objectivity. It gathers its principles from a circumscribed philosophical heterogeneity while asserting what can’t be used, rather then what can. The eclectic paradox given by atheism is intertwined within the religion, as this gives it it’s axiom.
Not all atheists are Religious-Atheists.
http://harvestmoonnews.com/atheism-religion/
Sent to us by a reader.
I’m sure there are atheists who will gather together to satisfy their need to belong to a group, but it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “church.” The concept of a “religious-atheist” is oxymoronic, for starters, but even if we ignore the semantic argument, it would be difficult to refer to any group of atheists as a church, because they DON’T have the unified belief system that the author suggests.
I’m an atheist who lives by the teachings of “Jesus Christ”, because it’s an excellent moral philosophy, and I believe that the concepts of heaven and hell are parables, like much of what’s written in the bible.
I don’t believe in an after-life, but instead that heaven and hell are right here on earth, and we have the choice of experiencing either in earthly life. We can either suffer “hell” or be rewarded with “heaven” in this life, based on our behavior, and the choices we make.
Some might call that “Karma”, but my experience tells me that living by the words of Christ make your earthly life a lot nicer. My guess is that “heaven” and “hell” were described as real places to help guide the behavior of people who can’t or don’t realize that.
Ah, the religion of the State – that is, to say, the non-religion. I’ve said for many years that the way that the State will strip provisions from our Constitutional Religious freedoms is to do the very thing prohibited; to Establish a religion of the State, which is fast becoming: the “Non-religion”. Under the guise of giving all religions equality, they actually equalize them down to nothing, with the “Non-religion” taking precedence.