Can Atheism become corrupt like religion?

[Minimalist]

It did....and judging from the stupidity of theists many have still not made it.

Hey  I'm offended!

One sec, I'm dragging my knuckles back into my cave with my Mammoth meat I just hunted in the glaciers. Now how do I make a fire with these two sticks again?

Our ancestors survived in an environment which would kill most of us super-tekkie modern humans in a week.  I fear most of us would have ended up as smilodon shit.

[superAtheistnut]

Hey  I'm offended!

One sec, I'm dragging my knuckles back into my cave with my Mammoth meat I just hunted in the glaciers. Now how do I make a fire with these two sticks again?

Our ancestors survived in an environment which would kill most of us super-tekkie modern humans in a week.  I fear most of us would have ended up as smilodon shit.

If we had a huge EMP and wiped out all electronics bringing us back to the 17th century technology.

It would be the end of Liberlism and Atheism.

Churches would flourish again, as everyone would think the end of times is coming. No one would pay attention to Atheists anymore, except for the few scientists who would be trying to figure out how to bring back the electricity.

Liberalism would be gone. Everyone would resort back to Conservatism.

I think there was a tv show about this scenario I saw a while back. Some electric flying nanobots that took away the electricity on earth.

[Anomalocaris]

I'm curious to find out if most atheists hate the 'ancient alien' theory because it goes against "evolution" dogma of Atheism.

According to Darwin's theory, it should have taken humans millions of years to evolve to the intelligent species that we are today.

Here's my issue: and why I think 21st century Atheism is no different than 14th century Catholicism dictatorship. In the 14th century if you said the earth might not be the centre of the universe "you'd be hanged on the stake". In the 21st century if you say the universe might of been created by intelligent design 'you're career is over and you'd be labelled as a quack".

Meanwhile, in the 14th century. Hidden from public attention a small group of mathmatecians and scientist were secretley trying to figure out how the universe worked and prayed that they didn't get caught trying to do something blasphemous like going against the 'status quo". Same thing in the 21st century "theist scientists and even agnostic scientists" must surely be secretley be in the closet trying to figure out "the status quo tells me 'Do not look there, there is nothing to see there", but I feel they are wrong".

Today, as a scientist. If you so dare go against the 'status quo' of Atheism you lose your job.

So what's the flaw? Atheism is slowly but surely becoming a cult-following, within a hundred years a hierarchy council will be formed similar to the catholic/jewdaism/islam councils. And future scientists trying to disprove the 'status quo' that evolution created humanity will be burnt to the stake and witch hunted (figuratively speaking). Why will they be witch hunted? You're average atheists could care less if someone is researching 'intelligent design', but the hierarchy of the new Atheism in elitists in power will feel threatened.

Do you feel - Atheism is slowly going to become corrupt like religions? Scientists will not be permitted to look into 'supernatural' or 'mistisism' and try to find a scientific reasoning - as it would be deemed blasphemy and heretic as an Atheist society.

Can acceptance of gravity corrupt like religion? 

[Angrboda]

Resort back to conservatism? What have you been smoking? Oh, there was a tv show about it. Well that's different.

[Brian37]

I'm curious to find out if most atheists hate the 'ancient alien' theory because it goes against "evolution" dogma of Atheism.

According to Darwin's theory, it should have taken humans millions of years to evolve to the intelligent species that we are today.

Here's my issue: and why I think 21st century Atheism is no different than 14th century Catholicism dictatorship. In the 14th century if you said the earth might not be the centre of the universe "you'd be hanged on the stake". In the 21st century if you say the universe might of been created by intelligent design 'you're career is over and you'd be labelled as a quack".

Meanwhile, in the 14th century. Hidden from public attention a small group of mathmatecians and scientist were secretley trying to figure out how the universe worked and prayed that they didn't get caught trying to do something blasphemous like going against the 'status quo". Same thing in the 21st century "theist scientists and even agnostic scientists" must surely be secretley be in the closet trying to figure out "the status quo tells me 'Do not look there, there is nothing to see there", but I feel they are wrong".

Today, as a scientist. If you so dare go against the 'status quo' of Atheism you lose your job.

So what's the flaw? Atheism is slowly but surely becoming a cult-following, within a hundred years a hierarchy council will be formed similar to the catholic/jewdaism/islam councils. And future scientists trying to disprove the 'status quo' that evolution created humanity will be burnt to the stake and witch hunted (figuratively speaking). Why will they be witch hunted? You're average atheists could care less if someone is researching 'intelligent design', but the hierarchy of the new Atheism in elitists in power will feel threatened.

Do you feel - Atheism is slowly going to become corrupt like religions? Scientists will not be permitted to look into 'supernatural' or 'mistisism' and try to find a scientific reasoning - as it would be deemed blasphemy and heretic as an Atheist society.

Can acceptance of gravity corrupt like religion? 

No you cannot use that analogy. Is it good to accept facts? Yes, and part of the fact of evolution is that it has always and will always produce human individuals who can do bad things, atheists are not immune to evolution. Forgetting we are the same species is why history keeps repeating itself. 

[Esquilax]

I'm curious to find out if most atheists hate the 'ancient alien' theory because it goes against "evolution" dogma of Atheism.

I'm pretty sure you're a sock puppet of someone else that we're going to have to deal with sooner or later, but just in case you're ignorant, rather than dishonest: evolution and atheism are not interconnected. Many atheists accept the theory of evolution because they value evidence and support in their worldview, and evolution has plenty of both, but that doesn't mean the one is an integral part of the other. So long as you don't believe in any gods, you can believe in any other thing and still be an atheist. It's a position on a single subject, not a wholly integrated belief system.

Here's my issue: and why I think 21st century Atheism is no different than 14th century Catholicism dictatorship. In the 14th century if you said the earth might not be the centre of the universe "you'd be hanged on the stake". In the 21st century if you say the universe might of been created by intelligent design 'you're career is over and you'd be labelled as a quack".

Francis Collins is an evangelical christian and once headed the Human Genome Project, simultaneously. The reason one's career takes a hit if they advocate intelligent design has nothing to do with advocating intelligent design, and everything to do with advocating for something that has absolutely no evidence or capacity for falsifiability. You'd be taking the hit for doing bad science, not for accepting intelligent design; the moment you quit pretending that intelligent design is remotely supported by evidence, this becomes a really obvious answer.

Meanwhile, in the 14th century. Hidden from public attention a small group of mathmatecians and scientist were secretley trying to figure out how the universe worked and prayed that they didn't get caught trying to do something blasphemous like going against the 'status quo". Same thing in the 21st century "theist scientists and even agnostic scientists" must surely be secretley be in the closet trying to figure out "the status quo tells me 'Do not look there, there is nothing to see there", but I feel they are wrong".

Francis Collins. Your claim is falsified.

Today, as a scientist. If you so dare go against the 'status quo' of Atheism you lose your job.

Francis Collins is currently the director of the National Institute of Health. Your claim is falsified.

Do you feel - Atheism is slowly going to become corrupt like religions? Scientists will not be permitted to look into 'supernatural' or 'mistisism' and try to find a scientific reasoning - as it would be deemed blasphemy and heretic as an Atheist society.

Scientists would need evidence of the supernatural, before they should look into it. It's not our problem that the things you'd like to be true, don't pass rudimentary scrutiny, and inventing this ridiculous conspiracy to avoid even considering the possibility that you might just be wrong is profoundly childish.

[Brian37]

I don't "hate" any theory. But I don't believe anything without a good reason to do so either.

There is no atheist dogma, evolution and atheism are not related.

Yep.

Science is most certainly label independent. I've known atheists in the past who stop at "that doesn't make any sense" but don't do any research as to theists arguments or science. I've run into other atheists who have new age woo or believe in conspiracies like 9/11 and JFK.

"Atheist" only refers to one position on one claim. It doesn't denote class or education level. Scientific method is a tool, not a dogma or political party. The good thing when scientists use that tool ethically is that it is subject to scrutiny and adapts to change.

[Jenny A]

I'm curious to find out if most atheists hate the 'ancient alien' theory because it goes against "evolution" dogma of Atheism.

Beginning at the beginning.  An atheist could certainly believe in the "ancient aliens" theory and still be an atheist.  An atheist could have no beliefs whatsoever about the origins of humans, or life, or the universe.  All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god.
My personal lack of belief does not hing on belief in evolution.  It hinges on lack of evidence of a god or gods.  There were atheists before the theory of evolution and there would still be atheists if it were disproven tomorrow.

According to Darwin's theory, it should have taken humans millions of years to evolve to the intelligent species that we are today.
Here's my issue: and why I think 21st century Atheism is no different than 14th century Catholicism dictatorship. In the 14th century if you said the earth might not be the centre of the universe "you'd be hanged on the stake". In the 21st century if you say the universe might of been created by intelligent design 'you're career is over and you'd be labelled as a quack".
Meanwhile, in the 14th century. Hidden from public attention a small group of mathmatecians and scientist were secretley trying to figure out how the universe worked and prayed that they didn't get caught trying to do something blasphemous like going against the 'status quo". Same thing in the 21st century "theist scientists and even agnostic scientists" must surely be secretley be in the closet trying to figure out "the status quo tells me 'Do not look there, there is nothing to see there", but I feel they are wrong".
Today, as a scientist. If you so dare go against the 'status quo' of Atheism you lose your job.

Buzzzzzt.  Wrong.  It's true a much higher percentage of scientists are atheists than the general public.  But there are many openly religious scientist out there.  In the U.S.:
 

[F]our-in-ten scientists (41%) say they do not believe in God or a higher power, while the poll of the public finds that only 4% of Americans share this view.

  Pew Research Center

Do you feel - Atheism is slowly going to become corrupt like religions? Scientists will not be permitted to look into 'supernatural' or 'mistisism' and try to find a scientific reasoning - as it would be deemed blasphemy and heretic as an Atheist society.

The scientific community and the atheist community are not a single set of people.  They are two overlapping sets.  And they are different categories of sets.  Atheism is by definition, just a lack of belief in a god or gods.  It isn't a system of belief or a method.  It may be informed by science, i.e. one could use the scientific method to determine that god is not a reasonable hypothesis.  But one could reach the same conclusion philosophically, or just by gut instinct.
Science isn't a belief or lack of belief, it is a system for determining the truth of factual claims and determining how the world works.  It depends upon explaining the evidence and making and testing those explanations. Various supernatural claims have been scientifically tested:  ESP, telekinesis, etc.   Some supernatural claims, are not testable because they have no predictive value--if the nothing in the real world will be different if a claim is true or not, that claim is not testable.  It has no scientific value.  I see no signs that the scientific community refuses to look at testable supernatural claims, only that: 1) there appears to be little if any replicable evidence supporting such claims; and 2) so far no good testable hypothesis for how such supernatural phenomenon work has been suggested.  
The world supernatural is a little odd from a scientific standpoint anyway.  If a supernatural claim were proven and demonstrated to have a cause, then it would no longer be supernatural.  Let me give you an example.  Suppose you showed a smart phone to an extremely primitive tribe that didn't know about electricity, let alone computers.  Your phone would appear supernatural.  But if you showed them how it worked (an explanation of years), then it would cease to appear supernatural and be what it obviously is to us, a part of the natural universe. It is for this reason that "it's supernatural" or "it's magic" is not a scientific explanation.  It's just another way of saying we don't know.
Scientists can believe in the supernatural, theistic, or any other unsupported claim.  What they can't do, is call that belief science.
I have a hard time imagining as diffuse and diverse a group as atheists becoming authoritarian, though a group of atheists might.  So far there doesn't appear to be a cabal of atheist scientist trying to control all scientific hypotheses.   The result would cease to be science if such a group gained control of it.  Science is by definition without bias as to the results of the method.

[superAtheistnut]

Scientists would need evidence of the supernatural, before they should look into it. It's not our problem that the things you'd like to be true, don't pass rudimentary scrutiny, and inventing this ridiculous conspiracy to avoid even considering the possibility that you might just be wrong is profoundly childish.

That's the problem with atheism, you require evidence before there can be any evidence. You need an hypothesis, then funding.

So if a religious organization funded a college to find out if "souls" exist after death. And lets say 100yrs from now we have the technology to see the spectreme of where this energy goes to (since you cannot destroy energy). 

in the future, atheism will have taken 100% control of government (similar to how religion has taken control of gov't today) and your work would be destroyed by men-in-black. Because proving the supernatural would go against the atheist status quo.

[henryp]

As long as people are involved, everything will be corrupt.  That's just human nature to control/manipulate/dominate others for some end goal.  

I don't know if it'd be under the banner of Atheism, but I imagine we'll see (and probably already have) many groups with conclusions drawn under the umbrella of Atheism be total shitheels.