A challenge to Statler Waldorf

[Rainydays]

If it's not too late, I'd like to comment. Don't worry it won't be long.

Atheist narrative:

I think this is an unfair conclusion. If an atheist makes a statement at all about origins, it will be what is generally accepted in science. What else are you supposed to do? Not accept science because it is on religious grounds? (Atheism?) Is a Christian who accepts scientific findings a pseudo-atheist? This makes no sense at all.

Experience:

I don't know where that comes from. I don't know people who had some ''atheist'' experience. As a child I was well aware of evolution, but I knew this itself does not disprove just any God. It only disproves some very specific God myths. If Darwinism was IT for you, you must already have been indoctrinated with Christianity. If so, you would only have to refute Christianity, since other beliefs do not matter in Christianity. This is not the same process as a religious experience. If there is such a thing, we will never know it. (How can you notice no God not speak to you?)

Social:

Of course people are going to talk to like minded people and of course they will react if people do not agree with them. How does that make it a religion? It's more a political movement than anything else. If religion was no dominant force in society you would never hear those atheists again. Take a look here. You almost never hear atheists, though there are many. I just think there is a lot of frustration with outspoken atheists.

Doctrine/relativism

There are no tenets in atheism, but you are of course right about secular humanism. The argumentation is weak, because every person on the planet has to get by in society and have some type of morals. Every human must therefore be religious, and every monkey as well. If your morals are not Christian, you must have an underlying reason to be moral. (Christians do have an underlying reason to be moral, they just pretend everything is from the Bible.) In the end, the moral judgements of people are pretty similar, no matter how they call their system. So this only means ''If you thought about it at all, you must be religious.''

Ethics

I pretty much said this above and I do not agree it is a useful measuring instrument.

Rituals

Another case of ''theft.'' Rituals regarding birth, death, and celebration are normal. These rituals are very old and are often social parties or have to do with the harvest or the equinox. Rituals are human. Religions claimed rituals for themselves is all. It is unfair to claim a ritual is religious, unless there are clear religious elements. (Sacrifice to the atheist God)

To conclude, your argumentation is really weak. Some of the things you said apply, but not in a religious manner. It is hard to pin down what religion is, I know. But if it isn't God, it must have something to do with purpose or spiritual life, asking the big questions of sorts. It's very subtle. All I know is this will not hold unless every human must be religious. So you should demonstrate which people are not religious at least, so we know the difference between a non religious human and an atheist.

I do not care what some US court ruled, btw. Politics are politics. People tried to make a smoking church too after the public smoke ban after all.