I respectfully disagree completely. Atheism, as a general concept, is the disbelief in Gods. Anyone or thing that doesn't believe in gods is an atheist. The word literally comes from the Greek "without gods".
So tell me, do babies not fall under this category? Do people who have never heard of the concept of God not fall under this category?
What is the doctrine of atheism exactly? You say "scientific principles" and I call bullshit on this. There are many atheists who do not accept science, many who still follow horoscopes and other pseudoscientific crap, many who are "new age" people yet still profess no belief in a higher being.
There are no tenets of atheism. One does not have to actively believe that there are no gods (positive atheism) to be an atheist. To be an atheist, you don't have to follow any specific rules, you just have to fall under a certain category, and that category is "not having a belief in a god".
Dawkins is no more a prophet of atheism than Pat Robertson is a prophet of Christianity. Religions revolve around their prophets, yet there is nothing in the definition of atheism that even makes mention of Dawkins, there are even atheists (such as myself) who disagree with most of what he says. Popularisers of X do not equate prophets of X, and to say so is completely ridiculous.
What view of the Cosmos does atheism have? None! Atheists themselves might have some view of the cosmos, but it isn't prescribed by atheism. Look at Scientologists...they *are* atheists by definition, yet they believe the universe is 15 trillion years old and Zenu is the supreme commander responsible for human suffering.
As I've argued before, atheism and theism are not religions, they are individual beliefs. They may form the core of several religions, but to say they are religions themselves is simply irrational and ill-informed.
The only leverage you'll get out of me on this point is regarding the "New Atheists" who certainly act like a religion, but I don't believe can be truthfully classified as one.
So tell me, do babies not fall under this category? Do people who have never heard of the concept of God not fall under this category?
What is the doctrine of atheism exactly? You say "scientific principles" and I call bullshit on this. There are many atheists who do not accept science, many who still follow horoscopes and other pseudoscientific crap, many who are "new age" people yet still profess no belief in a higher being.
There are no tenets of atheism. One does not have to actively believe that there are no gods (positive atheism) to be an atheist. To be an atheist, you don't have to follow any specific rules, you just have to fall under a certain category, and that category is "not having a belief in a god".
Dawkins is no more a prophet of atheism than Pat Robertson is a prophet of Christianity. Religions revolve around their prophets, yet there is nothing in the definition of atheism that even makes mention of Dawkins, there are even atheists (such as myself) who disagree with most of what he says. Popularisers of X do not equate prophets of X, and to say so is completely ridiculous.
What view of the Cosmos does atheism have? None! Atheists themselves might have some view of the cosmos, but it isn't prescribed by atheism. Look at Scientologists...they *are* atheists by definition, yet they believe the universe is 15 trillion years old and Zenu is the supreme commander responsible for human suffering.
As I've argued before, atheism and theism are not religions, they are individual beliefs. They may form the core of several religions, but to say they are religions themselves is simply irrational and ill-informed.
The only leverage you'll get out of me on this point is regarding the "New Atheists" who certainly act like a religion, but I don't believe can be truthfully classified as one.
