Atheism is a religion.

[ManMachine]

I don't think religious devotion is retarded. The need to have systems of belief is hardwired into our brains. It's reasonable to suggest they have had some evolutionary benefit for us as a species for a period long enough they have become a permanent part of our neural structure.

It's also reasonable to suggest that whatever benefit religion provided to our species, we've outgrown its functions. I say "we've" as in religion no longer offers any net benefits to mankind as a whole, though it might for those who believe in it, but these are not proven benefits, especially not in the way it probably was before humans had a rational methodology and a cohesive foundation for civilization, philosophy, science, HISTORY, etc.

I'm curious as to how you are establishing your claims. We know that since 9/11 there has been a marked increase in people claiming to be religious, including a 10% increase in Islam. When the former USSR, a republic that made a conscious effort to eradicate religion by banning it, collapsed there was a massive increase in people claiming to be religious and a huge resurgence in religious activity. The evidence would seem to imply that humanity still has a use for religion, that we have not outgrown its functions and that it clearly still has benefits, the extent of those benefits can be a matter for debate but the evidence speaks for itself. I strongly disagree with you based on the global evidence.

'Blind faith', as you put it, also has obvious evolutionary benefits. We need to take some information from others at face value without the need to go find the evidence for ourselves (e.g. don't go in that cave, there is a human eating bear in there).

Not all things taken at face value are equal and not all can be rendered "blind faith." Clearly both the practical and evolutionary benefit of taking things at face value ends at a certain point (or reasonably should), and it does so long before religion in today's day and age.

The point I'm making is that blind faith can have reasonable origins. I am even going one step further by saying is that it is easy to see how blind faith can have useful evolutionary origins and can be reasonably seen to be a part of our evolved social strategies. You trying to split hairs on an undefined 'certain point' does not negate any of this.

I can rationalise the human need for both systems of belief and 'blind faith'.

No, you can't.

You do not determine what I find rational.

If we accept this as a rational position then we can reason that religion as we know it today is probably predicated on these neural functions, it is also reasonable to ask the question that if these neural functions are still there even when we consciously reject organised religion, then they probably play a part in selecting whatever we choose to replace rejected religions.

Yes, the neural functions which allow us to engage with the external world and measure what can be reliably said to exist independently of any single person's experience with it. Sorry, religion fails this simple test.

That the most absurd thing you've said yet. How can any person's neural functions measure anything independent of any single person's experience with it? Everything in the universe fails that test.

You believe you are right because you believe you are more enlightened than previous, more religious generations because of your 'rational, evidenced-based philosophies', but this notion itself is not rational, there is nothing to scientifically measure this. This is nothing more than 'blind faith' in your own system of belief.

MM

Okay, stop acting like you're deaf to every achievement mankind has made by actually following a paradigm informed by tools of a rigorous methodology designed to make knowledge more precise and to expose errors. I'm talking about the scientific method, which is what I utilize to form my beliefs, and for you to compare this to the religious method (believe, believe, believe! feel, feel, feel!) is incredibly naive or simply dishonest.

I'm not the one being 'naive or simply dishonest.'

"I'm talking about the scientific method, which is what I utilize to form my beliefs"

MM

---

Then you also understand that science does not have any evidence proving gods do not exist. Atheism is a rejection of a belief in deities. It is saying 'I do not believe in deities'. Which, if you accept science does not disprove them, is not a scientific position. You are saying although science has not disproved deities you are prepared to take a leap of faith and say you do not believe in them.

Disregarding a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief is not a leap of faith. Your constant attempts to equivocate all manners of inquiry and consequent knowledge to the means used by religion will not hold up to scrutiny.

Correct, but adopting a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief, is a leap of faith. Which is actually what I said.

MM