Roots of Religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

The main reason behind the term Realism in my case is

1. A positive discription which can lead a-realists to open their minds and think outside their tiny mind set which is controlled for them like children. (some people go to church just because they think it's the right thing to do).

2. to suggest the embarrassment religious people should have about their belief by calling them a-realists and to degrade faith (not the person) because many a-realists say "oh you're an atheist" as if it's a horrible thing. It's an unwelcome mind condition on their behalf.

3. because not all atheists have the same beliefs (Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Atheist, Non Theists, Anti-theist) etc...

Personally I am Anti-Theism, and an Agnostic to the unknown, Atheist,
I also believe no one should be gnostic towards Atheism

I also dont believe in ghosts, angels, superstitions (black cats, walking under the ladder, no.13, black friday etc..) lucky pokies, karma, yin and yang, witches, warlocks, fortune tellers, ESP, women's intuition, satanic rituals, satan himself or any other human invented set backs.

To me that means Realism

I'd say the main difference (that I can think of) is that atheism is more controversal than realism...and I like that...

Could you elabratate more on your liking to controversal ways?

Well I'd say If I called myself a realist....rather than an atheist (I'm both but I generally describe myself as atheist) - the religious would be more likely to ignore me because they would think 'well my belief In God IS realistic...it IS true"...so they wouldn't bother with me...

But because atheism has a more negative and/or atleast controversial label...religious people tend to pay more attention so have more of a chance of getting into a debate/argument and therefore have more of a chance of atleast slightly understanding in some cases even partially agreeing with the Atheist view...and in some rare occasions even being (voluntary) de-converted.

I know to atleast some it may seem absurd so as always - correct me if I'm wrong.

This notion I'm not entirely sure on...but this is what I currently think so as I said - correct me if I'm wrong...

P.S: Obviously when I'm talking about controversy I'm not talking about controversy to the extent that it would do more damage than good...even in the short term....I mean attracting non-aggressive, non-violent, and potentially educational - and sometimes even positively uplifting - debates that do no real harm...but by the religious may be considered controversial. And the thing is its often because its almost always only superficial and merely slightly controversial.