Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:


snip

Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label
atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate
themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend
that atheism is anathema to them.

A curious contradiction, to say the least.

I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so
hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their
beliefs?



Not ashamed of their beliefs, but perhaps reluctant to be lumped in with the
sheep mentality of the 'religious'?

It sounds like you would define religion as a belief system to explain that
which we do not _know_. By that definition certainly everyone must be
'religious'. It is only recently that I have heard of this definition (and
I find its timing a bit suspect). Previously it was belief in a higher
power and/or an afterlife that defined one as 'religious' or not.

But even using this new idea I still see atheism as different from religion
in the way faith is applied. Religious faith does not allow for much
critical thinking and certainly doesn't tolerate dissent. Whereas atheistic
'faith' accepts change as it happens.

There are certainly things I have to take on 'faith'. I don't _know_ the
universe was created by the big bang. But my acceptance of the theory will
be gladly changed in an instant if the physicists come up with something to
refute it tomorrow. I used to believe in the steady state universe and I
experienced no trauma in making the change. In fact I relish the thought of
learning new things about us.

Contrast that to the adherence to dogma required by 'religion' and perhaps
you can begin to understand why I wouldn't want to be associated with the
same group that put Galileo in jail and wouldn't admit their mistake for
_hundreds_ of years.


--
Frank....H