Does atheism have to be anti-religious?

We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science – but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray. In recent years we’ve come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that’s making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works – an intellectual error without human value, which we’d be better without.

more..

CrazyNeutrino said:

Does atheism have to be anti-religious?

We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science – but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray. In recent years we’ve come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that’s making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works – an intellectual error without human value, which we’d be better without.

more..

I’ve often separated the letters to read, a theism and have spouted that anything religious is practised habitually.. but then was it Lenin who called it the opiate of the masses?

>religion is a primitive theory

and the mental tools people thinkin’ with’s primitive also
they been ‘round a long time’n not unlike an axe, it goes
be applied to a grindin’ stone’n sharpen ‘m up you know

transition said:

>religion is a primitive theory

and the mental tools people thinkin’ with’s primitive also
they been ‘round a long time’n not unlike an axe, it goes
be applied to a grindin’ stone’n sharpen ‘m up you know

More primitive than the ground axe edge.

>More primitive than the ground axe edge.

don’t you be messin’ with or distractin’ from my mash of idioms and metaphor now

:)

transition said:

>More primitive than the ground axe edge.

don’t you be messin’ with or distractin’ from my mash of idioms and metaphor now

:)

:)

No

CrazyNeutrino said:

Does atheism have to be anti-religious?

We tend to understand atheism as a war between religion and science – but in earlier times atheism was both more complex and more rich, says philosopher John Gray. In recent years we’ve come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things. In the type of atheism that’s making the most noise today, religion is a primitive theory of how the world works – an intellectual error without human value, which we’d be better without.

more..

There’s a joke that I modify. The original joke (paraphrased) is:
“My wife and I divorced because we had religious differences. You see, she is an atheist. And I’m agnostic.”

mollwollfumble’s modified version is:
“My wife and I divorced because we had religious differences. You see, she is an atheist. And I have no religion.”

You see, there’s a difference between being an atheist and having no religion.

I think it depends on the non believer’s background.

Some Atheists go down the route of how religion is propagated. Religion is taught to the very young , there is no point in talking about talking snakes when the child/young adult has reached the age of reasoning for themselves. The indoctrination of the young at an automatically trusting age can , and is viewed as a form of child abuse.
Another side of that coin is when the religious impose laws based on their belief upon others.

Speaking as someone who has formally studied the Bible with a view of Missionary or Pastoral work it can be very hard to give up your religion. Not only you coming to terms with a permanent mortality , you are rejecting your upbringing and social environment.

As I studied the Bible I realized it was written by man , but strangely enough (looking back) that didn’t straight away destroy a belief in a God , now as I look back I say to myself “What was I thinking?” .

Religion was our first attempt at science , morality and philosophy . In the absence of any previous attempts , a damn good one. Just not correct.

I do believe society will be better off without religion and mathematically there will be a “tipping point” with a sudden demise . Not in my (55 yo) life time.

Brett

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion . Atheists often concentrate too much on what the religion claims and miss the point that choosing to have a faith is not a rationally thought out decision.

Thomo said:

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion . Atheists often concentrate too much on what the religion claims and miss the point that choosing to have a faith is not a rationally thought out decision.

Why should I appreciate why others have religion?

Thomo said:

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion .

I think 99.9999% of atheists just mind their own business.

dv said:

Thomo said:

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion .

I think 99.9999% of atheists just mind their own business.

I was until the rabid fundies tried to burn me at the stake.

kii said:

dv said:

Thomo said:

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion .

I think 99.9999% of atheists just mind their own business.

I was until the rabid fundies tried to burn me at the stake.

Is it unsual for atheists to cop it where you live or were those that had a go at you fruitcakes

Cymek said:

kii said:

dv said:

I think 99.9999% of atheists just mind their own business.

I was until the rabid fundies tried to burn me at the stake.

Is it unsual for atheists to cop it where you live or were those that had a go at you fruitcakes

It was in NSW back in the mid 90s.

kii said:

Cymek said:

kii said:

I was until the rabid fundies tried to burn me at the stake.

Is it unsual for atheists to cop it where you live or were those that had a go at you fruitcakes

It was in NSW back in the mid 90s.

Oh ok, I thought it was the incident you mentioned some years ago in the USA

Cymek said:

kii said:

Cymek said:

Is it unsual for atheists to cop it where you live or were those that had a go at you fruitcakes

It was in NSW back in the mid 90s.

Oh ok, I thought it was the incident you mentioned some years ago in the USA

What incident was that? There’s only ever been the insane incident involving the parish council members of the preschool from Emmanuel Anglican Church, in Honour Ave, Lawson NSW.

I like the simpsons creed “As for “Science vs. Religion,” I’m issuing a refraining order. Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times.”

as a person who is not religious, I don’t really identify as any ‘-thiest’ I am just a person who tries not to fuck things up and tried to not be a dick.

It doesn’t bother me if anyone else wants to live their lives with a different outlook, as long as they also try to not fuck things up and not be dicks.

kii said:

Cymek said:

kii said:

It was in NSW back in the mid 90s.

Oh ok, I thought it was the incident you mentioned some years ago in the USA

What incident was that? There’s only ever been the insane incident involving the parish council members of the preschool from Emmanuel Anglican Church, in Honour Ave, Lawson NSW.

Perhaps I am mistaken you mentioned some incident about being called a witch or maybe it wasn’t even you

Once upon a time I did not care what religions did or did not do. Then I experienced crap from: the parents of my Jewish boyfriend, my former FIL (Adventist), the Anglicans at the preschool and the icing on the cake – the Catholic Church in Lismore grabbing my mentally -ill sister and turning her away from her artistic/pagan/lesbian life towards a fearful, confused and dangerous future. Fucktards.

kii said:

Once upon a time I did not care what religions did or did not do. Then I experienced crap from: the parents of my Jewish boyfriend, my former FIL (Adventist), the Anglicans at the preschool and the icing on the cake – the Catholic Church in Lismore grabbing my mentally -ill sister and turning her away from her artistic/pagan/lesbian life towards a fearful, confused and dangerous future. Fucktards.

I’d be pretty shitted of as well

Like so many things, some of the Q is the product of, or an artifact if you like, of making words work (so too the history of the subject).

Like the idea of God brings about its flipside godlessness, and people feel too that language and culture contributes to their reality(the extent it does, or ought may go largely unconsidered).

There’s a lot of reality maybe to be had fom considering the possibility most thinking isn’t done in words.

Cymek said:

kii said:

Cymek said:

Oh ok, I thought it was the incident you mentioned some years ago in the USA

What incident was that? There’s only ever been the insane incident involving the parish council members of the preschool from Emmanuel Anglican Church, in Honour Ave, Lawson NSW.

Perhaps I am mistaken you mentioned some incident about being called a witch or maybe it wasn’t even you

It was me. It was the Anglicans (Lawson, NSW…Honour Avenue :P)

Arts said:

I like the simpsons creed “As for “Science vs. Religion,” I’m issuing a refraining order. Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times.”

as a person who is not religious, I don’t really identify as any ‘-thiest’ I am just a person who tries not to fuck things up and tried to not be a dick.

It doesn’t bother me if anyone else wants to live their lives with a different outlook, as long as they also try to not fuck things up and not be dicks.

You sound like the perfect neighbour.

kii said:

Thomo said:

But in answer to the Q
Yes, but atheists should appreciate why others have religion . Atheists often concentrate too much on what the religion claims and miss the point that choosing to have a faith is not a rationally thought out decision.

Why should I appreciate why others have religion?

Maybe appreciate is not the best word.
But an understanding as to why people believe allows us Atheists to understand why your best reasoned and obvious arguments don’t work.
It’s important that society as a whole moves on from religion especially orginized religion. But just as throwing a bucket of blood over a Supermodel won’t stop the fur trade . neither wil beligerant arguing with the religious stop religion.

Its quite ironic that many atheists are actually nicer people and adhere to the commandments (not because they are the word of god, but because not doing so means you treat others poorly) more than most religious people.

kii said:

Once upon a time I did not care what religions did or did not do. Then I experienced crap from: the parents of my Jewish boyfriend, my former FIL (Adventist), the Anglicans at the preschool and the icing on the cake – the Catholic Church in Lismore grabbing my mentally -ill sister and turning her away from her artistic/pagan/lesbian life towards a fearful, confused and dangerous future. Fucktards.

Thats terrible.
The infuriating side of what you described is that these people do these things from the arrogance of a “Divine Mandate”

I think the question should be “why are most, if not all religions anti human life?

Cymek said:

Its quite ironic that many atheists are actually nicer people and adhere to the commandments (not because they are the word of god, but because not doing so means you treat others poorly) more than most religious people.

generalisations be generalising

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Its quite ironic that many atheists are actually nicer people and adhere to the commandments (not because they are the word of god, but because not doing so means you treat others poorly) more than most religious people.

generalisations be generalising

Perhaps

In fact a lot of religion (God notions) – the mental activity associated with – are a reassuring (sometimes a weapon and otherwise too) projection of the magical tricks performed by the mind, perhaps not entirely crudely put they are a projection of consciousness, and in its more neutral form when thought about may be said to be a metaphor for the executive voice. Once internalized and incorporated though it can hijack and derail certain aspects of introspection which’d otherwise have greater potential and capacities to incline consideration of mechanisms of mind involved. From that you can get brainwashing.

Add the father thing, God as mum and dad sort of, and you’re bonded by something familial.

Load the verbal and cultural reality, emphasise it being determined so, then words require worded explanations, get the child when young and receptive to hanging words on things, introduce some ideas, and the magic of the wetware which’d be otherwise happy without it starts to be centred around it.

This sort of hijacking method is not restricted to religion.

Cymek said:

Its quite ironic that many atheists are actually nicer people and adhere to the commandments (not because they are the word of god, but because not doing so means you treat others poorly) more than most religious people.

Agree, 10/10

bob(from black rock) said:

I think the question should be “why are most, if not all religions anti human life?

Perhaps religion attracts the corrupt and broken humans who use it as excuse to do what they want

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

I think the question should be “why are most, if not all religions anti human life?

Perhaps religion attracts the corrupt and broken humans who use it as excuse to do what they want

Like rectum reaming priests?

bob(from black rock) said:

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

I think the question should be “why are most, if not all religions anti human life?

Perhaps religion attracts the corrupt and broken humans who use it as excuse to do what they want

Like rectum reaming priests?

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

bob(from black rock) said:

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

I think the question should be “why are most, if not all religions anti human life?

Perhaps religion attracts the corrupt and broken humans who use it as excuse to do what they want

Like rectum reaming priests?

:rolleseyes:

and here’s a little bit of homophobia neatly wrapped up in a whole lot of ignorance

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps religion attracts the corrupt and broken humans who use it as excuse to do what they want

Like rectum reaming priests?

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Like rectum reaming priests?

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thats a good point

>No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

80% of social status is illusion too (related), which is the greater part of what makes it so powerful.

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thats a good point

Thanks … spoken like a true atheist though , a religous person would see it differently

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thats a good point

except it’s not true… I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think – in fact institutionalised religion’s fundamental premise is to change behaviours in line with a very structured belief system.

transition said:

>No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

80% of social status is illusion too (related), which is the greater part of what makes it so powerful.

I suppose it’s how charismatic people suck so many people into believing in them and a small minority would immediately pick up on the bullshit and not trust them

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Like rectum reaming priests?

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Correct, 10/10

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thats a good point

except it’s not true… I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think – in fact institutionalised religion’s fundamental premise is to change behaviours in line with a very structured belief system.

Is it only on the surface for public show though and the deep down thinking is still the same, easy to put on a mask for the world but not to fool yourself though

Cymek said:

Thomo said:

Cymek said:

It does make you wonder if they were always evil people or if religion corrupted them.

No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

Thats a good point

No, that is an excellent point!

>>>I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think

My point was that a religion will not change who or what you are .
A new or changed religion may/will change your outlook and responses to situations

>I suppose it’s how charismatic people suck so many people into believing in them and a small minority would immediately pick up on the bullshit and not trust them

having ‘friends’ = access to resources, way back through history has had a strong influence on breeding opportunities, the extreme flipside is to be hated and friendless which wouldn’t have been helpful to breeding opportunities, and the prospects of offspring.

social status, or (potential) loss of, these are important things (of human nature).

religion’s probably the smaller force exploiting such things in the modern context.

transition said:

>I suppose it’s how charismatic people suck so many people into believing in them and a small minority would immediately pick up on the bullshit and not trust them

having ‘friends’ = access to resources, way back through history has had a strong influence on breeding opportunities, the extreme flipside is to be hated and friendless which wouldn’t have been helpful to breeding opportunities, and the prospects of offspring.

social status, or (potential) loss of, these are important things (of human nature).

religion’s probably the smaller force exploiting such things in the modern context.

What you said does make me wonder if I am exception to the norm, I don’t particularly like people, have little interest in socialising, don’t care less about social status and pretty much want to be left alone, I don’t like attention. Perhaps its why I find celebrity worshipping so absurd

transition said:

>No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

80% of social status is illusion too (related), which is the greater part of what makes it so powerful.

it’s hard to argue that something has a observable effect on the way people think and act is an ‘illusion’… it might not necessary to their survival, or even be important to the lives of others, but it’s not an illusion (using any conventional definition of the term)

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Thats a good point

except it’s not true… I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think – in fact institutionalised religion’s fundamental premise is to change behaviours in line with a very structured belief system.

Is it only on the surface for public show though and the deep down thinking is still the same, easy to put on a mask for the world but not to fool yourself though

is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

motivations are varied

Thomo said:

>>>I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think

My point was that a religion will not change who or what you are .
A new or changed religion may/will change your outlook and responses to situations

my point is that it can, and does…

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

80% of social status is illusion too (related), which is the greater part of what makes it so powerful.

it’s hard to argue that something has a observable effect on the way people think and act is an ‘illusion’… it might not necessary to their survival, or even be important to the lives of others, but it’s not an illusion (using any conventional definition of the term)

If you reject the basis of religon, ie there is no God , then any follow on effect of being religious is by necessity from another source.
The source could be a beleif in God which is different from the source being God

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

except it’s not true… I’ve seen changes in religious beliefs (be it finding or leaving religion) fundamentally change the way people act and think – in fact institutionalised religion’s fundamental premise is to change behaviours in line with a very structured belief system.

Is it only on the surface for public show though and the deep down thinking is still the same, easy to put on a mask for the world but not to fool yourself though

is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

motivations are varied

Yes but if push comes to shove would that changed behaviour still hold up, but I suppose that can be applied to anyone religious or not. I am just wondering if religious inspired change is for the most part false or temporary and falls apart when things take a turn for the worse

>What you said does make me wonder if I am exception to the norm, I don’t particularly like people, have little interest in socialising, don’t care less about social status and pretty much want to be left alone, I don’t like attention. Perhaps its why I find celebrity worshipping so absurd.

I’d say many people are similar, not being oversocial and inviting trouble, this allows space for people to be themselves, do their own thing.

You’d‘ve seen details of the hypersocial, or/and not near a complete enough internal world to stay out of trouble.

Thomo said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

>No I think it shows how religion is an illusion ,that being religious will not change who or what you are

80% of social status is illusion too (related), which is the greater part of what makes it so powerful.

it’s hard to argue that something has a observable effect on the way people think and act is an ‘illusion’… it might not necessary to their survival, or even be important to the lives of others, but it’s not an illusion (using any conventional definition of the term)

If you reject the basis of religon, ie there is no God , then any follow on effect of being religious is by necessity from another source.
The source could be a beleif in God which is different from the source being God

I’m not sure I really understand the point you are trying to make..

are you suggesting that not killing someone simply because god said that it would make you a good person and no killing someone because it’s morally the right thing to do lead to somehow different outcomes?

I have never been convinced 100% that you can actually change who you are.
You can modify behaviour, suppress desires and learn tools . But do you change even if your behaviour if different .
Happy for someone to enlighten me .
But I’m not sure , everytime I think deeply about this I feel as if Im thinking above my pay grade :)

>it’s hard to argue that something has a observable effect on the way people think and act is an ‘illusion’… it might not necessary to their survival, or even be important to the lives of others, but it’s not an illusion (using any conventional definition of the term)

envy (and avoiding it) works in a flash, operates subterranean a lot, before you know it it’s dressing up as something else.

>>>I’m not sure I really understand the point you are trying to make..

Just drawing a distiction between actions attributed to a God when they are coming from a belief in God .

>>>are you suggesting that not killing someone simply because god said that it would make you a good person and no killing someone because it’s morally the right thing to do lead to somehow different outcomes?

No

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

Is it only on the surface for public show though and the deep down thinking is still the same, easy to put on a mask for the world but not to fool yourself though

is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

motivations are varied

Yes but if push comes to shove would that changed behaviour still hold up, but I suppose that can be applied to anyone religious or not. I am just wondering if religious inspired change is for the most part false or temporary and falls apart when things take a turn for the worse

there are great many factors that go into a decision… some moral, some individualistic, some emotional…

Thomo said:

I have never been convinced 100% that you can actually change who you are.
You can modify behaviour, suppress desires and learn tools . But do you change even if your behaviour if different .
Happy for someone to enlighten me .
But I’m not sure , everytime I think deeply about this I feel as if Im thinking above my pay grade :)

people change their behaviors all the time

diddly-squat said:

Thomo said:

I have never been convinced 100% that you can actually change who you are.
You can modify behaviour, suppress desires and learn tools . But do you change even if your behaviour if different .
Happy for someone to enlighten me .
But I’m not sure , everytime I think deeply about this I feel as if Im thinking above my pay grade :)

people change their behaviors all the time

They do

>>> is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

Well your motivation is different even if the outcome is the same.
And whilst a sycophant and the reigious may react the same way this time , they will not always . And often radically .
The source of your justication of your actions are different also.

>I have never been convinced 100% that you can actually change who you are.

all that you’ve been that brings you to the now is an investment, so radical change requires threats I suppose to the who (perhaps an ontological crisis, if you don’t live that utopia).

Thomo said:

>>> is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

Well your motivation is different even if the outcome is the same.
And whilst a sycophant and the reigious may react the same way this time , they will not always . And often radically .
The source of your justication of your actions are different also.

so we agree that motivations are irrelevant and all the matters are behaviors…

I suppose something that convinces me religion isn’t worthwhile or isn’t real is

People, groups commit murder/mass murder in its name and it doesn’t care in the slightest in what the human race does in it name so why bother with religion at all and if it was real then why not come down and smite everyone who lies in its name if religion is all about peace and love.

If behaviour is laid down in neural pathways in the brain can those pathways be altered to bring about permanent change I wonder or will that behaviour always resurface

Or Stephen Fry’s prepared question for the Pearly Gates:

Benevolent God?

Bone cancer in children……what’s that all about then?

(I may have paraphrased a bit there. There was an interview on Compass a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes Compass is surprising)

diddly-squat said:

Thomo said:

>>> is there really a difference in acting a certain way because you inherently believe something to be right and acting in the same way because it helps you fit into a group? The fact is you are acting the the prescribed manner…

Well your motivation is different even if the outcome is the same.
And whilst a sycophant and the reigious may react the same way this time , they will not always . And often radically .
The source of your justication of your actions are different also.

so we agree that motivations are irrelevant and all the matters are behaviors…

Yes and No

Yes, but only for a specific reaction to a specific situation.
No Motivation is very important because you will have different reacts to different situations , even if you react the same this time

buffy said:

Or Stephen Fry’s prepared question for the Pearly Gates:

Benevolent God?

Bone cancer in children……what’s that all about then?

(I may have paraphrased a bit there. There was an interview on Compass a couple of weeks ago. Sometimes Compass is surprising)

He goes on to say
“How dare you”

Yes, I think you are right.

buffy said:

Yes, I think you are right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-d4otHE-YI

Atheism doesn’t have to be anti-religious, but I would dispute the suggestion that pro-religious atheism is “more complex and more rich” than anti-religious atheism. I’d say that by its very nature, anti-religious atheism is more rich & complex (and important) than atheism that sets out to be “inoffesnsive”.

“inoffesnsive” = “inoffensive” :)

Bubblecar said:

Atheism doesn’t have to be anti-religious, but I would dispute the suggestion that pro-religious atheism is “more complex and more rich” than anti-religious atheism. I’d say that by its very nature, anti-religious atheism is more rich & complex (and important) than atheism that sets out to be “inoffesnsive”.

One guess which one the Car goes for

On the other hand, some people might think that certain behaviour is anti-religious when really it is just logical, practical thinking. e.g. it is fucking obvious that you don’t let people teach religion in a science class.

dv said:

On the other hand, some people might think that certain behaviour is anti-religious when really it is just logical, practical thinking. e.g. it is fucking obvious that you don’t let people teach religion in a science class.

Given that most Christians support marriage equality, there are doubtless those who regard most Christians as anti-religious.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34054057
“Writing before Darwin, he didn’t acquire this view of things from science”

there was acts many, of the past
before science, before the word
people doin’ things like it ‘m must
way before formalisms’n all that
that protoscience was bein’ done
none materialize as if like magic

CrazyNeutrino said:

In recent years we’ve come to think of atheism as an evangelical creed not unlike Christianity. An atheist, we tend to assume, is someone who thinks science should be the basis of our beliefs and tries to convert others to this view of things.

more..

I haven’t and I don’t.

If you think on the balance of probability that the Universe was not created by some intelligent entity for some purpose then you are an atheist. The word implies no more than that.