4 ms·

I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand wha

I can understand the dig on zealotry, but the direct comparisons to "atheism as a religion" remain a pretty good sign that someone doesn't really understand what either term means. It's as unfair to religion as it is to those who lack belief in any God(s).

johnchristopher 14y ago
I disagree. I think the comparison is valid. Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem ( Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem" Atheists can be assholes? Why does that even need to be said? Atheists are people and run the same set of qualities that any human can possess. "Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion." Religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with being an asshole. Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software". It's a crappy analogy when "asshole" would suffice.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software". Indeed. But software zealots exhibit the same behavioral properties as normal zealots. "Normal zealots" is understood to be "religious zealots", because those behavioral properties are derived primarily from analyses of religious behavior. Worship, at the end of the day, has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
saraid216 14y ago
FYI, I wrote a thing up there ^ about how you don't understand what either term means.
- illuminate 14y ago
  And your response indicates that you seem to not understand what the burden for "evidence" for faith is.

johnchristopher 14y ago

I disagree. I think the comparison is valid. Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem ( Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion.

illuminate 14y ago
"Some hardline atheists can be as vindicative, presumptuous and arrogant as religious people and that attitude is a problem" Atheists can be assholes? Why does that even need to be said? Atheists are people and run the same set of qualities that any human can possess. "Parent isn't implying atheism is a religion by the layman definition (sthg along the lines of'a belief in sthg unprovable') but that its proponents behave like they were a part of sthg that looks like a religion." Religion or lack thereof has nothing to do with being an asshole. Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software". It's a crappy analogy when "asshole" would suffice.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > Software "zealots" promote their fanatical opinions but they don't worship "software". Indeed. But software zealots exhibit the same behavioral properties as normal zealots. "Normal zealots" is understood to be "religious zealots", because those behavioral properties are derived primarily from analyses of religious behavior. Worship, at the end of the day, has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

saraid216 14y ago

FYI, I wrote a thing up there ^ about how you don't understand what either term means.

illuminate 14y ago
And your response indicates that you seem to not understand what the burden for "evidence" for faith is.