>
> 1. Humanism which at its core are atheistic tenets...
> has been formally
> defined as 'a Religion' by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It hasn't, and if it had, what significance would it have for those of
us who are outside the jurisdiction of said court?
> Every atheist ive encountered is a Humanist.
I'm glad you have so many humanist friends but am disappointed you have
learnt so little from them.
> 2. Atheism believes and teaches that instead of a personal Creator
> bringing forth all forms of life , an accidental one celled Pond
> Protozoa (scum) came on the scene which eventually led to the
> enormous amount of life forms we have today including THE most complex
> things such as Human DNA -- a speck the size of a pinhead is more
> complex than a major U.S. City according to Scientists. Has anyone
> seen this One Celled Pond Protozoa ? Was anyone living at the time it
> allegedly popped into existence ? No ! It is believed on 'By FAITH'
> that it occured this way.
Atheism teaches no such thing, you know. What you're talking about is a
very tentative scientific hypothesis, which may or may not receive some
confirmation or falsification in the future. Faith really doesn't come
into it.
> Despite the enormous real scientific evidence to the contrary.
If there really were enormous real scientific evidence to the contrary,
people in the scientific community, for whom you seem to evince the
greatest respect (see the capitalised 'Scientists' above), would not
entertain this hypothesis, would they? So it seems to me your argument
is incoherent.
> 3. Atheism teaches that the start of the Universe happened
> accidentally by no one and is not purposed.
The idea that the universe has no beginning is perfectly compatible with
atheism. Atheism teaches nothing about cosmology, though some atheists
might be interested in the subject.
> Did the atheist see this
> occur, or..is it also believed on 'by FAITH' ?
Cosmological theories, like those in all sciences, stand or fall on the
evidence. It is erroneous to suppose that faith is involved.
> It is by FAITH that it
> occured this way...despite the enormous precise fine tuning of our
> universe needed for us to live on earth. (over 250 razor edge precise
> Anthropics show it couldnt have been 'by accident and without
> purpose' ).
The anthropic principle leaves me personally unconvinced, as the
universe is so vast and varied, and we inhabit such an insignificant
corner of it. But you have something of an argument there, which is
accepted by thinkers of some stature in both philosophy and the natural
sciences.
> 4. When an atheist gets up in the morning , does he/she live 'by
> FAITH' that they will return home at the end of the day ? Yes.
It's a belief based on the evidence. I wouldn't call that faith, and
neither would you if you didn't have an axe to grind.
> 5. When an atheists gets in a plane , does he/she presume by FAITH
> that it will arrive at its destination in one piece ? Yes.
No, they have seen aeroplanes fly, maybe have flied in some themselves,
they may understand something about the aerodynamics, etc. etc., which
gives their belief that they will very probably arrive safely at their
destination credibility.
> 6. When an atheist lives out his/her full life , does he/she presume
> by FAITH that they will cease to exist and that there is no eternity ?
> Yes to that too.
It needs pointing out, I think, that there is no necessary connection
between theism and belief in survival after death. Many atheists,
particularly Buddhists believe in reincarnation, and others may believe
in ghosts, while some theists, like the early Jews, hold that death is
the end of the road.
What I think you are getting at is that most Western atheists today have
materialist-naturalist presuppositions, and such presuppositions lead
naturally to the belief that human life is finite and terminated by
death. I think, if you were to maintain that said presuppositions are
held as a matter of faith, you might be on stronger ground.
> Summary : What the atheist follows and what the atheist lives out on
> a daily basis...is centered largely on FAITH .
I doubt you have shown this to everyone's satisfaction.
> Atheism therefore,
> qualifies as a 'RELIGION' , albiet a secular one.
I'm not sure how you define religion, but it seems to me hard to do so
in a way that makes atheism qualify as a religion.
> Many more explicit
> examples can be given to show atheism is a religion including : The
> public promotion and selling of atheistic philosophies , same for
> written material to potential converts, holding national conferences
> to strategize how to weaken and eliminate the Christian Faith while
> bolstering Atheism, and, collecting dues for membership same as
> churches collect money for various ministries and evangelization.
But these are externals, surely: people want to promote their way of
thinking and want to join and support those who think the same way; if
they think organised religion is harmful, then of course they will want
to limit its influence.
It seems to me you haven't quite made your point the way you wanted to.
If I were you, I'd think harder about how to convey the idea that life,
the universe and everything is pointless, absurd, senseless but starts
to make sense once you bring the Xian God into the picture. A more
thoughtful challenge of naturalist-materialist presuppositions (maybe on
the lines of C. S. Lewis's book *Miracles*) could also be helpful.
