I had a world religion humanities instructor tell me once time that religion in ancient terms means "to bind " or “what someone is bound by”.To make someone religious would mean to tie them up.
According to an
etymology dictionary, the word “religion” has three possible origins. The first is from the Latin word “relegere”, meaning “to read again”, from “re-” and “legere” (“to read”). The second possible origin is from the Latin word “religare”, meaning “to bind fast”, which actually means to “place an obligation on” or “bond between humans and gods”; not to literally bust out a rope and tie up someone. The third possible origin is the Latin word “religiens”, meaning “careful”, the opposite of “negligens.” I think the history of various word origins is pretty neat, but with all that being said, modern words have their own, modern, definitions, regardless of whatever the definitions of their ancient ancestor-words were. One can’t really judge a modern English word by an ancient Latin definition.
Being as such, does this qualify the popularity of atheism as a new religion.
No. A religion concerns belief in god(s); atheism is the absence of religion, not a religion itself.
After all, atheist have their own prophets and gospel songs.
( not including the Anti-Christ denomination of atheism such as preacher Seth McFarland) we can look towards famous preachers as Jello Biafra, of the Dead Kennedys for his gospel writing and the hymn, " All religions make me vomit" such Atheist scripture is still read and sung today that was written over 20 years ago. Famous Atheist Evangelizes include Richard Dawkins of course, who could probably be considered the equivalent to the pope of Atheist. Not to drag this out, but there is also a creed that Atheist follow as well
Atheist groups might occasionally share some of the same behaviors as religious groups (writing songs, giving speeches, etc), but that doesn’t make it a religion. (Not to mention, I highly doubt that, say, Richard Dawkins himself would describe himself as a “preacher”, or if the Dead Kennedys would describe their music as “gospel”; those type of descriptions are usually applied to atheists by their opponents, and are not used by the atheists themselves.) Religion concerns belief in god(s), so atheism is not a religion.
Generally speaking, Religion starts wars,
A close look at politics will tell that very few wars have been started specifically and solely over religious causes. Most wars are started for political or monetary reasons, such as the big land-grab that was the Crusades; the politically-fomented reasons behind World War I, which also caused WWII in turn; the mix of national security, economic, and political reasons behind the Crimea, the 7-years war, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War, the Civil War; the national security interests behind Vietnam, Korea, Iraq. The various revolutions for independence that have occurred throughout history. I could give more examples, but almost every war that’s been fought has had political and monetary causes, not religious ones. “Religion starts wars” is just a bumper-sticker line for people who didn’t pay attention in history class; if we’re really going to solve humanity’s love affair with violence, we’re going to need sound reasoning and solid facts and research, not bumper stickers.
Uh, what? I actually can’t tell if you’re a troll or not.
, Atheist reasoning and psychology trumps any of that knowledge passed down for 5000 years of from the Abraham faiths.
Yeah, it really does. The reasoning and psychology the Soviet Union used when they sent 24 million people to slave labor camps was waaay better than the crazy love-your-neighbor thing Jesus had going.
Atheist have authority on using reason and logic to make moral boundaries for what is acceptable and not acceptable in society.
Atheists are not philosophers. They are not criminal justice experts. They are not experts in ethics. It’s a common mistake to assume that because scientists (who are not all atheists) are good at logic or science, then they must be good at everything. (It’s also interesting to note that despite the assertion that atheists have a lock-down on using logic, there have actually been only a minority of atheist logicians. Why might that be?) Scientific knowledge, even a great deal of it, doesn’t make one qualified to determine things that are completely unrelated to science, such as criminal justice or business ethics. Another common mistake I see is the elevation of science onto a pedestal above all other disciplines; science is important, obviously, but not to the exclusion of every other field out there. A string theory researcher might sound fancier than an economist, but if the question at hand is whether to raise interest rates or not, which person will be more useful? If the question at hand concerns ethics or how people ought to act, then the person to ask would be an ethicist. If a scientist wants to weigh in on an ethics question, then they need to have a good grounding in the subject in their own right. Otherwise, it’s like asking a particle physicist about the economy.
No wars have ever been fought over science.
No, rather, science is the tool with which wars are fought.
