Athiesm religion in drag?

[former athiest]

It seems to me that Athiesm is just religion in drag.
It's not founded on science.
Science is the pursuit of understanding.
Athiesm is founded on faith. Faith in the nonexistance of god.
Athiesm is not founded on any scientific facts. Only theories.
Athiesm perverts science to promote it's own agendas just like christianity.
Athiesm is no more factual than christianity.

[QED]

Without sound evidence to back ones materialitic worldview, it may be possible that the atheist is not just simply wrong, but they may be robbing people of the an important relationship with God that may transform them into humans who will do the good that God created us to do. Not only that, but it may be that atheist are not only 'not entering' through the door of eternal life, but that they are actually actively blocking others from entering.

If the atheists are correct in their views, I suppose it would not matter much what they say or do. But if they are wrong in their preaching of a godless materialistic universe, they well may be causing many great harm.

Is this a good enough excuse for us not to question religion though? It's something of a taboo to question faith in such things as divine intent and eternal life -- but misinterpretation of these very things has led directly to suicide bombings.

In the light of this kind of problem it strikes me as nothing less than sinister that we might be warned-off for fear of barring people from "eternal life". If we treat such a carrot with the respect it appears to demand, what other evils might be getting though on the same passport?

The agnostic might say that we can know that we can't know God's intent, such that if a God did create our universe, we couldn't tell, just by examining it, whether he meant to do it on purpose -- let alone purposely for us. I would say that this was a reasonable position to take, yet it would border on the weakest limiting case of the atheism that might say cosmology offers more plausible alternatives to God -- or at least distances any God so far off the map that his existence is entirely moot.

But what should we make of a God who would deny the "ultimate gift" of eternal life to those who understood the perils of merely guessing his intentions?

[Cathar1950]

Without sound evidence to back ones materialitic worldview, it may be possible that the atheist is not just simply wrong, but they may be robbing people of the an important relationship with God that may transform them into humans who will do the good that God created us to do. Not only that, but it may be that atheist are not only 'not entering' through the door of eternal life, but that they are actually actively blocking others from entering.

If the atheists are correct in their views, I suppose it would not matter much what they say or do. But if they are wrong in their preaching of a godless materialistic universe, they well may be causing many great harm.

Is this a good enough excuse for us not to question religion though? It's something of a taboo to question faith in such things as divine intent and eternal life -- but misinterpretation of these very things has led directly to suicide bombings.

In the light of this kind of problem it strikes me as nothing less than sinister that we might be warned-off for fear of barring people from "eternal life". If we treat such a carrot with the respect it appears to demand, what other evils might be getting though on the same passport?

The agnostic might say that we can know that we can't know God's intent, such that if a God did create our universe, we couldn't tell, just by examining it, whether he meant to do it on purpose -- let alone purposely for us. I would say that this was a reasonable position to take, yet it would border on the weakest limiting case of the atheism that might say cosmology offers more plausible alternatives to God -- or at least distances any God so far off the map that his existence is entirely moot.

But what should we make of a God who would deny the "ultimate gift" of eternal life to those who understood the perils of merely guessing his intentions?

Good points QED. As I was reading the quote by Bart007 above it stimulated some problems with the approach he takes. As a non-atheist of sorts, I can only wonder what he could be arguing except maybe a poor example of Pascal's wager.

I am not sure what kind of experience you could have and not have at least a marginal materialistic world view atheist or not. One of the things I always appreciated about the Hebrew world view is it was down to earth and materialistic in that living was important. One of the things that bothers me about Christianity is its non-materialistic tendencies in that he doesn't take the flesh or the world seriously unless it is some pet peeve such as homosexuality and such. Any sane or reasonable discussion of the universe or meaning has to take the world or universe seriously despite being atheist or a theist/deist/pantheist/panentheist. If there is a God then everyone has a relationship with God and narrowing it down to only one interpretation seem like folly to me. I would think any God worth their weight in “Spirit” would surly take that into account and it seems culturally arrogant as well as limiting to think there is just one way and you happen to know it and everyone else is bound for hell.
With or without God I see no reason humans can't “transform them into humans who will do the good”.
If fact I would go so far as to say they do. As one old friend once said “to be human is to have the ability to creatively respond”. That other animals share this trait to any extent seems positive to me and our given complexity seems no less worthy then simplicity. I do not see how “robbing people of the an important relationship with God” is any worse then limiting their relationship with God because of someone's particular tradition, indoctrination or belief no matter how right they think they are or what book the claim is “God's Word”.
I don't see a lot of hopeless atheist out there with not meaning that are any more stressed then the religious or believer.
My main point is that atheist are no more blocking the door then theist are limiting the size. Or something like that. Of course I am being simplistic as I write of both theist and atheist as I see they come in many varieties and depending on the concept of God. Christians were atheist to the Romans so it see prudent to with hold the possible or imaginary blame that somehow atheist are going to hell and are the reason for all the woes in life.

If the atheists are correct in their views, I suppose it would not matter much what they say or do. But if they are wrong in their preaching of a godless materialistic universe, they well may be causing many great harm.

So if atheist are correct in their views wouldn't preaching also be “causing many great harm”?
If atheists are wrong how do you know you are right or have the correct little door you leave open?
Is God so dense He/She/It doesn't understand the atheist view and its reasons?
I also don't see how atheist are closing any doors that any God can't open and they should hardly be blamed for closing any doors.

[QED]

Cathar1950, would you agree that "blocking others from entering heaven" is part of a "floating" argument that runs around a huge circle of unsupportable, yet widely believed, statements?

Perhaps the statements are true. Perhaps they aren't but serve to perpetuate themselves as ideas -- in the same way that Catholic practices promote the birth of more Catholics. The world has a complex network of symbionts like this and I would argue that our awareness of this fact gives us every right to press the faithful because, if God is responsible for the existence of logic, he should have foreseen the problem he's created.

Attempts to resolve this by rejecting logic and reason as the handiwork of the devil and claiming that faith is the only path to truth and enlightenment just take us on one more revolution around the argument. The "leap of faith" will always get you wherever you're headed so long as it is a place that transcends the material world.

[Cathar1950]

Cathar1950, would you agree that "blocking others from entering heaven" is part of a "floating" argument that runs around a huge circle of unsupportable, yet widely believed, statements?

Perhaps the statements are true. Perhaps they aren't but serve to perpetuate themselves as ideas -- in the same way that Catholic practices promote the birth of more Catholics. The world has a complex network of symbionts like this and I would argue that our awareness of this fact gives us every right to press the faithful because, if God is responsible for the existence of logic, he should have foreseen the problem he's created.

Attempts to resolve this by rejecting logic and reason as the handiwork of the devil and claiming that faith is the only path to truth and enlightenment just take us on one more revolution around the argument. The "leap of faith" will always get you wherever you're headed so long as it is a place that transcends the material world.

It makes the fictional gospel complaints about the Pharisees look rather mild and sane as the put Pauline ideas in the words of Jesus.
"Come let us reason together" must have been an invite limited to Jews as it seems some Christians find it unpleasant.
Being fruitful and subduing the earth hardly seems like the escape presented by believers.

[Catharsis]

>>One of the things that bothers me about Christianity is its non-materialistic tendencies in that he doesn't take the flesh or the world seriously unless it is some pet peeve such as homosexuality and such. Any sane or reasonable discussion of the universe or meaning has to take the world or universe seriously despite being atheist or a theist/deist/pantheist/panentheist.<<

Firstly, I would ask, what is meant by: Christianity does not take the flesh or the world seriously?

People have a problem with Christianity because of its high standards and other-worldliness. Orthodoxy takes the 'flesh' and 'world' extremely seriously. Anyone familiar with the ancient teachings will know this.

Every other religion or philosophy has a purely this-worldly perspective and outlook, even Western Christianity. Protestantism for example, redirects believers to express their faith through a "this-worldly asceticism," an orientation of disciplined, rational action within the world. By means of this rational, scholastic approach to God, Western Christianity wages, to this day, a losing battle with science.

All the Saints are referred to as those who have passed through great sorrows. Their life was not easy. This is not a message that would entice people (particularly in the developed West) used to a life focused on pleasure and comfort.

"He who loves the world cannot but sorrow. But he who disdains the world is always joyful." - St. Seraphim of Sarov