The opening sentence is where the first failure is detected. They are asserting something that is demonstrably false. This is what they wrote.
You would be hard pressed to find someone who actually holds this position. This is generally termed Strong Atheism, in constrast to Weak Atheism, also known as Agnostic Atheism. I've done a post about this before so I won't go too much into detail there. I also can not find any information about the author of this passage from this 'Encyclopedia' his name is Craig Edward.
"Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
In the first few paragraphs of their article it's quite easy to see that they are hell-bent on labelling atheism as a religion. They discuss a bit about the troubles with defining religions, and I skim read that part as it wasn't very interesting and was only providing a bit of background to their stupidity. They then have several sub-headings which are the supposed definitive characteristics of a religion with which they try to use to label atheism a religion. They are: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
Really. Are you fucking kidding me? They are using evolution as an example of 'narrative' in atheism? To start off with, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Sure, most people who are atheists also accept evolution, because it is a scientific fact. Yes, FACT. Evolution happened, and still happens, we have observed evolution happening, and have evidence that it has happened in the past, MOUNTAINS OF FUCKING EVIDENCE. Then, their use of the term evolution is even more retarded. Evolution is not an explanation of where everything came from. Evolution is not related to the big bang. Evolution is not related to abiogenesis, Evolution does not account for the formation of stars, galaxies or anything else except the diversification of life. This feels like something straight from a Kent Hovind video, the convicted fraudster-creationist."Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from"
This part really has nothing to do with the rest of the article it seems. They go off on some tangent about the meaning of life, and quote from The Humanist Manifesto as if it's the Bible of atheism or something. They fail to mention in this part, possibly intentionally (the devious little bastards) that most, if not all credible atheists with any kind of influence object to darwinism as a social construct, so any attempt to misconstrue acceptance of evolution as scientific fact as some kind of twisted narcissistic fantasy is merely shit-slinging on their part.
"On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution."This occurrence is not called chemical evolution, and if these ignorant bible bashers had ever read a science book they would know this. It's called Abiogenesis, and I suggest anyone trying to argue against it to learn a little bit about it before trying to dismiss it as easily as these people would like to. This is literally the only time the origin of life is mentioned in their article. Abiogenesis does not violate a single scientific law.
In this part they are simply trying to say that Evolution is a religion, and they quote Michael Ruse as their final proof that evolution is a religion. What they don't understand is that there is a difference between functioning as a replacement for a set of beliefs and actually being a religion. The people that Ruse is describing in their quote of him are certainly a minority among evolutionary biologists, and Ruse does not regard evolution as a scientific fact or the study of it as a religion, as is demonstrated in this quote from Michael Ruse.
"Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry."
They really don't have a leg to stand on here, so they're desperately grasping at
This is where they get outright nasty. They dropped the H bomb on us. They blame evolution for what Hitler did. They basically are saying that evolutionists cannot be moral without taking their morals from other religions. I really don't have the patience to try and write out a serious response to these allegations, because they're so fallacious and childish, that I'm just going to resort to using two words as a rebuttal.
Since there are no rituals at all in atheism, they just make shit up. Claiming that because some atheists celebrate birthdays, secular holidays, the 150th anniversary of a seminal scientific work, that makes atheism a religion. Sorry CMI, that doesn't fly. You fail.
Just as I have, as they went down their list of definitive characteristics of religions trying to prove that atheism was one, they ran out of things to say. Their last point on the material aspect of atheism is wild speculation mixed with some more shit-slinging. Their article carries about the same intellectual weight as a monkey in a cage throwing its feces around. The article never deserved a response to begin with, and I almost feel ashamed that I even attempted to reply to it.
This article by CMI has shown me what I already knew to be true, that creationists are not interested in any kind of real discussion. They are completely disingenuous, devious, deceitful, deranged, delusion, dangerous quacks. It has gotten to the point that I am unable to laugh at their ignorance anymore, but rather stare in horror and immediately cover my face with my palm.