Athiesm isn't a religion. There is no set of beliefs or morals that athiesm puts forward. All atheism is, is a lack of religion or disbelief in it. It makes no statements other then that the divine doesn't exist. And considering the burden of proof is on the religious, you could hardly call it a faith based viewpoint.

It is simplifing things to call evolution and other theories a religion. Although, I do agree many that claim them do have enough belief in their ideals that it is close enough.

No, you're simply bending the words way beyond their breaking point.

Religion is not merely having any point of view about faith and gods, just as being a cynic doesn't mean having any point of view about how common desires shape our life.

Religion is a set of beliefs that strictly affirms the existence of gods/spirits/trascendental but personal forces that interact with the world in some way.

As to evolution being a religion, that's nonsense. Evolution through natural selection is a working theory that as all great scientific works has explained complex phenomena in simple, consistent terms, and has withstood the challenge of other theories and further evidence.

Scientists are ready to ameliorate and change the working theory if a better one comes along, even though most people are not knowledgeable enough to participate in that process.

When I was 15 I knew the fundamental theorem of algebra, but I could not perform its formal proof. Still, I assumed it was true and performed my calculations in consequence of that hypothesis. That was not a religious faith statement, merely the kowledge that a lot of people have formally proved it before and that in some conditions that's a correct block to stand on to perform further useful work. Or even that I would be one day able to prove it myself if I wanted.

Even though most people won't know the details of the supporting evidence for natural selection, their trust in people who know because of a self-improving scientific process is fundamentally different from blind faith in people who declare they know because of an opaque revelation. Can't you see the difference between conditional, temporary results and absolute beliefs?

Lol, you do realise that article is over 6months old? Heres the follow up "investigation" released in april this year:

The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods.

Also while admitedly scientific data can be manipulated, in the vast majority it is unbiased fact.

Also evolution and atheism are not religions. Don't see how they can be misinterpreted for one either. One is a scientific theory, with many strands of corroborating evidence. The other is simply an acceptance there is no god.

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that walking is a brand of automobile.

Intelligent design is even more hillarious since it doesn't have the image benefit of being made up in an age when people knew next to nothing. Can be fun though.

Until such a time as science can answer those questions.

I'm not saying it's evil to be religious, or that any sort of belief in God is wrong. Faith is a good thing. There are a lot of things which science hasn't (yet) explained, and if you want to use God to explain those, go ahead.

I only have issue with those who reject scientific theory in favour of something which, quite frankly, breaks all of the laws of physics. Interesting note: Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist. You don't have to be an atheist, or a satanist (Yes, I know DannyW is joking) to accept science.

Test.

Loving that video

So God created more Fusion like makers that appeared to be millions and even billion of years away from Earth, and so created before the first creation at 4004 BC. This was confusing

Had a good laugh at this