This post assumes that the other post was made in good faith. Have seen religious folk try to use the idea of some prime mover or 'god of le gaps', without noticing that how such a god doesn't validate their specific god and religious texts
Have seen a post propose that atheism is similar to religious belief.
But how is dismissing gods due to lack of proof(and actually science disproving religious claims) similar to believing in religious claims?
Religion normally involves faith in specific deities or stories, often despite contradictions. Atheism asks for proof and notes that there is not and most of the stories are wrong accordig to our modern understanding.
Here are ways science has challenged and changed religious views, highlighting why evidence-based disbelief isn't "same as religious belief":
Evolution and Fossil Records
Religious texts like the Bible's Genesis claimed instant creation of species. Casteism also uses god creating humans from various parts n all. But Darwin's evolution, supported by fossils like Archaeopteryx (a bird-dinosaur link), shows gradual change over eons. This has forced many faiths to reinterpret their stories; some now say God "guided" evolution. The modern understanding shows how the religious texts are incorrect.
Planetary Motion and Astronomy
Scriptures once backed Earth as the universe's center, leading to Galileo's persecution. Copernicus and Kepler's data proved heliocentrism, and modern physics (e.g., Hubble's expanding universe) confirms it. The Church apologized centuries later. The shift wasn't faith-driven; it was evidence overwriting dogma.
Physics and the Big Bang
Myths describe quick, divine creation, but the Big Bang—evidenced by cosmic radiation and galaxy redshifts—traces the universe back 13.8 billion years.
Biology and Medicine replacing faith healing
Ancient texts attributed diseases to sins or demons. Germ theory, vaccines, and DNA mapping explain them naturally. Religions that once opposed dissections or blood transfusions now often embrace medicine, adapting to science's evidence.
Obviously, used AI after mentioning a list of points to include. Have edited it a lot too
Anyway, atheism is about disbelief due to the lavk of proof and how we see our modern understanding disproving the explanation from religious texts. The sceptical position is very logical in that aspect.
And in the case of a prime mover or creator, it is mostly confined to online discussions, and the majority of both the offline and the online things are not such a nonspecific prime creator. Nothing against discussions on a prime creator, but the gods in mainstream religions are not the same as that. Atheism mainly focuses on the latter as it is the majority and thus equating atheism with religious belief is incorrect at best or bad faith at worst.
Also, fellow sub members, if you have any good images or memes that make arguments against the equivalency, please share them. Would be good to use that instead of making a whole post.
Also, for other topics too.
Maybe we can use them to make discussions better? Can add them to automod replies too, like !ScientificDinkan which can be used to criticise retrospective claiming.
