that's just fucking stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000003

Indeed.
You don't express your atheism through worship.
You espress it by drinking single malt in a titty bar.

that's just fucking stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000003

now that makes sense.

that's just fucking stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000003

The newspaper page in the OP's quote shows quite a hodge-podge of items, and I wonder who their market is.

The masthead says, "Huff Post Religion Canada" but the pictured article is about somebody in the UK. No city, just UK. A different website, "The Blaze", says London. I think the HuffPost is junk literature, like a modern "News of the World".

Alain de Botton wrote a book. Here is his ad page: Religion for Athiests

I spent a few minutes browsing the info in his web page at www.alaindebotton.com/. So in my opinion, he's one of those guys that's good at spouting intelligent-sounding paragraphs, as a way to externalize his inner feelings. He assumes a lot of psycho stuff, and generalizes this to his view of how people think.

I think the guy is mumbo-jumbo. And HuffPost is hot air.

that's just fucking stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000003

...

The bold section is a good explanation or paraphrase of all religion in general.

For those of who don't read, the TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/...ton_atheism_2_0.html

that's just fucking stupid
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...edlinkusaolp00000003

I'm sorry but this guy's monologue seems like nineteen minutes of natter-natter. So I admit I fast-forwarded most of it -- in fact at least eighteen minutes of it.

Well he does seem comfortable with public speaking. If only he'd say something real.

He doesn't pin his logic on principles. He nibbles on generalities, like a charismatic rabbit nibbling on anything he can reach. He wanders around more than I ever could.

This guy is a charming mumbo-jumbo.

Hey, GZ, I disagree with you (as usual) but here's some explanation.

Religious ideas, and spiritually feelings, are an integral part of human nature. We all do it, and it colors a lot of our social behaviour.

The problems arise when religion is organized and institutionalized. Then the leaders can start to control the ideals and strategies, so the church can fulfill some of their goals.

This organization fulfills some needs for the members, too. You get social policy, support, intervention, and guidance. There's a lot of value working both ways, and soon the church is popular and strong.

So it's not good enough to say that religion in general is mumbo-jumbo. But the more popular church will be more powerful, the more charismatic leader will get his glory, and the best organized (not the one organized for the best) will satisfy its congregation's needs.

The trouble is that we forget just how this works. Also we forget how the dogma is a choice. You can pick your passion.

But the drive to spirituality is still part of human nature. A member of any religion can claim that everybody is religious. But that's a mistake, because it shifts the focus from personal belief to social behaviour.

In the English language, a label-word like xxx-ist can mean "a person who believes the xxx ideas", or it can mean "a person who belongs to the xxx group".

Also look at the OP's title. The word "atheist" means "one who believes that there is no God", which is not at all the same as "one who does not believe in God". It's a language trap.

The author Alain de Botton doesn't seem to know any of this. He loves to write stuff, and he's good at spouting intelligent paragraphs that serve to generalize his internal feelings. Then, anybody can follow his dogma. Like I said, mumbo-jumbo.

Religious ideas, and spiritual feelings, are an integral part of human nature.

No, it is not... It is taught.

And, since it is taught, and the "teachers" and their ideas vary, so does what is taught.

If it was our nature, we would "naturally" come to roughly the same conclusions.

Now, "feelings" are primarily chemical in nature, so they are natural, BUT, how we interpret and react to them is what varies, and this can lead to religious ideas and interpretations, but that is where the "taught" part comes in as well, as people tend to interpret things in the manner they were taught to interpret them.

The term "spiritual" though has diffent means to the religious than it does to me, and this is also taught, or at least "learned" and changes over time, as it does with me.

Lastly, as has been said elsewhere... "atheist(ism)" doesn't always mean "belief there is no God"... Theist(ism) means "belief in a God or deity"... Adding the 'a' to it means the person does not hold that belief in a God(s) or deity(ies)... In other words it means, "does not believe in God(s)". Notice the difference?

Hope that wasn't too 'nitter-natter'.

No, it is not... It is taught.

The exact shape of it, certainly. But the foundation of religious belief may not be so cut and dried.

Neurotheology

The exact shape of it, certainly. But the foundation of religious belief may not be so cut and dried.

Neurotheology

Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience, is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena.

From the first sentence in that [interesting] link:

Emphasis mine.