“Why do Athiests say that they have no religion?”
Because they have been inducted into the super secret organization of those who have read a fucking dictionary and nothing we do qualifies as a religion.
“Evolution is a religion.”
No, it’snot. And not all atheists support evolution, and evolution is not limited to atheists.
“ It requires A LOT of faith,”
Nope. Every single thing, in ANY science, that scientists say is real, they have the evidence to back up that claim.
“ it has a creator God - (chance)”
Chance is just a trait of the universe. LUCK would be the god, if it was really religion. You’re reaching.
“ - it has prophets - (Darwin, Lamarck)"
That’s reaching even further.
“- it has a Bible - (Origin of Species)”
Nope. It’s not even required reading to be an atheist.
“ it has a congregation and church - (Museum, Academia)”
You know, all this effort to identify the trappings of a religion still ignores the actual definition of a religion. You’re spinning your wheels and they’re square.
“- it has a crusade - (academic dominance)”
Oh, now you’re just making shit up.
“ - it has Jiihad - (erratication of theistic Religions)”
I think i read this Left Behind fanfic. Needs more steampunk.
“- and it has the same arguments of superiority of one God over another.”
Huh? What?
“How is that not Religion?”
There are no supernatural elements comes right to mind.
Also, the Shroud of Turin. It’s not critical for the faith. No one absolutely HAS to believe it’s a real relic. And science has shown it to be a fraud, anyway. However, it’s still held fervently to be authentic despite the facts. Including the other shrouds that were around during the dark ages.
On the other hand, when Piltdown Man was shown to be a hoax, they stopped putting it in textbooks. It was abandoned. It was actually abandoned before that,since it was less and less of a fit as the science progressed, but no one holds to it as authentic.
That’sthe difference between science and religion.