Let me me specific. Science cannot disprove faith. Faith requires no proof, so science has more important things to worry about, like understanding the world around us. Religion and science have little to do with each other.

Science can and has disproved the authoritative teachings of religion's leadership many times over. I only need to refer you to Copernicus and Galileo as the poster-boys of proving religious declarations to be false. They were both attacked by the Catholic Church for committing heresy for something we now take for granted; That the Earth revolves around the Sun.

In my view, science and religion are separate matters. Science provides answers with proof to back it up, and religion provides a moral framework that has no need for evidence. The problem comes when religious people make declarations about the world that are later proven false by science. Religions should stay out of evidence-based areas of discovery and just stick to their faith.

So, it stands to reason that atheists would want to side with evidence.

But I wonder: Who would rather NOT have proof of an assertion?

"Also, science does not disprove much of any religion, it just gives atheists, or those who do not believe, more fueling ideas that god does not exist because they claim science is the "closest thing to truth" that they can think of;"

Let me me specific. Science cannot disprove faith. Faith requires no proof, so science has more important things to worry about, like understanding the world around us. Religion and science have little to do with each other.

Science can and has disproved the authoritative teachings of religion's leadership may times over. I only need to refer you to Copernicus and Galileo as the poster-boys of proving religious declarations to be false. They were both attacked by the Papal Council for heresy for something we now take for granted; That the Earth revolves around the Sun.

In my view, science and religion are separate matters. Science provides answers with proof to back it up, and religion provides answers without proof, expecting people to "just believe." It stands to reason that atheists would want to stick with the proof. I wonder: Who would rather not have proof of an assertion?

I agree with your first paragraph. Science is the best way humans have devised to understand our world and the universe. I think that's why atheists gravitate to evidence-based methods. Since proof of God is denied them, they dismiss it out of hand, as they should with any claim that is not evidence-based.

However, it is a tenuous definition of "leadership" or "control" as it relates to atheists. Saying that atheists agree on a basic definition of atheism does not define any group-think mentality that was forged or promoted by any authority of atheists. There is no singular control of atheists like we see in churches, synagogues, or mosques, controlling the people who enter these arenas.

Sorry. I don't see you specifically mentioning a group that controls atheists. Not like, say, the Catholic Church controls the lives of Catholics.

First of all, I know atheists who have never read Harris or Hitchens or Dawkins. Those who write pro-atheism books are authors, scientists, journos, but certainly not leaders. Jerry Falwell, however, is a religious leader. There's no disputing that.

The atheists I know do not see their atheism the same as a theist sees their religion. That is a mistake that many theists make. Atheists are not one big club. We don't have churches, we don't often agree on the same subjects, and we are normally not joiners. So, I don't see the connections you are making about atheists. At least, they don't resonate with my life.

Then, you wrote: "In a sense, scientific method would be atheists' leadership, in that their "code" would be to not believe in X, Y, Z gods because they've found no evidence to their liking to believe."

I disagree that the scientific method is an "atheist's leadership," because atheists seem to have an aversion to being lead, but that's another topic.

I would agree that atheists hold the scientific method in a much higher regard than certain religious circles. It makes sense that atheists tend to like evidence, and the scientific method is the process to find evidence and test theories. After all, the atheist credo, if there ever was one is, "Show me your evidence."

I think certain religious circles find science suspect because it frequently (past and present) has disproved many religious based beliefs, such as the nature of the universe, the orbits of our planets, the relation of the Sun to the Earth, etc.

"As if atheism has no control over its proponents? Paleeeasssee! "

This statement shows a lack of understanding of what atheists are. Atheists have no structure of leaders, unlike Christianity, so there is no control structure in place. Also, atheists are happy to be free from the control of religious groups.

What groups do you think control atheists, and in what way are they being controlled?

My statement was specific to Christianity because that's the only tyranny that has affected me personally, but atheism is freedom from all religious tyranny. Yes.

However, I know that I would be sentenced to death in Pakistan if it were known that I was an atheist, so in that case, being an atheist would get me killed, which is why I am glad I live in a country with freedom of speech, and the freedom to not be religious.

No. Popular music is popular for a reason: Lots of people like it. Elvis was popular, The Beatles were popular, Led Zeppelin was popular, Madonna is popular, Lady GaGa is popular, and Justin Beiber is popular. Each example I have given has some group of people claiming that the music is a bad influence, so it's a ridiculous argument.

Now, if we are talking about popular music being worth my time, now that would be a different argument, but it would be subjective and not really worthy of discussion.

Christianity has enjoyed hundreds upon hundreds of years of dominance in the modern world, forcing people to believe in their world view. Christianity has already proven countless times that they are the masters of controlling the populace, whether it be by warfare, by torture, by imprisonment, or by murder.

Atheism needs a few hundred years to even get to the starting blocks of controlling people. If anything, Atheism is freedom from the control of Christianity's tyranny.

I am not certain if this is directed at me, but since you replied to my post, I must answer.

To all questions regarding whether I have an unquestioned belief that something is true despite the lack of evidence supporting such a claim, otherwise known as "faith," my answer is "No." With respect to being alive tomorrow, I hope to be alive, but I may drop dead in the next ten seconds, so, no. I have no faith that I will be alive tomorrow. That's why we have life insurance.

But I am guessing since you supported my message, you aren't really debating me, so I will chalk this up to a mistake. Good day.