And vice versa. In the political world, atheists are often denied any sort of protection based on their religious beliefs, on the grounds that they have none.

But isn't the belief in natural laws' consistency and the belief that things have become what they are without any divine influence just as valid and potent a belief as any religious doctrine?

The way I see it, I can be sure that I am here, thinking, typing, posting, living, existing. I have a conscious mind, and I am the result of my parents fucking and conceiving me, and I and they and everyone else are all products of evolution or some other natural, worldly process.

So does my firm conviction that this non-supernatural order governs everything not require as much faith as, if not more than, any mainstream supernatural religion? The odds against my existence and experiences and the world as it is seem almost impossible. The explanations provided by science seem sound, but the fact that the results are as they are seems inconceivably improbable. Yet I have faith that these explanations are the best we have.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating "Scientism" as it has been called. I do not think humans' explanations for everything are complete or even sufficient, or necessarily correct. I do believe, though, that natural truths govern the world and are what brought me to where I am today. I am still an atheist to the world, but I think this belief is valid and should be respected.

I also have some political or secular motivations stemming from this belief. For example, I think I ought to be able to ingest what I want, be it lsd or cyanide, and I ought to be allowed to do as I please so long as I don't bother or harm others. But Jews can wear their yarmulkes, the Native American Church has their peyote, and other religions get their own special treatment.

On what grounds can the powers that be deny atheists their own requested freedoms while claiming to respect all beliefs? Of course, they only respect religious beliefs specifically, and that's their defense against the atheists' challenge, but I hope you can all see, and probably have thought of in the past, my argument against the justification behind this and the fairness of this stance.

So tl/dr, or amirite, or wut, &t?

Welcome to corruption/disease/lie/manipulation/infection that is christianity, islam and judaism (They're all the same)

Very funny.

politics and religion is a no no..

You have to know that by now.

So does my firm conviction that this non-supernatural order governs everything not require as much faith as, if not more than, any mainstream supernatural religion? The odds against my existence and experiences and the world as it is seem almost impossible. The explanations provided by science seem sound, but the fact that the results are as they are seems inconceivably improbable. Yet I have faith that these explanations are the best we have.

I agree with you, however I think the faith that you have about things and the "faith" religious people have are different. Faith as I see it in religion in believing in the supernatural without any proof. The kind of faith that you have is because things can be observed and proven.

The interesting thing that I always think about is what if science could prove such supernatural things as god?

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating "Scientism" as it has been called. I do not think humans' explanations for everything are complete or even sufficient, or necessarily correct. I do believe, though, that natural truths govern the world and are what brought me to where I am today. I am still an atheist to the world, but I think this belief is valid and should be respected.

No matter if you are an athiest or a theist, you have to be crazy to say that there is not some sort of natural law that governs everything. I dont think their really "natural truths", but they are deff laws of some sort.

I also have some political or secular motivations stemming from this belief. For example, I think I ought to be able to ingest what I want, be it lsd or cyanide, and I ought to be allowed to do as I please so long as I don't bother or harm others. But Jews can wear their yarmulkes, the Native American Church has their peyote, and other religions get their own special treatment.

On what grounds can the powers that be deny atheists their own requested freedoms while claiming to respect all beliefs? Of course, they only respect religious beliefs specifically, and that's their defense against the atheists' challenge, but I hope you can all see, and probably have thought of in the past, my argument against the justification behind this and the fairness of this stance.

So tl/dr, or amirite, or wut, &t?

I agree with all this and yes, it is very fucked up. Its sad that people get special treatment because they are considered part of a specific religion. Fuck, if you are a certain religion you get money for college just for aligning yourself with it. Its sort of the same thing with racism. Black people have the national negro league, is there a national white leage? We have black history month, but no white history month. I don't mean to point it out against black and white people specifically but just for the sake of what I'm trying to get across. People are allowed certain things solely by what group they are in.

Seemed worthy of more discussion.

Bumped.