I admit the definition of religion itself is not very clear, but I would suggest that it is not as clear cut as you suggest. Buddhism does not have a god. “God” in Hinduism is often not even supernatural. Religion USUALLY involves “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” and “often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs”. It seems to always involves the worship of some entity, be it personal or not, and practices that involve an element of faith. What religion accomplishes for most people, something outside of themselves to aspire to and live by, atheism accomplishes for those who choose not to believe in God. We are free to worship ourselves and our own ideas instead. The parallels between atheism and other religions I’ve listed are not perfect, but I think they do show commonalities that atheists do not realize and even take issue with when they see them in other established religions.




Ten ways atheism qualifies as a religion:


1. Atheists worship.

We are all made to regard, respect and devote our lives to something greater than ourselves, and everyone worships something. Atheists do not acknowledge worship in a traditional ‘religious’ context. But in the vacuum of a recognizable God, they give themselves to human reason, materialism, wealth, science, naturalism, communism of sorts, nihilism, or themselves, or other prominent atheists (i.e. Richard Dawkins).


2. Atheism is denominational. Just as every major religion has subdivisions with varying shades of beliefs on certain doctrines, atheists have different denominations that distinguish their beliefs in what atheism means, for instance. And of course, “gods” vary too (see #1).



3. Atheism is dogmatic. Atheists will deny this (as with most of these points), but if dogma is defined as “the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization”, atheism absolutely fits this definition. They follow ideological rules.



4. Atheism is exclusive and narrow. Atheism excludes any other possibility other than the conclusion centered on the non-belief in God, so it is no different than any other religion that makes exclusive claims.


5. Atheists seek converts. Well, some do and some don’t, just as some religions prosthelytize and some don’t. For example, the recent “We Are Atheism” movement hopes that there are closet atheists and seeks to add to their numbers by encouraging their coming


6. Atheists have holy books. Take a look at the “Letters” section of RichardDawkins.net and you’ll find scads of letters from “converts” to atheism that praise Dawkins and his book “The God Delusion”, testifying how it changed their lives and lit the way to the “truth” of atheism. They revere it as Christians do the Bible.



7. Atheists have a worldview, including ideas about ultimate origins and the place of humans in the world, their overall purpose and destiny.


8. Atheists have seen persecution. As is true with any religion, atheists have endured discrimination and persecution for their beliefs.


9. Atheism appeals to universal morality. To even argue for atheism, the atheist has to appeal to “moral law”, a sense of right and wrong that he assumes to be true for everyone. Otherwise, there would be no reason to debate. Atheists love to point out the “despicable acts” of the Old Testament God, even though doing so implies moral good and evil that ultimately cannot be explained by nature or biology.



10. Atheists have faith in the unseen. Many assert that the religious believe without evidence. Most religious people would say the same about Atheism. The evidence we all see, often the same evidence, is interpreted differently based on presuppositions. We all place faith in propositions that are not 100% empirically provable.

You are absolutely spot on.

You only have to look at the language that they regurgitate like clones to realize that the majority arrived at atheism through brainwashing.

For most people, atheism seems to be an emotional and psychological backlash against religion, rather than something they are fully in control of.

So, ironically, most atheists are driven by the god they say doesn't exist. Where is the laugh emoticon? We badly need one!

iza so?

sinequanon:
You are absolutely spot on.

You only have to look at the language that they regurgitate like clones to realize that the majority arrived at atheism through brainwashing.

For most people, atheism seems to be an emotional and psychological backlash against religion, rather than something they are fully in control of.

So, ironically, most atheists are driven by the god they say doesn't exist. Where is the laugh emoticon? We badly need one!

Doesn't it follow that since atheism is a religion, then theism, the direct opposite of atheism is a religion?!

The folly of admitting atheism is a religion is equal to admitting theism is a religion. Atheism is as much an umbrella categorisation as theism. It is true there could be atheistic religions (religions which have no focus on deities).

Kay17:


Doesn't it follow that since atheism is a religion, then theism, the direct opposite of atheism is a religion?!

The folly of admitting atheism is a religion is equal to admitting theism is a religion. Atheism is as much an umbrella categorisation as theism. It is true there could be atheistic religions (religions which have no focus on deities).

Most atheists and theists are religious in their beliefs.

But one doesn't follow from the other.

I don't know which dogma you are having to protect, but I am neither atheist nor theist.

So "folly of admission" is your own problem. It doesn't apply in my perspective.

sinequanon:


Most atheists and theists are religious in their beliefs.

But one doesn't follow from the other.

I don't know which dogma you are having to protect, but I am neither atheist nor theist.

So "folly of admission" is your own problem. It doesn't apply in my perspective.

I doubt if the above reply was meant for my prior post, because I don't see what you addressed to qualify as a reply!

Saying atheists and theists are religious is unhelpful because for the course of this thread, the term - religion - is vague. What matters is whether theism is a religion as well as atheism.

Kay17:


I doubt if the above reply was meant for my prior post, because I don't see what you addressed to qualify as a reply!

Saying atheists and theists are religious is unhelpful because for the course of this thread, the term - religion - is vague. What matters is whether theism is a religion as well as atheism.

Most of what you wrote was for you to address -- your problem of admission and folly and so forth.

I made it clear in my first post what I mean by religion -- when people follow things en masse as a result of conditioning by their environment and superficial circumstance. i.e, if you had put the same person in a different environment, with similar exposure to various alternatives, they would have still opted for some majority package for their worldview.

sinequanon:


Most of what you wrote was for you to address -- your problem of admission and folly and so forth.

I made it clear in my first post what I mean by religion -- when people follow things en masse as a result of conditioning by their environment and superficial circumstance. i.e, if you had put the same person in a different environment, with similar exposure to various alternatives, they would have still opted for some majority package for their worldview.

You didn't make the bolded clear in your initial posts. Nonetheless, your definition includes culture, does it ? You didn't think it through before posting, right

Kay17:


You didn't make the bolded clear in your initial posts. Nonetheless, your definition includes culture, does it ? You didn't think it through before posting, right

Go and whinge by yourself. I'm busy.

sinequanon:

Go and whinge by yourself. I'm busy.

I hope it was made clear to you that your posts were not of much value

sinequanon:
You are absolutely spot on.

You only have to look at the language that they regurgitate like clones to realize that the majority arrived at atheism through brainwashing.

For most people, atheism seems to be an emotional and psychological backlash against religion, rather than something they are fully in control of.

So, ironically, most atheists are driven by the god they say doesn't exist. Where is the laugh emoticon? We badly need one!

This interesting coming from some one whom I thought was capable of higher reason.
I guess at the end , we all have our prejudices that cloud our reasoning.

The op is full of so much convoluted logic , so much crap, that I didn't think worth responding to until read your response.

For you to endorse the murder of reason and coherent thinking as exemplified by the op shows that you are not such a deep thinker, or just disingenuous.

plaetton:

This interesting coming from some one whom I thought was capable of higher reason.
I guess at the end , we all have our prejudices that cloud our reasoning.

The op is full of so much convoluted logic , so much crap, that I didn't think worth responding to until read your response.

For you to endorse the murder of reason and coherent thinking as exemplified by the op shows that you are not such a deep thinker, or just disingenuous.

LOL, so, you identify with one of the regurgitating clones, do you?

Unfortunately, the way you don't seem to be able to get further than labels like "reason" and "coherent thinking" is an inauspicious start to any debate. I am afraid that is the clone-like behaviour I was referring to. When I point out the circularity in much of this "reasoning" and "coherent thinking", the response is clone-like ad hominems that you can trace back to Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree with the detail of the OP. But the title is spot on. For most people, atheism and science are just religions. Most lay scientists can't even begin to understand the nature of science. They are good at regurgitating, superficial explanations, jokes and ad hominems. But they run a mile when you challenge them with detail.

@mumumugu (this your name sef)

There are things that both atheists and religious people do. You didn't specify whether every activity on this list is a result of being religious tho. To me, it sounds a bit like saying that because both atheists and religious people breathe, atheists are religious. Look at your points:

1. Is worship a result of religion? If I have the highest regard for capitalism, does that make me religious? Besides, saying everyone worships something means that it is impossible for atheists not to worship something, and that it is impossible to be irreligious.

2. Is having different views on an issue a result of religion? We have a number of ideas of the form a government should take. Would you refer to each school of thought as a religious denomination?

3. What are the ideological rules?

4. As far as it relates to knowing that God does not exist, you may be right.

5. Does wanting people to take the same side as you amount to religious activity?

6. Is it religion to find a book inspiring or life changing? This point seems like a generalization to me anyway.

7. What you're trying to say here is that it is impossible to be irreligious.

8. So have black people and homosexuals. We can't say they are religious just because of that.

9. You earlier admitted that some atheists are nihilists, and now you say every atheist appeals to a sense of right and wrong that is true for everyone. Apparently you just have to make your point stick. Notwithstanding, how does saying that man defines morality amount to a religious statement?

10. Perhaps we do. What are the alternatives? At least everybody should be willing to relegate those propositions that have been shown to be unworkable or false.

I've always been baffled by this criticism of atheism, that it is a religion. It reminds me of the kid who fails a test, but who is consoled by the fact that no one else has passed. It is more of a consolation than a criticism, really.

sinequanon:


LOL, so, you identify with one of the regurgitating clones, do you?

Unfortunately, the way you don't seem to be able to get further than labels like "reason" and "coherent thinking" is an inauspicious start to any debate. I am afraid that is the clone-like behaviour I was referring to. When I point out the circularity in much of this "reasoning" and "coherent thinking", the response is clone-like ad hominems that you can trace back to Richard Dawkins.

I don't agree with the detail of the OP. But the title is spot on. For most people, atheism and science are just religions. Most lay scientists can't even begin to understand the nature of science. They are good at regurgitating, superficial explanations, jokes and ad hominems. But they run a mile when you challenge them with detail.

You are the one with the fundness for excessive labeling. Everything for you is an exercise in semantics and nomenclatures.
I have hardly seen you make a solid argument for any point of view.

Let me repeat for the record that I have never read any books about atheism.
I questioned the value religion from around age 12 or so.
The internet and books do no create atheists. What the internet and books do in this information era is that it helps people to realize that they are not alone in seeing the contradictions and silly utility of religion and faith. In other words, their inner stirings , their inner longings for clarity are validated.

Perhaps atheist are a genetic variants of homo religilous.

Atheists are neither rebels nor people selling a viewpoint.
Every atheist longs to understand religion, understand why people anchor their worldviews on very very silly, very very childish and very very contradictory cascades of myths piled on top of each other.

To say that atheism is a religion becomes a more complex part of the contradictions.

Every simpleton knows that religion is defined and known as the worship of a deity.
Part of cognitive dissonance is the urge to twist facts, twist meanings to fit the mind of the religious.
Everything is twistable and malleable.
The so-called word of god can be twisted to fit any number of bizzaar ideas.
The teachings of Jesus can be inferior or superior to Pauline doctrine depending on what's at stake.
The god of the new testament can be invoked sometimes or the god of the old testament when the situation requires it.

Every point in the op is so false, so disingenuous, so Id.io.tic that incredulity and laughter are the only things that it should elicit.

sinequanon:
You are absolutely spot on.

You only have to look at the language that they regurgitate like clones to realize that the majority arrived at atheism through brainwashing.

For most people, atheism seems to be an emotional and psychological backlash against religion, rather than something they are fully in control of.

So, ironically, most atheists are driven by the god they say doesn't exist. Where is the laugh emoticon? We badly need one!

Is this what you tell yourself when you view yourself in the mirror?

CAN SOMEONE BE AN ATHEIST AND ALSO BE RELIGIOUS?

I THINK SO, I THINK BUDDIST DONT BELIVE IN GOD YET ARE RELIGIOUS


BUT ATHEIST HAVE NO LAID DOWN DOCTRINE. IN FACT, NO TWO ATHEIST VIEW THE WORLD THE SAME WAY. THEIR ONLY UNIFYING FACTOR IS THEIR NON BELIEF IN GOD.

1.corinthians 1:18-19
the message about the cross doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But for those of us who are being saved, it is God's power at work.
19. "i will destroy the wisdom of all who claim to be wise. I will confuse those who think they know so much.

plaetton:

You are the one the fundness for excessive labeling. Everything for you is an exercise in semantics and nomenclatures.
I have hardly seen you make a solid argument for any point of view.

You don't understand the words you are using, so you can't follow the argument.

For example, I tell you that the words "evidence" and "proof" are relative. In your case, you refer to conformance to the fundamental ASSUMPTIONS of science. For a Christian, it may be conformance to the Bible.

There is nothing further to say to you about it, because you are simply unable to address the point. Like the theists you complain about, you don't like your labels scrutinized, and crying "excessive semantics" is your method of avoidance.

plaetton:
Let me repeat for the record that I have never read any books about atheism.
I questioned the value religion from around age 12 or so.
The internet and books do no create atheists. What the internet and books do in this information era is that it helps people to realize that they are not alone in seeing the contradictions and silly utility of religion and faith. In other words, their inner stirings , their inner longings for clarity are validated.

See, you are psychologically stuck. "Contradiction", "clarity" and "validation" are all relative to your chosen ASSUMPTIONS.

I would say that theists are behaving MORE intelligently than you are because at least they are aware of their ASSUMPTIONS as FAITH.

You on the other hand are being played by words and don't seem to realize it.

plaetton:
Perhaps atheist are a genetic variants of homo religilous.

You got that from a book, whatever that means, lol. Your approach to atheism is certainly religious.

plaetton:
Atheists are neither rebels nor people selling a viewpoint.
Every atheist longs to understand religion, understand why people anchor their worldviews on very very silly, very very childish and very very contradictory cascades of myths piled on top of each other.

Again, this is just rhetoric. You have no idea what "every atheist" does. How do you hope to conduct a sensible debate when you are slinging around half-baked opinions (for that is what it is).

plaetton:
Every simpleton knows that religion is defined and known as the worship of a deity.

Then you are a simpleton. It is your own word, the one you chose to use.

Apart from the fact that a deity can be anything (spirit, human, object), the wiki definition does not mention deity...

"A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence."

The point is that you have been "organized" into your way of thinking, rather than finding your own path.

plaetton:
Part of cognitive dissonance is the urge to twist facts, twist meanings to fit the mind of the religious.

And then, when they are caught, they can cry "excessive semantics".

You should fully understand religious folks. You are one yourself. Sadly, you are not yet at he point of recognizing it.

plaetton:
Everything is twistable and malleable.
The so-called word of god can be twisted to fit any number of bizzaar ideas.
The teachings of Jesus can be inferior or superior to Pauline doctrine depending on what's at stake.
The god of the new testament can be invoked sometimes or the god of the old testament when the situation requires it.

Every point in the op is so false, so disingenuous, so Id.io.tic that incredulity and laughter are the only things that it should elicit.

There goes your broken logic again. You think that if you can bash religion using laughter and obtuse application of your own inculcated assumptions in science, then that somehow changes whether or not your own worldview is religious. It doesn't. All it does is distract you from the fact that you are religious. But it doesn't fool me.

.

sinequanon:
.

Now I know you are not really seeking the truth but you just want to ridicule atheism.

finofaya:
@mumumugu (this your name sef)

There are things that both atheists and religious people do. You didn't specify whether every activity on this list is a result of being religious tho. To me, it sounds a bit like saying that because both atheists and religious people breathe, atheists are religious. Look at your points:

1. Is worship a result of religion? If I have the highest regard for capitalism, does that make me religious? Besides, saying everyone worships something means that it is impossible for atheists not to worship something, and that it is impossible to be irreligious.

2. Is having different views on an issue a result of religion? We have a number of ideas of the form a government should take. Would you refer to each school of thought as a religious denomination?

3. What are the ideological rules?

4. As far as it relates to knowing that God does not exist, you may be right.

5. Does wanting people to take the same side as you amount to religious activity?

6. Is it religion to find a book inspiring or life changing? This point seems like a generalization to me anyway.

7. What you're trying to say here is that it is impossible to be irreligious.

8. So have black people and homosexuals. We can't say they are religious just because of that.

9. You earlier admitted that some atheists are nihilists, and now you say every atheist appeals to a sense of right and wrong that is true for everyone. Apparently you just have to make your point stick. Notwithstanding, how does saying that man defines morality amount to a religious statement?

10. Perhaps we do. What are the alternatives? At least everybody should be willing to relegate those propositions that have been shown to be unworkable or false.

I've always been baffled by this criticism of atheism, that it is a religion. It reminds me of the kid who fails a test, but who is consoled by the fact that no one else has passed. It is more of a consolation than a criticism, really.

I like your analysis. Very accurate.

I just couldn't make sense of What the op is trying to say.

Dapo777:


Now I know you are not really seeking the truth but you just want to ridicule atheism.

He lives in some kind of abstract alternate universe of words and meanings.

His mind is strangely unable to defend anything except words and their meanings.
He thinks that a word salad is a substitute for an argument.
Similar to a food critic, he exercises his intellect in critiquing words and their uses, and adds no substance to any discussion or debate.

Religion must be so silly, and religious people must live in perpetual shame of their silly beliefs , that they feel compelled to drag everyone into the label of religion just to feel a bit OK.

That way, they can always say " my religion is better than yours ".

I would love to see this sinquanon dude prove to us that abstinence from sex is just a different form of sex.

plaetton:

He lives in some kind of abstract alternate universe of words and meanings.

His mind is strangely unable to defend anything except words and their meanings.
He thinks that a word salad is a substitute for an argument.
Similar to a food critic, he exercises his intellect in critiquing words and their uses, and adds no substance to any discussion or debate.

Stop being dishonest with yourself.

I simply asked you to be explicit. If you disagree with ANY of the following, say so, and stop beating about the bush.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

Now, stop fooling yourself that your reticence to address the issue is anything but slavish and religious adherence to dogma and reluctance to scrutinize your beliefs and faith.

sinequanon:


Stop being dishonest with yourself.

I simply asked you to be explicit. If you disagree with ANY of the following, say so, and stop beating about the bush.

I know this is for plaetton,but your sheer arrogance to willfully spit pseudoscience and false premises are annoying...and as such I can't help but call you out on your "statements"

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

Science didn't make any assumption of laws governing the universe....science is merely expressing properties of it in mathematical and/or thesis-like statements that we then term as laws or theories based on the facts that lead up to the conjecture...
Einstein didn't assume the theory of relativity governed the universe.....his first test to falsify it was to calculate mercury's orbit.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

No assumptions of what laws are were made from the onset.....you used a straw-man here.

Just for the information....a "proof" only exists in mathematics because mathematics is definitive....
Nobody assumed gravity is a consequence of mass,we demonstrated,observed and experimented it to be true.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

There are assumptions that can be falsified....take phlogiston theory for example....
The only assumptions not able to be falsified are mostly religious and faith based assumptions....

Now, stop fooling yourself that your reticence to address the issue is anything but slavish and religious adherence to dogma and reluctance to scrutinize your beliefs and faith.

Quite the contrary....you are the dogmatic one here...and a dishonest one at that

davien:
Science didn't make any assumption of laws governing the universe....science is merely expressing properties of it in mathematical and/or thesis-like statements that we then term as laws or theories based on the facts that lead up to the conjecture...

Answer the question. If your answer is that the first statement you disagree with is statement 1, then come out and say it explicitly, instead of beating about the bush and trying to hide behind waffle.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Axiomatic_assumptions

Thomas Kuhn concluded that all science was based on an agreed framework of unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe, rather than simply on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a constellation of beliefs, values and techniques that are shared by a given scientific community, which legitimize their practices and set the boundaries of their research."[36]

Now, kindly stop making a dishonest fool of yourself and pretending that these people are talking pseudoscience.

The more you lie to yourself with your blinkered rhetoric, the more foolish you are going to look.

sinequanon:


Answer the question. If your answer is that the first statement you disagree with is statement 1, then come out and say it explicitly, instead of beating about the bush and trying to hide behind waffle.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that:...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Axiomatic_assumptions

Thomas Kuhn concluded that all science was based on an agreed framework of unprovable assumptions about the nature of the universe, rather than simply on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a constellation of beliefs, values and techniques that are shared by a given scientific community, which legitimize their practices and set the boundaries of their research."[36]

Now, kindly stop making a dishonest fool of yourself and pretending that these people are talking pseudoscience.

The more you lie to yourself with your blinkered rhetoric, the more foolish you are going to look.

This was your claim here

sinequanon:
cience makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe
entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible
laws.

assumptions of laws was your claim and that was your folly....and all my citations were based on no one assuming laws...science is an objective tool and as such it has unproven premises...like objective reality and cartesian philosophy....
The paradigms of science are the assumptions that are made before inquiry....and that is why science concerns itself with the natural world...
So either tell me where you had your claim that "science assumes laws" fit in with science being built on "science assumes things are natural"

davien:
This was your claim here

assumptions of laws was your claim and that as I am against....and all my citations were based on no one assuming laws...science is an objective tool and as such it has unproven premises...like objective reality and cartesian philosophy....

Can you understand the difference between..

Science assumes that the universe is governed by fixed laws.

AND

Science assumes that it has found such laws.

All your rigmarole so far seems to revolve around you confusing these two statements. You will then deny your mistake and try to make it everybody else's fault, and blame semantics.

And you are still so in denial that you are hedging your bets and not explicitly stating which point you disagree with. You need space to spin.

sinequanon:


Can you understand the difference between..

Science assumes that the universe is governed by fixed laws.

AND

Science assumes that it has found such laws.

All your rigmarole so far seems to revolve around you confusing these two statements. You will then deny your mistake and try to make it everybody else's fault, and blame semantics.

And you are still so in denial that you are hedging your bets and not explicitly stating which point you disagree with. You need space to spin.

You are the one employing semantics here....
You claimed science assumes laws are fixed and now you have quote mined a piece that agreed with your presupposition. ...does your dishonesty have an end?

davien:
You are the one employing semantics here....
You claimed science assumes laws are fixed and now you have quote mined a piece that agreed with your presupposition. ...does your dishonesty have an end?

Sorry, if you don't have the intellect to understand the difference between...

Science assumes that there are fixed laws..

AND

Science assumes laws are fixed.

Any intelligent person reading this is going to shake their head and confine you to the dustbin of dunces, I'm afraid.

(oh, and now we have your clone behaviour, as predicted, slinging around the term "quote mining".)

sinequanon:


Sorry, if you don't have the intellect to understand the difference between...

Science assumes that there are fixed laws..

AND

Science assumes laws are fixed.

Any intelligent person reading this is going to shake their head and confine you to the dustbin of dunces, I'm afraid.

(oh, and now we have your clone behaviour, as predicted, slinging around the term "quote mining".)

No doubt you are the most dishonest theist I have talked to...
In no point was there a statement of laws being fixed in any article you listed up......the only three things mentioned are these

1. There are natural causes for things that happen in the world
around us.
2. Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those
causes.
3. There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

You can throw ad hominem attacks all day....but science makes no assumptions of laws....
The ridiculous thing here is you tried to hide your initial folly by claiming "science assumes it has found such laws",I tip my hat at your level of dishonesty...

davien:
1. There are natural causes for things that happen in the world
around us.

A law is a condition that ALWAYS holds.

Science ASSUMES that ALL events ALWAYS have a "natural" cause.

Don't try to twist it or water it down.

Unless you are claiming that Science accepts that some things don't have a natural cause.