1200 BCE? Let's see... late bronze age religious documents... you must be talking about the vedic texts known from what we call "Hinduism." The religious texts of the Jews and Christians didn't begin to appear until much later.

I would characterize an atheist as one who claims the latter but practices the former.

Well, I believe that rape is wrong, but I wouldn't consider it a particularly religious position in my case. However, other people who also believe that rape is wrong are certainly very religious about it. Though our beliefs are essentially the same, there is a different quality to them which has nothing to do with the particular content (authority or argument) of the belief. Making a claim that is merely non-disprovable does not, by itself, make the claim "religious" in nature. When beliefs also shape one's worldview and provide something fundamental upon which a way of life is predicated then there is a religious component to such a belief.

Simply being an atheist does not immediately make one "religious" in this sense. Being a vocal and very committed atheist, on the other hand, provides a basically religious facet to the atheism. In this sense, modern atheism is increasingly religious in nature as it seeks to expand its sphere of influence through zealous adherents.

Look, I don't really disagree with you. There is no institutional Atheism, only perceptions that begin to invite historiographical labels as the phenomenon is studied. Stereotypes and the like. Don't mistake me: I'm not claiming that atheism is some kind of formal Religion. There is a difference between religion/religious and A Religion. I'm talking at the essence of religion: the conviction, devotion, and certainty of belief. That quality of belief is "religion." By definition. Add content and structure to it, plus a social or political dimension, and you have A Religion.

Because atheists belong to no formal Religion does not make them irreligious. The irreligious are the gentle skeptics who have little or nothing to say on the matter. They don't take sides. Maybe there are plenty of atheists in that category. Honestly, there are probably plenty of baptized Christians in that category.

But I'm talking about atheists who believe that there is no God and that this knowledge matters to the world. These people get involved. Their consciences are moved, and they seek to shape the world in their own image--an image predicated by the certainty that there is (most likely!) no God. The whole point is that they believe that something matters. And, as in the case of God, there has never been nor will there ever be evidence that anything matters at all. This is the pure subjectivity in which the atheist participates, making him in every way equal (except in the matter of content) to the "religious" that he criticizes.

LOL! Are you serious? A creed followed by an insult! Let all now behold: The cool, the reasonable, the very irreligious atheist!

I rest my case.

My claims apply to what has been called "New Atheism", local perceptions notwithstanding.

Got another one? Sure, Eric Hoffer's perfectly valid observation that you glibly ignored. Atheists wrongly point to "religion" in order to excuse their own very similar quality of thinking: whatever process (e.g. "reason") they employ to arrive at a conclusion leaves them with utter certainty in their views. Hence the True Believer. The essence of religion, the devotion and certainty, is common to the theistic and atheistic alike. The atheists AND theists both want to believe that the object and content of the belief is all that matters (orthodoxy!). Not one bit. It is the quality of the belief and nothing more that make many atheists among the most religious people to walk the earth today. I use the term generally, and am perfectly justified as I am not nearly the first to do so.

There are plenty of very religious agnostics. Look at Sam Keen, for instance. "Don't know" and "don't care" are not two sides of the same coin, as you have represented it in your comment above. The state of not knowing is an open invitation to find out more, thus the agnostic is often a seeker who lives a very devout life, even though he adheres to no particular institutional religion.

Yes, perfect sense. The atheist exhibits the essence of the true believer in every regard: He is perfectly certain about the claims he makes. "Though ours is a godless world," says Hoffer, "it is anything but irreligious." Indeed.

religion
-noun
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

The strident atheist shares a kinship with the very people he seeks to discredit.

I'm a self-taught computer guy. It seems that it was much easier back in the 90's, prior to the dot-com collpase of '01, to get hired--even if the best you could do was to spell "c++"! I think the bar has been raised since then, making the computer degree far more valuable in some ways.

I'd say there's a lot of good advice here. I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned Top Coder yet, but that is another thing you might consider participating in. Get some credentials, even if they aren't of the college variety. Have a portfolio and something you can show that is rather impressive.

You will find this discussion of the Invisible Hand in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. I refer you to Part IV, section I, paragraph (I think) 10. It is clearly stated that "nature imposes upon us in this manner..." Alas, the advanced money economy is not a natural system. Thus the Invisible Hand cannot function as described.

I do not believe that Adam Smith is a particularly contradictory philosopher, only that times have changed and we now make less sense of him. I suggest that Ayn Rand is more the demi-philosopher that you are after.

More correctly, economics is a social science, not a physical one. Change the society, and the science changes with it.

Ever read Adam Smith? I have. Smith's economic theory of "self-interest" worked great up until the development of the mature money economy. In other words--not for very long. It was originally based on the idea that the rich landowner would naturally distribute his goods among his tenants, or else risk the material wealth going to waste. After all, he could only personally benefit from a small portion of it. Today's wealth is more effectively locked up in abstractions that offer the potential for eternal, useless hoarding. As Georg Simmel's vision of the purely abstract money economy came to fruition, the power of Smith's "Invisible Hand" to benevolently and naturally distribute wealth was destroyed.

How about Adam Smith's other revolutionary theory? You know, the one that claims our moral system is based on fellow-feeling; something he called "sympathy"? Maybe we ought to try that one now.

Of course, the way you interpret "sympathy" is what varies, but I am pretty sure that, for the majority of humans, sympathy is fairly narrowly defined.

Pick your model of human behavior, say it is so, and we'll mostly go along with it.

Praying does help... if only because those who practice it believe that it does. Some things are only true because someone believes in them. Other things come true for the same reason. That's what makes religion compelling.