Religion is Atheism

[cato]

i think religion and atheism are about the same. atheism has less ideals and this and that... but they both seek answers in a bizarre manner. they both over narrate mystery to the point of potential fallacy for some psychological need. is it the agnostics that are the real tough guys? i don't know, once you can make sense out of one thing, the whole universe must follow or we will be suspect of it and make up fairy tales about the mysteries that are unverifiable and demand adherence or we WILL KILL!?! sounds a bit weird to me. asses. but there i go again narrating and explaining it away. i need to. let me tell you more stories...

read this before you make any more posts please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
you really don't know what you are talking about, and you sound like a fool.

just because people can dream up questions doesn't mean there is an answer. the question, too, is a bullshit, synthetic way of constraining something wild out there that we only have transduced and mocked up relations (consciousness and all that) with. who really knows... its all just utilitous. i like that explanation. utility is the simplist story. crutch. crutch. like reoccur in dali's paintings. crutch. for comfort. and eventually just cause i want it.

you seem to have stumbled into existentialism (or perhaps nihilism), but that does not tell us anything about anything. what is the utility of assuming you know nothing about existence? that seems to be the biggest crutch of all. rather than seriously learning about the universe, one simply throws up their hands and says that its all "bullshit."

science is the itchiest, most paranoid religion of all i think.

why do you think so? science is simply a method that provides people with insight into how our world work.

before we go any farther, we have to decide on a working definition of religion. I feel that people are being a little loose with the definition if we are calling a method a religion, that like calling baseball a religion.

 

[Nasor]

before we go any farther, we have to decide on a working definition of religion. I feel that people are being a little loose with the definition if we are calling a method a religion, that like calling baseball a religion.

There’s nothing more annoying than people who try to change the definition of religion so that they can make statements that would ordinarily seem interesting or controversial, but are just stupidly obvious within the context of their new definition. Yeah, I can say that religion and science are the same thing if I completely redefine religion. And I can say that christians are satanists if I redefine “christian” and “a person who believes in satan”. Or I can say that bricks fly, if I redefine “bricks” and “sparrows”.

 

[nig]

you really don't know what you are talking about, and you sound like a fool.

more science, less hate eh? a bit defensive there. maybe some denial aroused by certain things you are psychologically invested in believing? :bawl: i didn't say everything was bullshit. i said everything has utility which is stronger than saying everything is bullshit. i also haven't advanced anything nihilistic. maybe you should spend some time on wikipedia there cato. i'm sorry my definition of religion isn't closedminded enough to merely make christian over-narration of mystery look bad. pssssht.

 

[nig]

what is the utility of assuming you know nothing about existence? that seems to be the biggest crutch of all.

you willfully put words in my mouth to react to. i must have said something good to get such a reaction. or do you just think you are smarter than everyone else.

i said nothing about knowing nothing being utilitous. i merely suggested that the narration and sense-making and our modes of perception are influenced by utility (what we need. pragmatic.) within a certain s-o-a and not nec the truth, if there even is such a thing. atheists' faith is an analogue to theists' faith. they both believe something without knowing. maybe its not a religion, buts its faith-based and its got queer psychology like a religion.

also - thanks for directing me to the narration (hee hee hee) of athiesm on wiki so i could make sense (hee hee hee) of it all. begging the question are ya?

 

[Sarkus]

Wasn't the thread about atheism being similar to religion?

Why do people (mainly theists, it has to be said, from experience) start equating science with atheism?
It is nothing to do with atheism per so.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in a God.
One does not need to have an alternative solution to all the questions (e.g. science) to be an atheist.

I do concede that most atheists here DO tend toward science, but that is by the by.

Agnosticism is also not a "middle ground" between theist and atheist.
I am an atheist.
I am also an agnostic.
In fact it is my agnosticism that initially led me toward atheism.

So - please do NOT confuse science with atheism.
Please do NOT confuse agnosticism as a "middle road".


Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.

Science could be viewed as similar - in certain respects.
Both seek answers:
Religion accept things on faith
Science says "We don't know for sure - but this theory fits the existing evidence, and we'll change the theory when more evidence comes to light".
Science also freely admits when it can NOT know things (like what is outside our Universe) - or what "caused" the Universe, or indeed if it needed causing.
These things are beyond the scope of actual science - and enter the realm of mere idea, although they might logically follow from scientific theory.

Religion just tells it as it wants you to hear it is - and tells you to believe it.
Science doesn't tell you what to hear. It provides the means for you to hear it yourself.

 

[nig]

Science doesn't tell you what to hear. It provides the means for you to hear it yourself.

the same can be said of some religions. you are using a working definition of religion that is too easily crapped on. science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong. you also seem to think that atheism and agnosticism overlap. can you explain?

 

[one_raven]

Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.

No it is not, but I see MANY people treat it as if it is.
They gather up other people's points of view and speak of them as if they are dogmatic law.
The spout the exact same arguments that support the view that no God exists, with little or no thought of their own.

You can respect and follow Jesus' teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.
You can respect and follow The Buddha's teachings without belonging to a religion, by simply considering what he taught and finding, through your own thoughts, that you agree with much or all of it.

You could also be a bible thumping Christian, eating up everything your pastor feeds you as absolute truth.

The same goes for atheists and Atheism.
You can be an atheist, wiothout belonging to the religion of Atheism.
Unfortunately, however, many people of many different religions are sheep.

 

[Sarkus]

the same can be said of some religions. you are using a working definition of religion that is too easily crapped on. science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong.

Wrong?
Please explain where "faith" comes into science?

And please bear in mind that there is a difference between religious "faith" - i.e. the acceptance without evidence, and the colloquial term "faith" that is merely another word to describe the subconscious assessment of probability built up through observational evidence.

But feel free to explain.

you also seem to think that atheism and agnosticism overlap. can you explain?

Sure.

Atheism and Theism are to do with one thing: whether one has the positive belief that god exists (theism) or whether one does not have this positive belief (atheism).

Agnosticism is the stance that either it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of God or that while certainty may indeed be a possibility, the individual personally has no knowledge.

It is thus possible to be:
an Agnostic Atheist (me);
a non-Agnostic Atheist (someone who thinks it is possible to have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence) - and I guess these tend to be "Strong Atheists"?
an Agnostic Theist (someone who knows they can't know God with certainty yet believes)
a non-Agnostic Theist (most religious people, I think).

Clear?

 

[nig]

sarkus
your second definition of faith, the non-religious one, sounds like 'intuition' to me. and no, there are no substantial differences other than the ontology of the one who has the faith and the intuition. they have different ontologies and similar processes lead them to different places that both rely on a form of faith or an other. your scientific chauvinism is apparent.
agnosticism can be used to describe someone who doesn't put there foot down on a side of any argument. agnosticism in this context is someone who doesn't believe that god exists and doesn't believe that god doesn't exist. an atheist doesn't believe god exists. am i incorrect here? oh mighty, condescending one...?!?

 

[(Q)]

science also involves plenty of faith. if you contend that it doesn't then you, quite simply, are wrong.

Would that be the same blind faith on which religion is based?

 

[nig]

Would that be the same blind faith on which religion is based?

perhaps religious faith isn't as blind as it seems to an outsider if the religious persons entire ontology has been formed around religion since an early age. get it? same with science. for example, science tells us almost everything is determined. humans have no free will. how many scientists do you know that believe in free will despite the implications of physics? i know quite a few. this is blind faith and scientists are not above it by any means.

 

[nig]

science is simply a method that provides people with insight into how our world work.

so it has blind faith in a method does it not? how can one escape the method? sure you can try to very the method, but then its again an issue of faith. i'm sorry i'm not as simple minded as all you but there certainly are many epistemological regressions that bottom out into an abyss of nothingness. hence faith.

 

[nig]

what about particles and energy? some sciences model with particles and other with waves. which one is right? faith? they both work? explain.

 

[(Q)]

perhaps religious faith isn't as blind as it seems to an outsider if the religious persons entire ontology has been formed around religion since an early age. get it? same with science. for example, science tells us almost everything is determined. humans have no free will. how many scientists do you know that believe in free will despite the implications of physics? i know quite a few. this is blind faith and scientists are not above it by any means.

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of logic here.

Blind faith is still blind faith regardless of how much time has passed or when the individual began believing.

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm afraid I'm not following your line of logic here.

Blind faith is still blind faith regardless of how much time has passed or when the individual began believing.

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

Well there was the Nobel Prize for lobotomy.

 

[nig]

Science does not tell us almost everything is determined, where did you get that idea?

While everything is not determined, the indeterminacies that do exist occur on such a level that the human mind has no mechanism to take advantage of them. Its a mereological issue. Furthermore, we find no eggregious violations of natural law, that we would need for free will, occuring inside our heads.

Could you please provide examples of scientific theories/discoveries in which scientists proclaimed the theories/discoveries were absolute based purely on faith, completely devoid of experimental results?

Perhaps the faith is in the method. What method do we use to test the method? One that doesn't require faith? Probability enters into it. And there is definately faith involved.

Ultimately I'm not concerned with convincing you of anything enough to find examples. Furthermore, it would be silly for me to claim I'm right, given the argument.

 

[(Q)]

While everything is not determined, the indeterminacies that do exist occur on such a level that the human mind has no mechanism to take advantage of them. Its a mereological issue. Furthermore, we find no eggregious violations of natural law, that we would need for free will, occuring inside our heads.

But, that doesn't explain the claim of 'science tells us almost everything is determined?'

Perhaps the faith is in the method. What method do we use to test the method? One that doesn't require faith? Probability enters into it. And there is definately faith involved.

The scientific method works well, and is not based on faith at all. It's simply a method for attempting to explain phenomenae. You make an observation, make a prediction and then test the prediction - the results either void the prediction or support it. Where is 'faith' in all of that?

Ultimately I'm not concerned with convincing you of anything enough to find examples. Furthermore, it would be silly for me to claim I'm right, given the argument.

I'd be very surprised if such examples existed.

 

[S.A.M.]

The scientific method works well, and is not based on faith at all. It's simply a method for attempting to explain phenomenae. You make an observation, make a prediction and then test the prediction - the results either void the prediction or support it. Where is 'faith' in all of that?

.

Well , the faith is that the test is measuring your observation accurately. This depends on knowing all the variables that go into that observation. Thats another part you take on faith.

 

[Sarkus]

sarkus
your second definition of faith, the non-religious one, sounds like 'intuition' to me. and no, there are no substantial differences other than the ontology of the one who has the faith and the intuition. they have different ontologies and similar processes lead them to different places that both rely on a form of faith or an other.

A colloquial form of faith - yes - which is why I clarified.

If you wish to debate the differences between "religious" faith and "assessment of probability" faith then feel free.

your scientific chauvinism is apparent.

As is your stupidity.

agnosticism can be used to describe someone who doesn't put there foot down on a side of any argument.

Yes - it can - the same way as someone can use the word "treacle" to describe what footballers kick around on a field - i.e. incorrectly: to do so is to misunderstand the word they are using.

Now that you have been corrected, please have the courtesy to stop using it incorrectly.

Feel free to look in a dictionary if you still have doubts as to the manner of your error.

agnosticism in this context is someone who doesn't believe that god exists and doesn't believe that god doesn't exist. an atheist doesn't believe god exists. am i incorrect here? oh mighty, condescending one...?!?

Yes.
You are incorrect.
As I explained - and as you obviously failed to read and comprehend - it is entirely possible to be an agnostic theist - or a non-agnostic atheist - or a non-agnostic atheist - or an agnostic atheist.

However, if you want to use your own definition of Agnostic: "fence-sitter" then yes, you are correct.
But then how would you know if my definitions of the words "yes" and "correct" were not actually what you would think of as "no" and "incorrect"?
The purpose of defining words is that they mean the same thing to everyone.
Please remember that.

And as for being condescending - I humbly accept the compliment and your acceptance of your status in this argument.

 

[nig]

Well , the faith is that the test is measuring your observation accurately. This depends on knowing all the variables that go into that observation. Thats another part you take on faith.

Thanks. It seems clear to me, but I'm not a chauvinist scientist.