Religion is Atheism

AHEM....

Sarkus said:
Atheism is NOT a religion - and there are no similiarities.
Period.
Click to expand...

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.
 
(Q) said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

nig said:
to think that everything can be explained, whether or not we have access to the explanation, begs an 'eye' that doesn't exist. its very religious in fact.
Click to expand...
you are begging the question... what language would it all be explained in? and so forth - what units? arbitrary ones? its silly. its religious. just like i said. religion is just more static than science so science is able to feign knowing things in a better way.
 
its psychology homes. you have been taught to associate good feelings with certain ideas. such as things being explainable. you're well socialized and so forth. just like a Christian. they just are taught to have different feelings and say huh? in responce to different challenges to their ideology.
 
nig said:
its psychology homes. you have been taught to associate good feelings with certain ideas. such as things being explainable. you're well socialized and so forth. just like a Christian. they just are taught to have different feelings and say huh? in responce to different challenges to their ideology.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal, I can do experiments like anyone else and observe the results and agree with the explanations. That has nothing to do with whatever you're claiming.
 
(Q) said:
Sorry pal, I can do experiments like anyone else and observe the results and agree with the explanations. That has nothing to do with whatever you're claiming.
Click to expand...

But if your premise is faulty, you could do the experiment and get results that agree with your observations, but they could be entirely wrong.

However, you would not know that unless you were aware of the wrongness of your premise.
 
Some fileds of science are more like religion than others (and more than they would like to admit).
Theoretical Physics is a perfect example.
You start out with an observation.
You study that observation.
You find a hypothesis that fits with what you observe.
The missing pieces, you can just make shit up that you have absolutley no proof for to fill that in, as long as it doesn't fuck up the original idea.
Call that truth until somethign better comes along.

Yeah, umm there are virtual particles.
If you add anti-particles the math will work.
Things respond differently when they are very very small thye magically pop into and out of existence.
Nothing can move faster than C, but two particles on opposite sides of the universe, will change their "spin" simultaneously.
Half the theories in Theorietical Physics are barely a step above "God did it".
 
sam,

I am normally on your side, you are a nice person. however, you are making statements that you cannot possibly back up.
Most scientists today are clueless about scientific philosophy, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
show me the evidence for that statement, or the following:
I think its because most scientists brought up with a science education that lacks philosophical training have a limited understanding of the basis of scientific thought.

They get so caught up in the tools of science that they miss the part where they are based on inferences following certain assumptions.
Click to expand...

anyway, I still haven't seen a definition of religion that we all agree to use.
nig seems to be using this definition:
"faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality" - m-w.com
shall we use this one?

also, what are we debating here? whether science is a religion, or whether atheism is a religion? both?

additionally, it seems obvious that there are different degrees of faith that arise from the utility of each. faith that what I observe is reality is one thing, faith that something I cannot observe is real is quite another. the former is reasonable, perhaps necessary, to live. the latter is a merely convenient way to gaining piece of mind and controlling behavior.

science, as nig and sam seem to be forgetting, is a way of gaining knowledge that has shown, over time, to be very pragmatically valuable in providing our society with the tools that are required to move in the collectively desired direction. the only assumption (faith) that must be made to practice science is, as stated earlier, that what I observe is reality. additionally, to use science as a tool, we need to only make one more assumption (again, faith). that assumption is to take what is scientifically verified (with the scientific method) as truth (within reason) unless and until the theory is adapted or invalidated.

Raven, it is one thing to believe that our model of the universe is pretty good, though possibly wrong, and quite another to think that we know the absolute truth. I have not met a physicist who has said that our particle theories (and the like) are the absolute truth. however, quantum mechanics (which you refer to) is highly predicable, and that is why it is used. do you think that it is the same faith? I see a huge difference.

since sam and nig seem to be glossing over questions/arguments that people have been making, I will sum things up.

Open Issues:
--Sam needs to either qualify, retract, or show evidence for her statements.
--should we use my definition of religion?
--what are we debating? science-(VS)-religion-(VS)-Atheism?
--different degrees of faith? necessary to live VS feels good?
--Faith in absolute truth VS faith that our model.
(please respond to my statements, not the condensed list I have shown here)
 
Last edited:
cato said:
sam,

I am normally on your side, you are a nice person. however, you are making statements that you cannot possibly back up.

show me the evidence for that statement, or the following:
Click to expand...

Sure. The best example I can give is Dawkins.

He thinks religion is a question that can be addressed by science.

There are other scientists who establish tools without addressing the questions they are researching.

I come across them everyday and wonder they spent years on research which was so obviously doomed to failure due to lack of proper modelling.

e.g. extrapolating animal research to humans without confirming similarity of metabolism for that particular substrate or drug.

another example I frequently come across in nutrition is the complete ignorance of differences in structure and function of natural versus artificial nutrients, using analogues without determining long term consequences, ignoring impact of gene/environment on metabolism or the gene-environment interactions, ignoring dietary interactions between different nutrients, etc.

Very very common and a sad reflection of the inability to see the big picture.
 
Last edited:
Dawkins, in case you don't know, is just one person. he is not most scientists, as that is a physical impossibility considering that a single person, by definition cannot represent "most" of a group unless he/she is the only person in the group.
 
cato said:
Dawkins, in case you don't know, is just one person. he is not most scientists, as that is a physical impossibility considering that a single person, by definition cannot represent "most" of a group unless he/she is the only person in the group.
Click to expand...

He has quite a following and I have rarely seen atheistic scientists address the fallacy of his assertions. Have you?
 
I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.

edit:
just amend it to say that "many scientists..." and I will let it go. you also have to address that second statement, which you also cannot know.
 
cato said:
I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.
Click to expand...

Very simply by the fact that no has thought fit to question his stance on it.
 
cato said:
I don't really follow his work very closely, so I don't know. however, you still have to prove that most scientists hold his views, which I don't see how you can.

edit:
just amend it to say that "many scientists..." and I will let it go. you also have to address that second statement, which you also cannot know.
Click to expand...

I say most scientists based on what I read in the literature.

I think science has been sacrificed to corporate interests in many ways.
 
Very simply by the fact that no has thought fit to question his stance on it.
Click to expand...
what? do you mean that no one has questioned it? how do you know that? do you know everyone it the world?
I say most scientists based on what I read in the literature.
Click to expand...
what literature? cite it. did they survey all scientists? I am doubtful.
 
cato said:
what? do you mean that no one has questioned it? how do you know that? do you know everyone it the world?

what literature? cite it. did they survey all scientists? I am doubtful.
Click to expand...

Its a general trend in science today. Only that which has sale value is funded.

Science is all about results and profit today.

I meant the general trend in scientific literature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top