Is Atheism a religion?

Malpaisian

Dades wrote: »

Lack thereof. Clearly it's not a belief system.

The word "system" suggests a set of beliefs rather than the one "lack of belief" that constitutes atheism in it's entirety.

Well, many of you seem to "believe" that Creationists etc are mad,sad or bad or all three. Many of you seem to have a similar faith in science to a creationists faith in God. I presume you personally believe that when you die you will cease to exist in any form that's alive or sentient. Many atheists share a belief in the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. Many believe that they are RIGHT and that what they believe is the only logical thing to believe.

Science can be tested
I can go off and learn these things and head into a lab and test it myself

you can never ever do that with your religion
end of

Malpaisian

mallachyrivers wrote: »

No it's not

Yes it Is

joseph brand

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't know why some religious people try the "see, you're as bad as me for relying on faith!" approach
not exactly doing themselves any favours

If they believe in Noah's Ark, then anything is possible.

“Some people say Chris ‘don’t you ever get tired of arguing with the religious?’ No absolutely I don’t because you never know what they’re going to say next.”
— Christopher Hitchens


It's interesting how so many catholics know so little about the bible, yet, the Atheists are better educated in the bible and it's horse-****tery.

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

Science can be tested
I can go off and learn these things and head into a lab and test it myself

Have you done this?

you can never ever do that with your religion
end of

I don't have a religion.

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't know why some religious people try the "see, you're as bad as me for relying on faith!" approach
not exactly doing themselves any favours

Your first scientific mistake was to assume that I am, in any way, religious or that I believe in the existance of a God.

You also seem content to just be dismissive of the argument I made instead of engaging with it. Have you ever been to "Speakers Corner" in London and tried to argue with any of the various fundamentalists there? That's exactly what they do.

Malpaisian

koth wrote: »

you mean you're a ghost in the machine? :eek::P

Nah, I'm just someone who can't help but examine the machine

Malpaisian

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby...

That is sooooooo clever! Well done you!

Turtwig

Malpaisian wrote: »

I don't have a religion.

Oh yes you do! Your religion is the religion of not having a religion. :rolleyes:

Delirium

Malpaisian wrote: »

Nah, I'm just someone who can't help but examine the machine

it was an attempt at a joke, which obviously didn't land.

Your post that I quoted taken in isolation could have been read to say, "I don't exist" because the phrasing was so similar to the saying, "I think, therefore I am".

As to the rest of your posts, I don't see how not believing in any deities means someone is a member of a religion.

Doctor DooM

Malpaisian wrote: »

That is sooooooo clever! Well done you!

It's not clever, it's the standard response given whenever anyone comes up with the tired an incorrect premise of this thread.

Look, Bison riding a Bison:

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

Well, many of you seem to "believe" that Creationists etc are mad,sad or bad or all three.

And many atheists have no opinion whatsoever about creationists. What was your point again?

Malpaisian wrote: »

Many of you seem to have a similar faith in science to a creationists faith in God. I presume you personally believe that when you die you will cease to exist in any form that's alive or sentient. Many atheists share a belief in the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. Many believe that they are RIGHT and that what they believe is the only logical thing to believe.

Indeed, and many atheists don't have an opinion either way. Are those atheists part of the *religion* too?

Malpaisian wrote: »

Many of you seem to have a similar faith in science to a creationists faith in God.

Really? Is science based on a collection of old books written millennia ago by people in the middle east?

You should remind your doctor of this next time you request an antibiotic.

Malpaisian

Malpaisian wrote: »

Your first scientific mistake was to assume that I am, in any way, religious or that I believe in the existance of a God.

Religious people do try to use the argument from time to time. The last time I heard it was "I have faith the traffic lights won't change when I drive through a crossroads"

How's that for a mistake?

Malpaisian

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It's not clever, it's the standard response given whenever anyone comes up with the tired an incorrect premise of this thread.

Look, Bison riding a Bison:

Hey, fundamentalist Christians like standard responses to!

Malpaisian

Fortyniner wrote: »

Here's a contribution from the OP in August last year:

'I have no interest in religion or religious forums. I've given far more evidence than you've given to the contrary. You are still doing your cowardly little drive-by postings without actually saying anything yourself.

Why don't you have the guts to do the following things for me:

1) Tell me exactly what you think about the BBC (and the mainstream news-media in general), It's real purpose and the veracity or otherwise of its reportage.

I have already asked you to do this, but you seem unwilling for some reason.

2)Define what you mean by "evidence"

3)Define what you mean by "opinion"

4)Make an effort to actually engage, in detail ,with the points I've made and the examples I've given to back them up.

5) Tell me exactly what you find amusing and why. (pathetic little comments like: "Amusing, for a number of reasons"
are a poor replacement for real arguments)

6) Tell me what is your interest in this conversation. Do you work for the media? Have you some agenda?

If you cannot do these simple things, then you are either incapable and/or cowardly.'

source: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74116162

I think this thread should be closed..

You are obviously only in favour of people being allowed to express beliefs and opinions of which you (and your fellow groupthinkers) approve and which you deem to be legitamte. You are no differet to any Christian or Muslim fundamentalist in that regard.

I fail to see why you have chosen to drag up an old, completely unrelated post of mine and place it, completely out of it's original context, in a completely different thread about a completely different subject.

In that post I was trying to get people who could do little more than engage in sneering ad hominems to actually engage with the points I was making. These people, as all groupthinkers do, also routinely dismissed everything that I was saying by saying I had no "evidence" and that I was expressing "opinion".

Well, I think it is very fair (indeed "logical and scientific") to ask them to define what they mean by "evidence" and "opinion" and to lay out what it is that they believe so that their beliefs can be judged by their own standards and definitions.

So what exactly is your problem and who are you to try and silenece me, the Ayatollah?

Sarky

I kinda miss dead one

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

I kinda miss dead one

he's happily trotting off following dades around

im expecting him to start following me again to call me a witch

Malpaisian

koth wrote: »

it was an attempt at a joke, which obviously didn't land.

Your post that I quoted taken in isolation could have been read to say, "I don't exist" because the phrasing was so similar to the saying, "I think, therefore I am".

As to the rest of your posts, I don't see how not believing in any deities means someone is a member of a religion.

I like you. I can tell you are not a fundamentalist like some of the others.

Malpaisian

Malpaisian wrote: »

In that post I was trying to get people who could do little more than engage in sneering ad hominems to actually engage with the points I was making.

Malpaisian wrote: »

I like you. I can tell you are not a fundamentalist like some of the others.

lol

Malpaisian

Dades wrote: »

And many atheists have no opinion whatsoever about creationists. What was your point again?

My point is that many do. Not just opinions but opinons based on beliefs.

Indeed, and many atheists don't have an opinion either way. Are those atheists part of the *religion* too?

Perhaps not. But if they hold other beliefs they may,shock horror, be subscribers to a belief system.

Really? Is science based on a collection of old books written millennia ago by people in the middle east?

Well there are some old books involved allright. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is one which springs to mind. I suppose that one's not that old though. Still, just because something is new it does not mean it's improved, eh.

No, this is the way I'd put it. A belief in science, for the vast, vast majority of people on earth, is an act of faith. It has to be!

Malpaisian

HUNK wrote: »

Its kind of ironic to see some religious people use the term 'religion' as an insult.

Which "religious" are you refering to? Me?

Zombrex

Malpaisian wrote: »

No, this is the way I'd put it. A belief in science, for the vast, vast majority of people on earth, is an act of faith. It has to be!

What does a belief in science entail?

ShooterSF

If both faith in religion and trust based on a prior constant effort to refine itself that we can see in science are the same things then tell me this; When you are ill will you seek a doctor or faith healer? You have no personal evidence that one can help you more than the other. Or deep down do you realise the difference between trusting people who have shown a desire for the truth over those with a desire to protect their dogma?

Malpaisian

ShooterSF wrote: »

If both faith in religion and trust based on a prior constant effort to refine itself that we can see in science are the same things then tell me this; When you are ill will you seek a doctor or faith healer? You have no personal evidence that one can help you more than the other. Or deep down do you realise the difference between trusting people who have shown a desire for the truth over those with a desire to protect their dogma?

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

lol

WTF

Ghost Buster

HUNK wrote: »

Its kind of ironic to see some religious people use the term 'religion' as an insult.

Perhaps deep deep deep down they realise........

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

Religious people do try to use the argument from time to time. The last time I heard it was "I have faith the traffic lights won't change when I drive through a crossroads"

How's that for a mistake?

It's a mistake to think that any one group has ownership over an idea. It's a mistake to assume. If you become to used to assuming it can be bad for your health. This has been scientifically proven and if science says it, then it must be true. IMHO.

Malpaisian

Malpaisian wrote: »

It's a mistake to think that any one group has ownership over an idea. It's a mistake to assume.

Yes it is, so maybe you should stop doing the latter

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Of course it isn't - and no one is saying it is. Yes, scientists make mistakes. Who said they don't?
You are constructing a premise and trying to claim it fits all atheists based on no evidence.

It would be a very foolish person who claimed that just because a scientist said something - that makes it so. The correct response is - show us your evidence. Let us tear into this evidence and see if it stands up to analysis. Let us replicate your experiments etc etc etc.

Sometimes a scientist's work 'fails' the tests - sometimes it passes.

Malpaisian

joseph brand wrote: »

If they believe in Noah's Ark, then anything is possible.

All of this "US and Them" stuff! It sounds so sectarian!

I hope you are not suggesting that I believe in Noah's Ark.

I believe in shape-shifting lizards. Only kidding, I dont really!

ShooterSF

Malpaisian wrote: »

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

It's not faith though. It's trust. Trust built on the fact that science has given me a better chance to live into my 80's than I would have had 200 years ago and the underlying principle of trust is that you have to at least assume some people are out to help you in this world or you will perish, alone and fast. Who you trust and on what basis (faith or evidence of general good works) is the issue.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review. Science has no great leader, no one with a final say or a definitive answer. Again people should be taught to think critically but again without some trust and some assumptions based on good reason you will freeze up and die pretty quickly. Religion on the other hand is all about power and holding onto it and faith is usually all about fear of death when it comes down to it.

I have to run out the door so maybe someone else will correct this quote or attribute it to it's correct owner "Trust those that seek the truth, doubt those that claim to know it".

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's not faith though. It's trust. Trust built on the fact that science has given me a better chance to live into my 80's than I would have had 200 years ago and the underlying principle of trust is that you have to at least assume some people are out to help you in this world or you will perish, alone and fast. Who you trust and on what basis (faith or evidence of general good works) is the issue.



Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review. Science has no great leader, no one with a final say or a definitive answer. Again people should be taught to think critically but again without some trust and some assumptions based on good reason you will freeze up and die pretty quickly. Religion on the other hand is all about power and holding onto it and faith is usually all about fear of death when it comes down to it.

I have to run out the door so maybe someone else will correct this quote or attribute it to it's correct owner "Trust those that seek the truth, doubt those that claim to know it".

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

Andre Gide
French critic, essayist, & novelist (1869 - 1951)

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it isn't - and no one is saying it is. Yes, scientists make mistakes. Who said they don't?
You are constructing a premise and trying to claim it fits all atheists based on no evidence.

Im a bit of a stickler about the "E" word. Would you mind defining what you mean by "evidence".

It would be a very foolish person who claimed that just because a scientist said something - that makes it so. The correct response is - show us your evidence. Let us tear into this evidence and see if it stands up to analysis. Let us replicate your experiments etc etc etc.

People are ever increasingly encouraged to be this foolish all the theme.

Sometimes a scientist's work 'fails' the tests - sometimes it passes.

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

Sonics2k

From the looks of it, I believe you may be more at home here

Malpaisian

ShooterSF wrote: »

Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review.

Perhaps the whole peer review thing has been corrupted over time. Maybe the peers doing the reviewing are bought and paid for?

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

TBH - it seems to me you are getting into conspiracy theory.

Malpaisian

Sonics2k wrote: »

From the looks of it, I believe you may be more at home here

Ah. Another standard response. Doing exactly as you've been programmed to do, just like a good religous fundamentalist.

Why do you feel the need to pigeon-hole people? Does that make the world less threatening for you?

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - it seems to me you are getting into conspiracy theory.

TBH. It seems to me that you are getting in to defensive pigeon-holing.

Delirium

Malpaisian wrote: »

Ah. Another standard response. Doing exactly as you've been programmed to do, just like a good religous fundamentalist.

You realise you've just done the exact same thing that you are criticising Sonic for doing.

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

Ah. Another standard response. Doing exactly as you've been programmed to do, just like a good religous fundamentalist.

Why do you feel the need to pigeon-hole people? Does that make the world less threatening for you?

Seriously - you have come on here attempting to start a discussion as to whether 'scientists' are engaging in a conspiracy which hides some unspecified stuff and deliberately publish falsified conclusions enabled by other scientists who are paid to give positive peer reviews.
When it is pointed out that this type of discussion is better suited to the CT forum you resort to thinly veiled insults. Does doing that make the world less threatening for you?

Sonics2k

Malpaisian wrote: »

Ah. Another standard response. Doing exactly as you've been programmed to do, just like a good religous fundamentalist.

Why do you feel the need to pigeon-hole people? Does that make the world less threatening for you?

No no, it's just you've come in here basically sprouting out Conspiracy Theories. It's nothing but an argument for the sake of argument with you, so there's no point in a real discussion.

Evolution is a working science, it's is not 100% complete and does not claim to have all the answers. It is based on discovered facts, peer reviewed and is changed with new findings. We base it on decades of work, careful study, chemistry, biology and other form of anthropology. It is all based on logic, and not "faith" in the same sense as religion.

Creationists believe, based on no real facts, that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, the Flood managed to kill some 6 billion people, and many seem to believe that Mankind is actually de-evolving, despite all evidence and fact that proves the opposite.

So tell me, why are you even arguing this? You claim you're not religious, but refuse to accept alternatives, based on your belief (faith, if you will) that it's all to easy to change. Thus I linked you to the Conspiracy Forums, which is a wonderful place to talk about such things, which are basically Conspiracies.

ShooterSF

Malpaisian wrote: »

Perhaps the whole peer review thing has been corrupted over time. Maybe the peers doing the reviewing are bought and paid for?

Possible, not probable in my estimation. Too many people "do" science for the love it of it. At least that's the reason they get into it. Some may get into it because there's possibly good money (I dunno if that's true) but we can assume that like any profession some at least seek it for the love of the profession; And science by it's nature is a desire to know how the world works around us, so, you would then need to assume that these people are willing to sell out their curiosity or at least hide it's results on a grand scale and I just don't see that as likely.
Money has existed for a long time and science has definitely made improvements during times when money was available to stop it or subvert it. So again it's not without any evidence that I place my trust in the scientific model.
Also there is a pragmatic issue at hand here. Were it plausible for us to each test everything including cures for every disease safely before risking contracting them and still seek to eke out some enjoyment in our life then that would be what I bet most of us would be suggesting as the preferred method but alas that isn't feasible so we need the next best option. But to suggest anything below total self investigation is all at the same level of imperfection is crude and wrong.

sponsoredwalk

Sonics2k wrote: »

Malpaisian wrote: »

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

From the looks of it, I believe you may be more at home here

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - it seems to me you are getting into conspiracy theory.

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

I don't think anyone is saying this. It is hardly a reason to write off science and jump to the conclusion that peer review is all flawed and the entire scientific community is complicit in a mass conspiracy to... actually, what is it in a mass conspiracy to do?

MrP

Sonics2k

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

I fail to see where Bannasidhe or I slandered anyone.

In fact Bannasidhe already pointed out that lies (or honest mistakes) have been told and later on discovered. It is sadly a part of human nature to make mistakes.

The difference between the scientific method (Evolution) and the Creationist method is that one is based on actual science progressing over decades, constantly going through minor changes, but every year shows us more proof and direct evidence that Evolution is a complete fact.
The other one is taken from a book, written by a desert dwelling tribe thousands of years ago, who thought that the Moon actually gave light and had no real methods of science or understanding outside of their direct areas.

edit:
The irony is that he can't even take it to the Conspiracy Forums, because he doesn't actually have any proof. Just a belief it may happen, and again, arguing for the sake of it.

Bannasidhe

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

Who has denied some scientists haven't messed/falsified reports?
BUT that does not mean all scientists have - which was the libellous statement both Sonic and I were responding to.

Now we are being accused of slander for suggesting that such a sweeping statement belongs in a forum dedicated to conspiracy theories dedicated to such topics then in a forum dedicated to Atheism and Agnosticism?

There may or may not be dodgy scientists - I imagine like all humans some are very ethical and some are more interested in their own prestige - but what exactly does that have to do with whether Atheism is a religion?

bluewolf

bluewolf wrote: »

he's happily trotting off following dades around

im expecting him to start following me again to call me a witch

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Pishaw - people have been calling you that over in Politics for ages.
:pac:

Sarky

Bias was found, then corrected. That's not exactly a horrendous scandal. It's a reason why peer review exists. If science were based on faith, if the peer review process was bought and paid for, e would still be 1.5924(17)×10^−19 C. but lo and behold, it is not. And guess what? It'll probably change again in a few years when more evidence provides a more accurate picture.

There are just far too many scientists, publishing far too much and cross-examining each other, for any attempt to falsify data to last for long. My flatmate's astrophysics masters last year actually showed that someone's Ph.D. was based on incorrect data. That Ph.D. isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on now. I don't think many non-scientists quite understand just how rigorous the peer review system is. It's not perfect, obviously, but it never stops, it is very, VERY thorough and eventually it catches the liars.

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Oh my! isn't his faith supposed to command respect for women?