Is Atheism a religion?

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

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

that's what i asked until i decided not to engage
he'd probably tell me it's my own fault for not wearing a headscarf

anyway i think i better shut up now since he's banned and this would just be mean

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

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

Malpaisian, have some accountability for the things you post, instead of hiding behind some notion that you're trying to be pigeonholed.

You're trying to twist the notions of "faith" and "science" to get atheism and religion in bed together. It appears you're unwilling to let go of this pre-conception no matter what people say.

sponsoredwalk

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying this. It is hardly a reason to right 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

People responded with slander about conspiracy theories to the claim that there there might be

real scientific discoveries get[ting] buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore

as if it's never happened in history before. With the knowledge that it has in fact happened before, by what standard are we justified in thinking that it will never happen again? By what standard are we justified in throwing about curse words aimed at silencing critics of our ideology despite the fact that what they're saying has happened more than once in the past & may indeed be happening right now? In fact, is it not an example of the horrendous concept of faith in assuming that scientific discoveries are not some massive conspiracy against us, how do we justifiably know it isn't?

Sarky

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

I mearly suggested possibilities. You will notice that I put them in the form of questions. Suggesting I take myself off to the CT forum, is to me, an insult. Given that conspiracy is part of the human condition and part and parcel of all human endeavour, and also given the capacity that human beings have for doing evil, especially when they have power, it seems strange to me that those who have a so called "conspiracy theories" approach to some issues are coralled off to their own forum like a bunch of lepers.

Having conspiracy a theory (about any issue is just part of the myriad of thoughts and opinions which should exist around any issue, in a healthy society were people are encouraged to engege in critical thinking. This ostracism of people who hold views which challenge the prescribed wisdom is anti-free speech, it is anti-critical thinking and yet another charachteristic of fundamentalist religion.

Did you come in here just to reply to every single post with "you're a fundie"?

Malpaisian

Sarky wrote: »

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

how do you know it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

Suggesting I take myself off to the CT forum, is to me, an insult.

Some posters in this thread would consider that starting a thread with a sentence, typing "Discuss", and waiting until there's 195 answers to reply quoting a random one-sentence long post as an insult.

And yet here you are being honestly engaged - and still the one claiming to be 'insulted'.

shizz

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

The process that it goes through means that it will be found and corrected. It's impossible for it not to be at some stage, unless of course there is a mass conspiracy for some unbelievable reason. :pac:

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

People responded with slander about conspiracy theories to the claim that there there might be

Truth is a full defence to libel. The OP posted stuff which really does appear to be the stuff of CT. Pointing this out is not libel.

MrP

MrPudding

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

I presume to accept that even if there is a conspiracy it is not widespread?

MrP

sponsoredwalk

Sarky wrote: »

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

How does this even apply? Where am I claiming that all scientists have to take responsibility for the ones that lie or are just wrong? I just asked how, given that it has happened in the past, we are justified in assuming it isn't happening right now or won't happen again? It's a basic question of logic.

Penn

Maybe I should weigh in here a bit. I was Conspiracy Theories Mod here for over a year, and a regular user of the forum before that. Trust me, some of the stuff being talked about here (real scientific discoveries being hidden and fake ones being put forward instead) is definitely CT material. In fact, it's quite a common CT. Now, you may choose to take that as an insult. I don't see why as there are many users of the CT forum who are very smart and not "tinfoil hat wearing cliches". You could find a whole bunch of people who agree with you and have even more info or links that you might be interested in.

You may see being told that what you think is conspiracy theory material, and you may choose to take that as an insult. Doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with it being conspiracy theory material.

Accusing a group of people or organisation (scientific community) of lying to the larger population in order to benefit in some way, whether true or not, is a conspiracy theory (a theory about a conspiracy)

Penn

Sarky wrote: »

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"

- Tim Minchin

ShooterSF

Humanity has had in it's hand for more than half a century the power to wipe out all life - yet here we are today bickering in this gorgeous weather about whether(no pun intended) we can assume at large it is a cause of good.

And we hold this discussion through technology developed and refined by said humanity, technology that whist it has bettered us may (emphasis on MAY) have been created with desires of financial or power in mind, now hosts millions who demand it stay open, free so that humanity may share knowledge.

Many of us utilise open source technology to facilitate this discussion, technology whose main reason for development is the idea that we all benefit from improvements.

Few of us can lay claim that we would still be alive if we lived a mere couple of hundred years ago and fewer still a thousand all thanks to humanity's desire to better itself.

How you can look at all that evidence and suggest that all of a sudden a massive group including people who studied to know how the world works could all sell out collectively to trick another part of humanity does seem highly unlikely.

To suggest there are some bad apples amongst many good ones seems to fit with our past and in that case there will be fraud (amongst honest error) and it will and has as shown by sponseredwalk been found out. This is not perfect but it's the best we have and is still infinitely better than religion regardless of how you choose to define the word faith.

Zombrex

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

Yes actually you do. Science is a transparent process. Research that cannot be independently verified is ignored.

The issue here doesn't seem to be science itself, but the misunderstanding of science and what it is by lay people, such as yourself.

Science is not, despite this view being bewilderingly common in society, trusting the views or opinions of scientists.

Personally I blame science education in this country and others that do not spend enough time distinguishing between a science teacher explaining something to children in a class room and what scientists themselves actually do. A lot of people seem to be left with the idea that this system of "I'll tell you what its like" that is encountered in school (which in fairness is a necessity of education) is some how repeated up the food chain as it were, so that teacher was told by someone higher up, who in turn was informed by a more senior scientists that this is how it is, and so on and so forth.

Lay people end up with a misunderstanding that science is about people being informed what the opinions of scientists are. In reality that isn't what science is like at all.

Sarky

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How does this even apply? Where am I claiming that all scientists have to take responsibility for the ones that lie or are just wrong? I just asked how, given that it has happened in the past, we are justified in assuming it isn't happening right now or won't happen again? It's a basic question of logic.

But we don't assume it's not happening right now. But every time so far that it has been found to be happening, it has been corrected. Often with serious consequences for the person involved. People have lost awards and qualifications and entire careers in the past because of such acts. There are millions of scientists, across a hundred disciplines. Conspiracy could happen in small groups, but it's impossible to maintain, because once you publish something you will have every other scientist in that field looking for ways to tear it apart.

So yes, it's probably happening right now, and it will probably continue to happen as long as scientific endeavour exists. And it is precisely why peer review exists. To allow otherwise would just be taking things on faith. And science doesn't do faith.

oldrnwisr

spannerotoole wrote: »

I have based on past outcomes, there are things in the bible that have been fulfilled, for example, in Isiah, Yahweh says that a man called Cyrus would free the jews from babylonian captivity and defined the manner in which it would happen, and around 200 years later (Isiah was dead by this time) a man called cyrus diverted the euphrates river and literally walked in through the gates of babylon (which for some reason had been left open) and took Babylon down. Yahweh actually spoke the name of the man cyrus who freed the Hebrews.

You see here's the problem with relying on "prophecy" as a means of authenticating the Bible, it only counts if the prophecy is authentic in the first place. The book of Isaiah is 66 chapters long. However, only the first 39 chapters, called Proto-Isaiah is attributable to Isaiah. The other 27 chapters are split between Deutero-Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) and Trito-Isaiah (Chapters 56-66). The portion which covers the prophecy is Deutero-Isaiah which was written about 536BCE just six years before the death of Cyrus. The language and theme of the prophecy is similar to and seems to have been influenced by the Cyrus cylinder which suggests that it was Marduk and not Yahweh who chose Cyrus to free the Jews.
Ultimately, the point is that the portion of the Book of Isaiah dealing with the prophecy of Cyrus was written by an anonymous author almost 200 years after Proto-Isaiah and is heavily influenced by both Babylonian myth and Zoroastrianism. Any suggestion that this is a divinely inspired prophecy is frankly ludicrous.

spannerotoole wrote: »

There is another prophecy in the bible which speaks of religion being turned upon (the woman in revelation who sits on the waters and the nations is false religion) when a woman is used in a figurative sense in the bible, It means a religion. It also tells us who will turn on religion, and no, it's not the Atheism Alliance, or the United Atheists, but the United Nations will turn on religion. I do not know when this will happen, but everything is in place for this to happen, the members of various churches have become wary of the burden that their church bestows upon them, for example, some churches who insist on tithing and say that you're "stealing god's money." One wonders what would an all powerful being need with mere money, others still cover up various forms of abuses and other crimes, if you cover for a criminal, then you are as guilty as the criminal. this is even in law in a lot of countries. It's called Aiding and Abetting, or being an accessory to a crime. Still others order their members to murder those who are not of their faith, these are all false religions, because God is Love, and it doesn't show love to kill your neighbour, merely because they don't accept your beliefs as their own. So it is no wonder that lots of people have no trust in churches, because all they see is hypocrisy in the churches. But it also says that god "will put it into their hearts" to do this.

So this prophecy, which by your own admission hasn't come to pass yet is supposed to mean what exactly?

I have, at Dades' request, replied to your points about evolution here.

sponsoredwalk

Sarky wrote: »

But we don't assume it's not happening right now. But every time so far that it has been found to be happening, it has been corrected. Often with serious consequences for the person involved. People have lost awards and qualifications and entire careers in the past because of such acts. There are millions of scientists, across a hundred disciplines. Conspiracy could happen in small groups, but it's impossible to maintain, because once you publish something you will have every other scientist in that field looking for ways to tear it apart.

So yes, it's probably happening right now, and it will probably continue to happen as long as scientific endeavour exists. And it is precisely why peer review exists. To allow otherwise would just be taking things on faith. And science doesn't do faith.

By what standard are we justified in throwing about curse words aimed at silencing critics of our ideology despite the fact that what they're saying has happened more than once in the past & may indeed be happening right now? In fact, is it not an example of the horrendous concept of faith in assuming that scientific discoveries are not some massive conspiracy against us, how do we justifiably know it isn't?

sponsoredwalk

Penn wrote: »

You may see being told that what you think is conspiracy theory material, and you may choose to take that as an insult. Doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with it being conspiracy theory material.

I suppose they were respectfully referring him/her to the CT forum in a manner analogous to the way a physicist would refer someone asking questions about biology to a biologist... :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How does this even apply? Where am I claiming that all scientists have to take responsibility for the ones that lie or are just wrong? I just asked how, given that it has happened in the past, we are justified in assuming it isn't happening right now or won't happen again? It's a basic question of logic.

Its simply a case of once something passes peer review, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Science goes through the peer review process, an extremely thorough (but not infallible) method for determining the veracity of discoveries. While it is certainly possible that various peer reviewed reports could be based on faked or inaccurate data, without any evidence to suggest they are, there is simply no reason to doubt the peer review process. If the OP wants to point to specific papers and explain why he thinks they are flawed, then that's fine. Wishful thinking about a science-community-wide conspiracy, based on what looks like an ignorance of how peer review works, is just empty, evidence-less accusations. And what is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence.

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

the peer review process, an extremely thorough (but not infallible) method

Mark Hamill wrote: »

there is simply no reason to doubt the peer review process.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(but not infallible) method

Mark Hamill wrote: »

there is simply no reason to doubt the peer review process.

There's your reason.

Sarky

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

By what standard are we justified in throwing about curse words aimed at silencing critics of our ideology despite the fact that what they're saying has happened more than once in the past & may indeed be happening right now? In fact, is it not an example of the horrendous concept of faith in assuming that scientific discoveries are not some massive conspiracy against us, how do we justifiably know it isn't?

Well, it's probably the way that once such errors or lies were established, they were corrected. Like I said earlier, e was assumed to be a certain value until it was discovered the data were cooked. Then it was changed to something else, after more accurate research. This is not a conspiracy. It is the total opposite. And every single time a mistake or lie has been found in someone's science, it is corrected. You can go down the "well how can we know for sure we're not all in the Matrix" road if you like, but it wouldn't be interesting for anyone.

Every available instance of such events in history point to either simple error, or conspiracy between a small group of scientists, but the rest of the scientific community exposing them. That's how science works. And it's why science works. I'll be publishing a paper or two this summer, and they're going to get a metric f*cktonne of biologists, bioinformaticians, biochemists, geneticists and other scientists tearing into them, and trying to find fault with them. I've done the same myself with other papers. Long may it continue, because it works.

Can you show us an example of a publication where the researchers falsified their data, but which is still accepted?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

There's your reason.

You would do well to read entire sentences, rather than the selective reading you are employing:

While it is certainly possible that various peer reviewed reports could be based on faked or inaccurate data, without any evidence to suggest they are, there is simply no reason to doubt the peer review process.

Peer reviewed reports can be faked or just plain wrong. But without specific evidence pointing to specific cases, there is no reason to assume that any and all peer reviewed papers ares wrong.
The justice system is not infallible, its possible that innocent people go to jail and guilty people are let go free. But that doesn't mean you can assume that everyone or anyone in jail is innocent or everyone or anyone who has walked free from court is guilty. Be open to the possibility, sure, but without evidence, any assumptions are unjustified.

Turtwig

I desperately want to reply to this thread but haven't had time yet.please mods that be don't close it.

Dades

Jernal wrote: »

I desperately want to reply to this thread but haven't had time yet.please mods that be don't close it.

swampgas

This old argument that science is just another belief system, involving "faith", is missing one blindingly obvious fact: science works.

Science isn't just about creating a nice story that explains the world around us, it strives to observe and measure, then explain how and why it works. Based on scientific understanding, we can manipulate the world around us in new ways and make it better. We can build machines, electronics, medicines, rockets to the moon. It works. It is truly amazing how science and technology have transformed the world we live in.

To make out that science is just another religious faith is to massively misunderstand what makes them different.

Bannasidhe

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I suppose they were respectfully referring him/her to the CT forum in a manner analogous to the way a physicist would refer someone asking questions about biology to a biologist... :rolleyes:

That is exactly what I was doing.
If a poster wishes to discuss the existence of a possible conspiracy then the CT forum is the perfect place.
Also - I fail to see what the possible existence of dodgy doings among scientists has to do with whether Atheism is a religion - which is what this thread is about.

Calibos

Personally I think its pretty cool that someone capable of work thats up for peer review uses words like Fcuktonne. I know thats silly but there you go.

Peer Review it and weep, Mothafcukaa's!!

Malpaisian

swampgas wrote: »

This old argument that science is just another belief system, involving "faith", is missing one blindingly obvious fact: science works.

Science isn't just about creating a nice story that explains the world around us, it strives to observe and measure, then explain how and why it works. Based on scientific understanding, we can manipulate the world around us in new ways and make it better. We can build machines, electronics, medicines, rockets to the moon. It works. It is truly amazing how science and technology have transformed the world we live in.

To make out that science is just another religious faith is to massively misunderstand what makes them different.

I'm not sure I agree that "we" are making the world better. We (most of us) have absolutely no say in this manipulation and many would not agree that this manipulation is for the better.

swampgas

Malpaisian wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree that "we" are making the world better. We (most of us) have absolutely no say in this manipulation and many would not agree that this manipulation is for the better.

The point is that science works - regardless of whether the result is good, bad, or indifferent. The machine gun and the atom bomb are technological marvels, regardless of the moral value of their uses.

By contrast, praying for rain has never worked.

Corkfeen

Malpaisian wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree that "we" are making the world better. We (most of us) have absolutely no say in this manipulation and many would not agree that this manipulation is for the better.

So, you'd prefer if we didn't have vaccines, medicines etc plus many different machines that make life better, day to day. In fact, you're ability to write your post is a result of science. But the key point to this is not on if they are positive or not but it is that it proves that scientific peer reviewed studies aren't a big conspiracy as we see the results of the discoveries every day. Be it in an atomic bomb or a computer. Much of science is demonstrable from day to day, it's just the vast majority of people tend to not know the scientific basis behind them. So it's not comparable to religions....

Malpaisian

Penn wrote: »

Maybe I should weigh in here a bit. I was Conspiracy Theories Mod here for over a year, and a regular user of the forum before that. Trust me, some of the stuff being talked about here (real scientific discoveries being hidden and fake ones being put forward instead) is definitely CT material. In fact, it's quite a common CT. Now, you may choose to take that as an insult. I don't see why as there are many users of the CT forum who are very smart and not "tinfoil hat wearing cliches". You could find a whole bunch of people who agree with you and have even more info or links that you might be interested in.

Firstly, I have little interest in finding a whole bunch of people who agree with me. That sounds far too much like groupthink for my liking. Surely the whole point of discussion is to explore different viewpoints. Seeking to reinforce your own opinions/beliefs by only ever discussing with like minded people is classic religious fundamentalist behaviour. I grew up immersed in Christian fundamentalism (and always resisted it) so, believe me, i know.

You may see being told that what you think is conspiracy theory material, and you may choose to take that as an insult. Doesn't change the fact that there's nothing wrong with it being conspiracy theory material.

Accusing a group of people or organisation (scientific community) of lying to the larger population in order to benefit in some way, whether true or not, is a conspiracy theory (a theory about a conspiracy)

I never accused any group or organisation, I suggested the possibility of deception and the inability of those who take science on faith to be sure they are being told the truth. In light of the climate-gate scandal. I don't think these are entirely unreasonable suggestions.

I am completely comfortable with these ideas being classed as conspiracy theories. My problem is with the thought police of Boards.ie seeking to sideline people who have a conspiracy theory take on any given issue to a seperate forum, away from the rest of the discourse. As I said before, a conspiracy-theory based opinion on an issue, is just one type of opinion amongst the whole range of types of opinion on that issue. Why not single out people who express neo-liberal viewpoints and confine them to their own little corner? Why not ostricize those who consistently defend the status quo/prescribed wisdom and banish them to their own little thread? How about people who criticize Fine Gael? Should they be allowed to mix with the genereal population?

The Mad Hatter

Malpaisian wrote: »

In light of the climate-gate scandal. I don't think these are entirely unreasonable suggestions.

I thought this might be where this was going.

What "scandal" exactly?

Zombrex

Firstly, I have little interest in finding a whole bunch of people who agree with me. That sounds far too much like groupthink for my liking. Surely the whole point of discussion is to explore different viewpoints. Seeking to reinforce your own opinions/beliefs by only ever discussing with like minded people is classic religious fundamentalist behaviour. I grew up immersed in Christian fundamentalism (and always resisted it) so, believe me, i know.

That is a bit of an odd statement considering that you don't seem to be listening to anything anyone on this thread is saying to you, preferring to instead simply repeat your misinformed statements over and over while ignoring responses that correct you.

It seems group think is exactly what you are looking for, it is just that we are not part of your group.

Brinimartini

atheism is the opposite of religion

AtomicHorror

ITT OP tries to get us to admit to having faith in something. Because this will bring the whole edifice crashing down, I guess? Just like if we said we believe in stuff? Is that it?

There are lots of kinds of faith, and lots of kinds of belief. Some of them are reasonable and others are not. Faith is an element of most belief systems, but it is the functional core of religions. Faith is a stochastic- a short cut- in reasonable belief systems. But in religion, it is a justification for for the system itself. An irrefutable answer to awkward questions. These are very different kinds of faith- employed for utterly different reasons. The presence of faith in a belief system no more makes it a religion than the presence of wooden seats in a house makes it a church.

AtomicHorror

Brinimartini wrote: »

atheism is the opposite of religion

Not really. It's the absence of it, which is not really the same thing as opposition. Logically it's quote possible to be non-religious without opposing religion, say for example if you thought religion was useful for other people.

DuPLeX

Firstly Atheism is not religious in the way that an alcoholics anonymous meeting is not about alcohol ! nor populated by alcoholics .
Secondly Christianity (and most major religions) have been "peer reviewed" for at least two thousand years ...it means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Saying its "peer reviewed " is like saying all the bishops and priests have OK'd it
....... of course they have .. lol
:P

Finally...
Christians believe in creationism and in God and all that goes with it ....basically because someone told them that and they believed .

Atheists believe in No god, evolution and all of that because someone told them that and they believed .
I'll bet that none of them have any direct experience of either God or the lack thereof nor any direct Knowledge of creation or of evolution.
Its like they were told "there are only two sides and you must pick one " and they believed it
That is pretty religious in my opinion .,

DuPLeX

Brinimartini wrote: »

atheism is the opposite of religion

Athiesm is a religion for people who don't like religion .

Sarky

Sure. And cold and darkness and good and evil are tangible physical things.

It's not religion. Deal with it.

Opticom

No, but some people, who should know better, think and act as though it is.

18AD

You know what's bad about atheism? That it's religious. Because religion is a negative attribute. It actually tarnishes atheism. So you should drop atheism and revert to good old regular religion...

You're just as bad as us. So we can continue being degenerate, just like you.



[secret allusion to the black sun]This is my favourite argument. It seems to crop up all the time here. And by "crop up" I mean grow. Be nourished by light. From the sun. Because the sun is the real God. Praise the light![/secret allusion to the black sun]

Mark Hamill

DuPLeX wrote: »

Secondly Christianity (and most major religions) have been "peer reviewed" for at least two thousand years ...it means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Saying its "peer reviewed " is like saying all the bishops and priests have OK'd it
....... of course they have .. lol
:P

So now not only is atheism a religion, but peer review is meaningless? Why is it that people come up with the most imaginative bull**** only for things they actively try not to understand? Do you actually understand what "peer review" means? What it entails? Do you have a picture of someone having their mates down the pub look at their research or something? Try looking up what it means.

DuPLeX wrote: »

Finally...
Christians believe in creationism

Not necessarily. Most christians I know dont believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

DuPLeX wrote: »

Atheists believe in [snip] evolution

Not necessarily.

DuPLeX wrote: »

I'll bet that none of them have any direct experience of either God

It would be a bit weird to be an atheist after having direct experience of god.

DuPLeX wrote: »

nor any direct Knowledge of creation or of evolution.

Not every atheist is going to be well read in evolutionary biology, sure, but the papers and research is there for any to see.

DuPLeX wrote: »

Its like they were told "there are only two sides and you must pick one " and they believed it
That is pretty religious in my opinion .,

Just because a proponent of something acts religiously about it, doesn't make that thing a religion. Is football a religion? Or golf? Is Star Trek? Or Star Wars or anything else that has fanatics?
The OPs questions was "is Atheism a religion?". Despite how people may arrive at atheism, and how they may act in its defense, atheism is not a religion.

Dades

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a bit of an odd statement considering that you don't seem to be listening to anything anyone on this thread is saying to you, preferring to instead simply repeat your misinformed statements over and over while ignoring responses that correct you.

I have to agree with this.

Malpaisian, I'm starting to suspect you're either a troll or have zero interest in opinions or facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

I have to agree with this.

Malpaisian, I'm starting to suspect you're either a troll or have zero interest in opinions or facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

'starting to suspect' - WOW - Dades, you have the patience of a ...um...I need an non-religious sounding analogy...feck....um...patience of a very very patient person indeed.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Dades wrote: »

I have to agree with this.

Malpaisian, I'm starting to suspect you're either a troll or have zero interest in opinions or facts that conflict with your preconceptions.

'starting to suspect' - WOW - Dades, you have the patience of a ...um...I need an non-religious sounding analogy...feck....um...patience of a very very patient person indeed.

Lighthouse keeper?

Undergod

DuPLeX wrote: »

Firstly Atheism is not religious in the way that an alcoholics anonymous meeting is not about alcohol ! nor populated by alcoholics .

And I'm not particularly into soccer, or rugby, or gaelic, or any sport. By this logic I'm still a massive sports fan.

DuPLeX wrote: »

Secondly Christianity (and most major religions) have been "peer reviewed" for at least two thousand years

Nope.

DuPLeX wrote: »

...it means absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Heh heh heh.

DuPLeX wrote: »

.
Christians believe in creationism and in God and all that goes with it ....basically because someone told them that and they believed .

Atheists believe in No god, evolution and all of that because someone told them that and they believed .

I was raised Christian, and I didn't abandon it as soon as I heard about atheism. What you're saying implies that people are unable to make any decisions, which is a bit weird.

DuPLeX wrote: »

.I'll bet that none of them have any direct experience of either God or the lack thereof

It's kinda hard to experience the lack of something, the way you mean it. I don't have direct experience of the lack of Snurm.

Malpaisian

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a bit of an odd statement considering that you don't seem to be listening to anything anyone on this thread is saying to you, preferring to instead simply repeat your misinformed statements over and over while ignoring responses that correct you.

So you and those who agree with you are the holders of infinte wisdom and absolute truth. Yeah, yet another charachteristic of fundamentalist religion. You are truly deluded if you think you have "corrected" anything I've said. "corrected"! Even your language is dogmatic. Dogma, another characteristic of fundamenalist religion.

It seems group think is exactly what you are looking for, it is just that we are not part of your group.

If you say so. I bow to your higher wisdom,

But let's recap.

When I started this thread, I asked the question - "Is Atheism a religion?"

Well through the ensuing pages of responses people have displayed:

*Blind faith
*Arrogance
*A desire to jump to simple and convenient conclusions ( Malpaisian must be religious)
*A desire to silence or ostracize those who question the prescribed wisdom
*A desire to believe that everything is just as they are told it is by authority
*Possession of the absolute truth
*Dogma
*Groupthink


These are all classic charachteristics of religion and the religious. So I'll leave you with this question:

Is atheism a religion?

Over and out

Malpaisian (an agnostic who dislikes religions)

Malpaisian

Malpaisian wrote: »

Malpaisian (an agnostic who dislikes religions)

and yet exhibits all the characteristics he dislikes of religion