Is Atheism a religion?

Malpaisian

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.

I could just as easily say the same about many of the people on this thread especially those who think "conspiracy theorists" should be shut out of general discourse and those who jump to simple and neat conclusions such as me being religious.

Malpaisian

Malpaisian wrote: »

I could just as easily say the same about many of the people on this thread especially those who think "conspiracy theorists" should be shut out of general discourse and those who jump to simple and neat conclusions such as me being religious.

CT is a public forum, there is nothing shut out about it

you are calling the atheists and agnostics of this forum religious, so how that applies to them and not you under the same arguments ...

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

and yet exhibits all the characteristics he dislikes of religion

*Challenging the prescribed wisdom is not a charachteristic of religion
*Allowing yourself to believe that much of what you were brought up to believe and much of what you are lead to believe now may welll be bullsh1t is not a charachteristic of religion. (There is no comfort in it at all)
*Refusing to seek the comfort of others who would readily agree with me in the CT forum is not a charachteristic of religion.
*Posing uncomfortable questions is not a charachteristic of religion

Sarky

And as soon as you do any of those things we'll let you know.

What difficult questions? All you do is tell everyone they're fundies, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion, throw around more ad hominems, complain that you're being persecuted because nobody agrees with you

Turtwig

Malpaisian wrote: »

*A desire to jump to simple and convenient conclusions ( Malpaisian must be religious)

Firstly,.who said you must be religious?

Secondly, I'm glad you found a way to be superior to everyone.

If Dades or Rob don't lock this thread then I'd like to reply to the posts on science but alas unfortunately at the moment I don't have the time.:(

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

What difficult questions? All you do is tell everyone they're fundies, refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion, throw around more ad hominems, complain that you're being persecuted because nobody agrees with you

But - and let us make this perfectly clear - we are the ones who behave as if we were religious. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - and let us make this perfectly clear - we are the ones who behave as if we were religious. :rolleyes:

Having a religion & not being atheist, and being told by some individual I'm atheistic to the point of being religious is extremely amusing

Dades

Malpaisian, you are what is known in the trade as a "time-sink".

If your next post doesn't contain something like a response to the valid points many people have made, then it will be your last in this thread.

Your continued assertions and selective quoting are now just tiresome.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But - and let us make this perfectly clear - we are the ones who behave as if we were religious. :rolleyes:

Having a religion & not being atheist, and being told by some individual I'm atheistic to the point of being religious is extremely amusing

But you are also atheist . Don't deny it blue you're one of us now : Assimilation complete!

**Please insert Borg image here**

I duno, I'm holding out hope that Kali is out there :cool:

I think the more I read from religious people the more headed toward atheist I get :rolleyes:

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

**Please insert Borg image here**

Am I doing it wrong?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Am I doing it wrong?

Yes. :rolleyes:

It's

Sonics2k

Odin dammit, Bannasidhe beat me to it!

Turtwig

Omg I love you guys. Wasn't expecting those Borg pics. Made my day.:)

Zombrex

Malpaisian wrote: »

So you and those who agree with you are the holders of infinte wisdom and absolute truth.

I wouldn't call my knowledge infinite nor absolute. But it is relatively easy to assess that I understand science better than you. If you genuinely are interested in discussion, exchange of ideas and perhaps even learning something, then listening to those who know more about a subject than you do (and who are patient enough to be willing to explaining it to you rather than simply dismissing you as you seem to dismiss others) would seem the wise course of action.

Malpaisian wrote: »

You are truly deluded if you think you have "corrected" anything I've said.

I can point out what I corrected again for you if you like.

Of course to learn anything from that you have to be willing to accept that you might have made a mistake or error. I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, but at the very least you should be able to independently research what we have told you. That would of course require that you accept that what you said might not have been "absolute truth".

Again you make odd statements accusing us of the arrogance of thinking we are completely right while at the same time dismissing any errors in your statements as delusions on our part, rather than mistakes on yours even when posters are more than happy to explain the errors in detail. If there is a lack of interest it seems to be on your part rather than ours, yet you claim we are dismissing you.

Malpaisian wrote: »

"corrected"! Even your language is dogmatic. Dogma, another characteristic of fundamenalist religion.

I'm not sure you understand what dogmatic means. It means adhering strictly to a set of doctrine. Correcting errors and mistakes you have made in your posts is simply correcting errors and mistakes in your posts.

Malpaisian wrote: »

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)

So rather than engage you simply restate your original rhetorical question and leave the discussion, while at the same time complaining that we are dogmatic and adhering to group think. Again all rather odd, demonstrating to me that you never had any real interest in a discussion but rather thought you had some how found a "got'cha" for us atheists.

I think after 22 pages, countless posts from a range of posters, if you defensively throw your toys out of the pram and leave holding exactly the same view that you started with then perhaps it is not us who are adhering to a preconceived established view point, but rather yourself.

But of course only you can answer that question.

Dades

^^
What an excellent summation.

celticcrash

Malpaisian 1 Militant atheists 0

Gbear

Leinster 12 Ulster 72

We can all make up scores if we don't watch the match.

Turtwig

celticcrash wrote: »

Malpaisian 1 Militant atheists 0

And there right there in that very statement is everything that is wrong with some people who come on this board. If your aim is to 'win' then go out and enter formal debates, don't bother wasting your time here where the aim is to communicate and discuss stuff. It's not about winning; it's about understanding.


(Unless of course you were referring to the score in possible troll match-ups?)

Delirium

celticcrash wrote: »

Malpaisian 1 Militant atheists 0

Thanks for taking roll-call :P:pac:

MrPudding

Gbear wrote: »

Leinster 12 Ulster 72

We can all make up scores if we don't watch the match.

I was at that match. Born in NI but lived in Dublin for 8 years. Was somewhat conflicted.

MrP

ShooterSF

MrPudding wrote: »

Gbear wrote: »

Leinster 12 Ulster 72

We can all make up scores if we don't watch the match.

I was at that match. Born in NI but lived in Dublin for 8 years. Was somewhat conflicted.

MrP

Fret not for its not even a real sport.

*heads back to man United thread *

DuPLeX

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

"Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field."

Maybe its you who does not understand ? I DID NOT mention mates down the pub or any such scenario ....YOU DID !
I believe I drew the analogy of a group of Clergy all reading and agreeing a particular Doctrine.They are all well read Intelligent men who have a firm grasp of the subject matter in hand .They may not all have the same view point but they will work to come to a consensus which will work for them and their paymasters (the church) and then they pass this dogma on to the unquestioning public,who will accept it (more or less) the Peer review process works in the same way producing the similar Scientific dogma for similar reasons.. If the peer review process has any more validity than this then please point out how and don't resort to more childish nonsense.
And Don't bother with the "Oh it's Scientific" line I am sure other religions have their catch-all Phrases such as "It's the word of God " and such ..

The rest of your reply to my post was undeserving of a response ......

CerebralCortex

DuPLeX wrote: »

"Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field."

Maybe its you who does not understand ? I DID NOT mention mates down the pub or any such scenario ....YOU DID !
I believe I drew the analogy of a group of Clergy all reading and agreeing a particular Doctrine.They are all well read Intelligent men who have a firm grasp of the subject matter in hand .They may not all have the same view point but they will work to come to a consensus which will work for them and their paymasters (the church) and then they pass this dogma on to the unquestioning public,who will accept it (more or less) the Peer review process works in the same way producing the similar Scientific dogma for similar reasons.. If the peer review process has any more validity than this then please point out how and don't resort to more childish nonsense.
And Don't bother with the "Oh it's Scientific" line I am sure other religions have their catch-all Phrases such as "It's the word of God " and such ..

The rest of your reply to my post was undeserving of a response ......

Aaammm because science actually works? Maybe? Builds computers etc? No?

smokingman

DuPLeX wrote: »

"Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field."

Maybe its you who does not understand ? I DID NOT mention mates down the pub or any such scenario ....YOU DID !
I believe I drew the analogy of a group of Clergy all reading and agreeing a particular Doctrine.They are all well read Intelligent men who have a firm grasp of the subject matter in hand .They may not all have the same view point but they will work to come to a consensus which will work for them and their paymasters (the church) and then they pass this dogma on to the unquestioning public,who will accept it (more or less) the Peer review process works in the same way producing the similar Scientific dogma for similar reasons.. If the peer review process has any more validity than this then please point out how and don't resort to more childish nonsense.
And Don't bother with the "Oh it's Scientific" line I am sure other religions have their catch-all Phrases such as "It's the word of God " and such ..

The rest of your reply to my post was undeserving of a response ......

A bunch of cardinals would not however be trying to disprove any hypothesis though. "Jesus is great, move on and now how do we do the HR bit?" That's not peer review or anything like it.

DuPLeX

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Aaammm because science actually works? Maybe? Builds computers etc? No?

Ok I'm gonna be clear here . for you.. Science didn't Build computers any more than God built the Cistene chapel , People did ! ...An if you are suggesting that because we have Computers of Iphones that we should believe unquestioningly every line of dogma handed down by Science or some Guy in a lab coat . Then Congratulations! You are Religious..

DuPLeX

smokingman wrote: »

A bunch of cardinals would not however be trying to disprove any hypothesis though. "Jesus is great, move on and now how do we do the HR bit?" That's not peer review or anything like it.

You believe that a peer review process is about trying to disprove a hypothesis ? you have much faith ....
"Science is great , everyone should believe !" Now how can we make some money out of this ?

smokingman

DuPLeX wrote: »

You believe that a peer review process is about trying to disprove a hypothesis ? you have much faith ....
"Science is great , everyone should believe !" Now how can we make some money out of this ?

You really don't have any idea what peer review is, do you?

DuPLeX

smokingman wrote: »

You really don't have any idea what peer review is, do you?

Yes I do! and that is why I don't confer on it the level of infallibility that you seem to ...
But if you have some information which you feel you should share on the peer review process and what makes it so infallible and incorruptible . then feel free .
But condescending comments like "you really don't have any idea do you ?"
designed to make you feel clever (supposedly at my expense) just wont cut it with me.
so give it some thought ....

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

Yes I do!

well lets see if you do.....

and that is why I don't confer on it the level of infallibility that you seem to ...
But if you have some information which you feel you should share on the peer review process and what makes it so infallible and incorruptible . then feel free .
But condescending comments like "you don't understand do you ?"
designed to make you feel clever (supposedly at my expense) just wont cut it with me.
so give it some thought ....

Doesn't look like it.

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

well lets see if you do.....


Doesn't look like it.

So you are saying ...what exactly ... ?
absolutely nothing !
I knew that You Athiests were a Religious bunch But Just How religious is a surprise ..
But really though, Is that the best you got ?

smokingman

DuPLeX wrote: »

You believe that a peer review process is about trying to disprove a hypothesis ?

This is exactly what the purpose of peer review is. If it's disproven, it doesn't pass peer review.

DuPLeX wrote: »

Yes I do! and that is why I don't confer on it the level of infallibility that you seem to ...
But if you have some information which you feel you should share on the peer review process and what makes it so infallible and incorruptible . then feel free .
But condescending comments like "you don't understand do you ?"
designed to make you feel clever (supposedly at my expense) just wont cut it with me.
so give it some thought ....

No you don't!

Now, in fairness, there will never be anyone infallible, even engineers or scientists. I assumed you were describing the purpose of peer review which is the complete opposite of your description above.

In that, you were wrong. It's no biggie getting something wrong so don't worry too much about it. Plenty of people are wrong all across the planet right now as I type. You may have taken my comment as condescending but it was not meant like that (just stating an observation).

Why is it so wrong in your eyes to be wrong?

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

So you are saying ...what exactly ... ?
absolutely nothing !
I knew that You Athiests were a Religious bunch But Just How religious is a surprise ..
But really though, Is that the best you got ?

take a breath, re-read my post and pay attention to the highlighted parts.

The point was that you're accusing people of claiming the peer-review process is infallible and incorruptible. Where has anyone made such a claim?

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

take a breath, re-read my post and pay attention to the highlighted parts.

The point was that you're accusing people of claiming the peer-review process is infallible and incorruptible. Where has anyone made such a claim?

I actually said "you seem to" which is not an accusal and which actually invites a reply! but that is not the point . Do you have anything to say about The peer review process ?

Delirium

DuPLeX wrote: »

I actually said "you seem to" which is not an accusal and which actually invites a reply! but that is not the point . Do you have anything to say about The peer review process ?

Not a scientist, so can't really give an explanation that it deserves. From what I do know, it's a good system. It corrects and refines information as it goes, it's not stagnant.

DuPLeX

smokingman wrote: »

This is exactly what the purpose of peer review is. If it's disproven, it doesn't pass peer review.



No you don't!

Now, in fairness, there will never be anyone infallible, even engineers or scientists. I assumed you were describing the purpose of peer review which is the complete opposite of your description above.

In that, you were wrong. It's no biggie getting something wrong so don't worry too much about it. Plenty of people are wrong all across the planet right now as I type. You may have taken my comment as condescending but it was not meant like that (just stating an observation).

Why is it so wrong in your eyes to be wrong?

Just stating that I'm wrong does not make me so, can you demonstrate how I'm wrong ? How exactly ? I haven't heard an intelligent rebuttal yet.
Maybe you are wrong ?

By the way..... The existence of a God and the creation myth have not been dis proven so can we consider it Peer reviewed then ? . and obviously once something is peer reviewed then it is fact . No ?

DuPLeX

koth wrote: »

Not a scientist, so can't really give an explanation that it deserves. From what I do know, it's a good system. It corrects and refines information as it goes, it's not stagnant.

So you don't understand it fully, but you place your faith in it ..
Nothing wrong in that per se

shizz

DuPLeX wrote: »

Just stating that I'm wrong does not make me so, can you demonstrate how I'm wrong ? How exactly ? I haven't heard an intelligent rebuttal yet.
Maybe you are wrong ?

By the way..... The existence of a God and the creation myth have not been dis proven so can we consider it Peer reviewed then ? . and obviously once something is peer reviewed then it is fact . No ?

The existence of God has not been dis proven but neither has it been proven. No experiment has been put forward that is repeatable which can undergo peer review for God. The two are completely different things and the fact that you try and compare the two as the same thing proves how little you know on the subject.

celticcrash

celticcrash wrote: »

Malpaisian 1 Militant atheists 0

Sorry I stand to be corrected.

Malpaisian 1 Religious Militant atheists 0

smokingman

DuPLeX wrote: »

Just stating that I'm wrong does not make me so, can you demonstrate how I'm wrong ? How exactly ? I haven't heard an intelligent rebuttal yet.
Maybe you are wrong ?

Ok, you are wrong to describe peer review as not "about trying to disprove a hypothesis". It is.

Moving on....

DuPLeX wrote: »

By the way..... The existence of a God and the creation myth have not been dis proven so can we consider it Peer reviewed then ? . and obviously once something is peer reviewed then it is fact . No ?

Peer review usually needs some kind of evidence to work on. It doesn't usually get to peer review without that sort of thing.

I may as well claim that you live in a semi-D with someone you don't really love. No evidence to suggest that (unless you were some kind of hacker or something) but in your peer review definition, it would somehow pass?

shizz

celticcrash wrote: »

Sorry I stand to be corrected.

Malpaisian 1 Religious Militant atheists 0

Why don't you weigh in here and explain why you feel that's the scoreline instead of just stating it?

Zillah

DuPLeX wrote: »

If the peer review process has any more validity than this then please point out how and don't resort to more childish nonsense.

Ok well you show me the last time clerical peer review put a satellite in space or something of equivalent objective validity, then we'll talk.

Penn

I really wish people would look up the definitions of 'faith' and 'religious', because from what I can see, most of the discussion on this thread boils down to:

Person A: Do you think atheism is a religion?
Person B: No
Person A: WELL YOU'RE RELIGIOUS ABOUT YOUR VIEWPOINT!
Person C: YEAH, AND THEY HAVE FAITH IN SCIENCE, SO IT'S A RELIGION!
Persons B, D-Z: .....

celticcrash

shizz wrote: »

Why don't you weigh in here and explain why you feel that's the scoreline instead of just stating it?

Right now I am going out to my sungod and chillin.
I am not getting into an argument with a gang of militant bullys who threaten to ban people off threads because they dont like what they hear.

DuPLeX

smokingman wrote: »

"Ok, you are wrong to describe peer review as not "about trying to disprove a hypothesis". It is."

Moving on....



"Peer review usually needs some kind of evidence to work on. It doesn't usually get to peer review without that sort of thing."

Once again you are stating as facts,these things which you have been told .If you can demonstrate and verify these "facts" then Fine ...I'm wrong
If not then it is a matter of FAITH. you believe in Science because The Scientists told you that you can ,, sounds familiar.

El_Duderino 09

smokingman wrote: »

A bunch of cardinals would not however be trying to disprove any hypothesis though. "Jesus is great, move on and now how do we do the HR bit?" That's not peer review or anything like it.

Thanks Smokingman thats what I was thinking.

To Duplex.
Science works with hypothesis and theories. I put forward an hypothesis which has explanatory power and you use empirical evidence to falsify it or at least determine its truth value (Verisimilitude in Karl Popper's language). It can then be tested in controlled conditions to determine if it is reliable and valid.

I admit that I don't have any experience of how peer review in theology works but I imagine it would be more like the following. I put forward an hypothesis and you use other hypothesis to determine it it works or not. I have no idea how you could determine if a theological hypothesis is valid or reliable and so i cant imagine how a theological hypothesis could ever become a theory.

So from than point of view theological peer review is as powerful as the lads down the pub hypothesising that Messi is the new Maradona. If there is no way to test it, it can never be theory.

Theological peer review does not equal scientific peer review.

help help im being persecuted because im not popular after insulting everyone

Zillah

Definition of irony: Taking the ball and storming off while calling everyone else childish.

Bannasidhe

Zillah wrote: »

Definition of irony: Taking the ball and storming off while calling everyone else childish.

not realising we have our own balls to play with.