Is Atheism a religion?

sponsoredwalk

Jernal wrote: »

Another example of where burning at the stake becomes rational. We could just burn all the leaves and if the universe ends we know you were right if it doesn't then we'll have to assume the leaf transferred its atom to something else. We'll just have to burn that something else until the universe ends or there's none left to burn. In which case we move onto something else entirely different again and repeat the process ad infinitum until the universe ends.

And?

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In the context of you responding to what I actually posted then I located the only relevant part of your response. I asked how we are justified in assuming it isn't happening. I even bolded the word justified to emphasize it's importance. Your response admitted that we aren't justified in assuming that it isn't happening:

(but not infallible) method

If the peer review process was infallible then we'd be justified in assuming it isn't happening, but it's not infallible ergo we simply can't be justified in assuming it isn't. This is the important point - you can tell yourself some narrative to feel psychologically secure about this uncertainty (which is what the rest of your response is), indeed you'd have to to not go insane (I'm not saying it's a bad thing that we tell ourselves such stories), but you simply can't deny that the uncertainty is there which is ineradicable as a basic consequence of reality.

Since when does peer review have to be infallible in order for it to be justifiable to hold it as reliable? Peer review as a system is designed so as to minimize the instances of scientist publishing fraudulent or incorrect papers. Its not an infallible test, but that means we merely have to be open to the possibility of it failing, not that we have to de facto assume that any given paper is fraudulent. I already explained this before with the justice system analogy, if someone is already proven innocent, you need new evidence in order for the possibility of them being guilty to be considered again. Simple saying it is possible that juries or judges get it wrong is not new evidence.

You are justified in saying that its possible for papers to get through peer review even if they are flawed. But you are not justified in saying that we have to assume any given paper is flawed without giving evidence for the given case. It is possible that you are a murderer (you are a human, humans have committed murder in the past) but without any specific evidence, I would not be justified in assuming that you are a murderer.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

None of this is even questionable frankly. The important point that was being made, one nobody has answered for yet, is that this fundamental uncertainty requires people to indulge in faith (, Git 'em ). Scientists must have faith ( ):

For some reason saying this seems to be like saying a curse word but that's the point public enemy number one was trying to make if you actually read his/her posts. Unless the word faith is a curse word to you as well I don't see why you're not defending him/her as a basic matter of honesty & integrity.

Faith as the OP is describing it (ie religious faith) is believing in something despite the lack of evidence. However, there is no lack of evidence that peer review works and is extremely reliable. So the "faith" involved is not the same. If I jump up, I expect to fall down. You can call this "faith" in gravity if you like, buts it not even remotely the same kind of faith involved in believing that gays are evil, or that heaven is only for 144,000 people etc.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So to sum up, by analogy we can use the words of my favourite lecturer:

"Due to effects of quantum mechanics, if I run at this wall, there is a non-zero probability that I will go straight through it.
This probability however, is not high enough to justify me actually trying it."

In other words, though we'd be lunatics to seriously mistrust peer review, there is a non-zero probability that it may be incorrect and as such there is an element of faith involved & if you are actually reading public enemy number one's posts you'll see he/she was trying to get people to even answer this point (they still haven't). When the frequency of posts on a certain forum try to claim group X doesn't have any faith, that they "don't do faith" as was claimed, then what I've said above is literally a "got'cha" & there are tons of other ones we could go into. When people have problems with elementary reality such as this then I think ideology & dogma are words that become relevant to the discussion.

No-one has denied there is a possibility that peer reviewed papers could be flawed or fraudulent. The problem is in assuming there are. The most honest and critical thing you can do, recognizing the possibility of flaw or fraud in peer reviewed papers, is to be open to someone suggesting a reason why a specific peer reviewed paper may be flawed or fraudulent. It is not to assume that any peer reviewed paper is flawed or fraudulent until evidence is provided. Peer review is evidence that a paper isn't flawed or fraudulent. Without further contradictory evidence, assuming that a peer reviewed paper is flawed or fraudulent is a position of blind, religious-like, faith.

Mark Hamill

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

We just can't be sure we aren't in the matrix & you'd think any level of honest skepticism would recognize that.

And do what with it exactly?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

We can't be sure that one of the atoms on a leaf in your garden isn't responsible for absolutely everything there ever is & was. This atom may be ensuring that every scientific experiment lies to us & ensuring we'll never find any evidence of it's power. Just because no evidence points that way doesn't mean it isn't the case & as such we must have faith that we are on the right track given the evidence as it stands & have faith that we are not being deceived from the all-merciful & all-powerful wisdom of the leaf-atom.

Its not a case of "we must have faith", its a case that its irrelevant until someone can produce evidence and explanation for it, as, so far, everything we do contradicts that notion. Its all well and good saying that "X" is possible, but if your entire justification for "X" is "well you can't prove it isn't" then why should we care? I'm god, and you can't prove I'm not.

Turtwig

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

And?

I just realised the burning at the stake was referred to in a different thread.

Sarky

doctoremma wrote: »

Exactly opposite to me - I do the experiments (or rather, my students/RAs do), then I get the bioinformatics monkeys to sift the data for me.

At least, that's what I thought I was doing. But you know, humans think they have trained dolphins to jump for fish when, in reality, it's the opposite. Maybe I'm the monkey?

All I know is I'd better be damn sure my work is good, cos none of them will hesitate to point out a flaw. It's almost like I'm being... reviewed. By my peers... Madness!

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

All I know is I'd better be damn sure my work is good, cos none of them will hesitate to point out a flaw. It's almost like I'm being... reviewed. By my peers... Madness!

:cool:

sponsoredwalk

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Since when does peer review have to be infallible in order for it to be justifiable to hold it as reliable?

So in other words you concede that we have to have faith that the peer-review process has not screwed up, whether intentional or otherwise. If you go back to the person everybody ganged up on & read the quotes I think you'll see this was the question being posed & despite the back-slapping the point remains correct. At most you can justify it as being reliable but that it can be wrong, we must take it on faith that it's not wrong, no matter how psychologically comfortable we feel in knowing people did their best. That's the point. The only way to eradicate the element of faith is for an infallible peer-review, how else do you remove the inherent uncertainty? The only way out of this is I can see for you to deny that the inherent uncertainty implies an element of faith, or if you want to concede that there is an element of faith to make sure we don't employ the same interpretation of the word as the philistine religious do (we'll get to that below). Please don't post another explanation of the process or logic of peer review, if I didn't understand it before I understand it after reading your explanations.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Faith as the OP is describing it (ie religious faith) is believing in something despite the lack of evidence. However, there is no lack of evidence that peer review works and is extremely reliable. So the "faith" involved is not the same. If I jump up, I expect to fall down. You can call this "faith" in gravity if you like, buts it not even remotely the same kind of faith involved in believing that gays are evil, or that heaven is only for 144,000 people etc.

As good as it must feel to put others down in trying to justify the fact that you also indulge in such sins as the philistine out-group indulge in, the central fact remains that you indulge in faith in assuming that the people in the peer-review caught or spotted errors/flaws in the work they reviewed. Furthermore you have faith that they are not all lying to you constantly as a means to deceive you. Furthermore you have faith that when you jump up you'll land, why? You assume that the laws of physics will continue to hold in the future as they have done in the past & there is literally no way to show that they will, that is an assumption - a faith-based assumption every person is forced to make out of sheer necessity, the past has no way to tell us whether the atom on the fifth leaf will change it's mood & switch off gravity or straighten the curvature of space time or whatever really happens... How many other need we mention? I apologize for the presence of such foul & dirty words but sometimes a gentleman must breach societal norms, offend politeness & come out of the closet with such curse words when the time comes... Note that this was the point trying to be expressed over the torrent of scorn at the critical one... As to the differentiation between interpretations of the word faith, more than five (synonymous) definitions have been posted:

Penn wrote: »

But you're using multiple definitions of the word 'faith'.

faith
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Take your pick, lets find out, if you don't see it already, how the definition applies to our circumstances.

Galvasean

Everything in this thread should be deleted bar the thread title and the 1st reply.
Then it should be made a sticky.

ShooterSF

So in sponsoredwalk's way of thinking even believing we exist is a religion as it relies on an assumption, I mean "faith". Ok then can we have a new word for people who claim knowledge (not assumptions, not even best guesses) of things they can't know, can't test and can't show us? Just so we can go back to distinguishing the clear difference.

Jesus Nut

Yes.

Athiests say believing in god is dogmatic but the same is true for the opposite. Believing not in god is just as dogmatic as the other!

Galvasean

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Yes.

Athiests say believing in god is dogmatic but the same is true for the opposite. Believing not in god is just as dogmatic as the other!

Oh look another person who doesn't quite grasp what religion is.
One born every minute...

Jesus Nut

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh look another person who doesn't quite grasp what religion is.
One born every minute...

You havent a clue what your talking about

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

You havent a clue what your talking about

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Gbear

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh look another person who doesn't quite grasp what religion is.
One born every minute...

You wouldn't mind if before they posted they actually read and understood the bloody thread.

You'd swear that "atheism is just another religion" is some sort of novel argument that hasn't been regurgitated and demolished a million billion times already on this thread alone, never mind this forum and never mind the entire internet.

Turtwig

Jesus Nut wrote: »

You havent a clue what your talking about

So answer me this then, what exactly is he talking about?

Jesus Nut

What am I talking about?

endacl

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Yes.

Athiests say believing in god is dogmatic but the same is true for the opposite. Believing not in god is just as dogmatic as the other!

What do automatic dogs have to do with anything?

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

What am I talking about?

Are those my feet?

Turtwig

Jesus Nut wrote: »

What am I talking about?

How the frack are we supposed to know? I may be telekinetic, but I'm not psychic. Sorry.

Sonics2k

Jesus Nut wrote: »

What am I talking about?

Some gibberish that made no sense, backed up purely by a lack of effort to read the thread and possibly a lack of education and/or common sense.

People should really think before they try claiming that Atheism is a religion. Because it's bloody well not.

There is no arguing this, no debate, and no discussion. It quite simply cannot be a religion.

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

Are those my feet?

Who are you!!?:D

Turtwig

Sonics2k wrote: »

There is no arguing this, no debate, and no discussion. It quite simply cannot be a religion.

That sounds a tad dogmatic.:pac::pac:

*Flees thread*

Jesus Nut

Most Irish people are to stupid to learn about religion and god.
I blame the education system really.
Too many think god is a man in a cloud.
God in catholic terms is simply truth and love. He is not an actual being. People need to get into there head that the storys and teachings are not to be taken literal!
Basic example that is often confused...
The story about mary getting preggers from the holy spirit is really just a way to explain the magic that happens when a sperm and a egg join... Its the holy spirt doing it (In symbolic nature)
The whole bible goes on and on and on..Its all symbolic in nature.
God is just truth and love. Athiests think god is a man in a cloud so dont believe in truth and love and get all vexed when they cant understand the teachings of god which is really just what man has learnt over the eons put into one book!

ShooterSF

Jernal wrote: »

That sounds a tad dogmatic.:pac::pac:

*Flees thread*

You're getting mileage out of that gif!

Turtwig

Well here's one thing I can confidently deduce : Jesus Nut is not a Catholic.:)

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

You're getting mileage out of that gif!

Aye and I've it bookmarked for future reference to make it far easier to find. :cool:

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Most Irish people are to stupid to learn about religion and god.
I blame the education system really.
Too many think god is a man in a cloud.
God in catholic terms is simply truth and love. He is not an actual being. People need to get into there head that the storys and teachings are not to be taken literal!
Basic example that is often confused...
The story about mary getting preggers from the holy spirit is really just a way to explain the magic that happens when a sperm and a egg join... Its the holy spirt doing it (In symbolic nature)
The whole bible goes on and on and on..Its all symbolic in nature.
God is just truth and love. Athiests think god is a man in a cloud so dont believe in truth and love and get all vexed when they cant understand the teachings of god which is really just what man has learnt over the eons put into one book!

So you're saying there is no god? The bible is just a bunch of stories? Welcome to the club loose affiliation.

Sarky

I sincerely doubt the pope would agree with that view of catholicism.

Where did you learn these amazing truths, Jesus nut?

Sonics2k

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Athiests think god is a man in a cloud so dont believe in truth and love and get all vexed when they cant understand the teachings of god which is really just what man has learnt over the eons put into one book!

No, Atheists think God/Allah/Odin/Kali/etc is a fictitious character, much like Saruman or Homer Simpson is a fictional character.

Oh, and everything else you said is just so wrong it's insane. You're a terrible Christian

Sarky

Come on now.

Saruman is far more badass than god.

ShooterSF

Sonics2k wrote: »

No, Atheists think God/Allah/Odin/Kali/etc is a fictitious character, much like Saruman or Homer Simpson is a fictional character.

Oh, and everything else you said is just so wrong it's insane. You're a terrible Christian

No he's a good Atheist.

Jesus Nut

I am a Catholic! As a matter of fact.
I just understand my religion!

God = Truth and Love
Heaven = Eternal rest..ie, you go into a peacefull dreamless sleep state for the rest of time and take the same form as your freinds and family and everyone else gone before you as you decay etc. Athiests have the same view but from the wrong point.

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

No he's a good Atheist.

Better a Christian be a terrible Christian than a good atheist. The outlook isn't good for the latter.:(

Sarky

With ideas like that you're about as catholic as Tom Cruise.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

With ideas like that you're about as catholic as Tom Cruise.

Thank you good Sir. I shall be using that delicious simile again in future. Hope you don't mind.

Sonics2k

Jesus Nut wrote: »

I am a Catholic! As a matter of fact.
I just understand my religion!

God = Truth and Love
Heaven = Eternal rest..ie, you go into a peacefull dreamless sleep state for the rest of time and take the same form as your freinds and family and everyone else gone before you as you decay etc. Athiests have the same view but from the wrong point.

You should possibly y'know, learn something about Catholicism, because you are -way- off the mark here buddy.

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

I am a Catholic! As a matter of fact.
I just understand my religion!

God = Truth and Love
Heaven = Eternal rest..ie, you go into a peacefull dreamless sleep state for the rest of time and take the same form as your freinds and family and everyone else gone before you as you decay etc. Athiests have the same view but from the wrong point.

Erm just on the whole God == Truth and love thing. Point 1 - God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge for they would surely die. They ate from it, they did not die. God == Liar.
Point 2, God himself declared himself a jealous god. So at best we can say God == Truth and Lies, Love and Jealousy and genocide and all the other stuff in the bible.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Thank you good Sir. I shall be using that delicious simile again in future. Hope you don't mind.

Well, ok, but don't overuse it, in case it becomes dogma.

Jesus Nut

Another good one to do with the United Nations...
Go to 6.34 to see a popes best freind TEACH an example of how the whole jesus story is just symbolic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNtkigfOGS4

endacl

Sonics2k wrote: »

Jesus Nut wrote: »

What am I talking about?

Some gibberish that made no sense, backed up purely by a lack of effort to read the thread and possibly a lack of education and/or common sense.

People should really think before they try claiming that Atheism is a religion. Because it's bloody well not.

There is no arguing this, no debate, and no discussion. It quite simply cannot be a religion.

Fully agree.
And yet we're over 420 posts into a thread that had its question answered almost immediately be a 'no'. Question might as well be 'I understand the world in terms of religion, because I find it comforting to do so. Why don't you? You're making me uncomfortable. Stop making me uncomfortable. It's not nice to make people feel uncomfortable.'

I don't particularly actively identify as atheist. Don't really think about it much at all. Kind of non-practising, if you like. I do find these threads funny though. In a way, I'm glad they stay open. Late night comedy.

If anybody's interested in divilment, try 'atheism is an ice cream, discuss!

Or the oft-debated 'atheism is a small semi-feral marsupial, discuss!

I hope, like the op's, these topics are given at least 400 posts. Each. Yes, each, I tells ya!

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Well, ok, but don't overuse it, in case it becomes dogma.

With all the mentions of the word 'dogma' on this thread I've almost forgotten the meaning of the word.:o

endacl

Jernal wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

Well, ok, but don't overuse it, in case it becomes dogma.

With all the mentions of the word 'dogma' on this thread I've almost forgotten the meaning of the word.:o

It means 'funny movie with a poop monster'.

Jesus Nut

ShooterSF wrote: »

Erm just on the whole God == Truth and love thing. Point 1 - God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge for they would surely die. They ate from it, they did not die. God == Liar.
Point 2, God himself declared himself a jealous god. So at best we can say God == Truth and Lies, Love and Jealousy and genocide and all the other stuff in the bible.

Ok, now your confused. Again, you have a kinda notion that god is a man at the controls of some sort. Well, that is not what we believe BUT! It is a way to try to explain the concept to children.
God is just our way of expressing good, truth, love etc etc.
When we die, we die. Thats it lads. Heaven is a spiritual way of explaining what been dead is going to be like. ie, dreamless sleep state FOR EVER...

Its all symbolic, why cant people get that in their heads.
The story of adam and eve isnt literal for christ sake! Its a symbolic explanation for how the human race came to be so to speak and the naughty nature that is in us all..Religion is sort of a law to guide us all to good lives. We need this law to be free.

Sonics2k

You're an absolutely awful Catholic, I do hope you know this.

Jesus Nut

Sonics2k wrote: »

You're an absolutely awful Catholic, I do hope you know this.

WHY? Its you who are confused mate I think. Fulton sheen was the best catholic teacher

endacl

Jesus Nut wrote: »

ShooterSF wrote: »

Erm just on the whole God == Truth and love thing. Point 1 - God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of knowledge for they would surely die. They ate from it, they did not die. God == Liar.
Point 2, God himself declared himself a jealous god. So at best we can say God == Truth and Lies, Love and Jealousy and genocide and all the other stuff in the bible.

Ok, now your confused. Again, you have a kinda notion that god is a man at the controls of some sort. Well, that is not what we believe BUT! It is a way to try to explain the concept to children.
God is just our way of expressing good, truth, love etc etc.
When we die, we die. Thats it lads. Heaven is a spiritual way of explaining what been dead is going to be like. ie, dreamless sleep state FOR EVER...

Its all symbolic, why cant people get that in their heads.
The story of adam and eve isnt literal for christ sake! Its a symbolic explanation for how the human race came to be so to speak and the naughty nature that is in us all..Religion is sort of a law to guide us all to good lives. We need this law to be free.

Free from what? Literally or figuratively. Your choice.

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Another good one to do with the United Nations...
Go to 6.34 to see a popes best freind TEACH an example of how the whole jesus story is just symbolic...

Jesus wasn't even born by the time they got to the inn. So that's just silly. But ok for ****s and giggles prey tell me what the symbolic thingy is for this story:

"While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses."

or this one

"Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

And so help me if you mention the C word.

ShooterSF

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Ok, now your confused.

Enlighten me. The symbolic meaning of the stories above if you please? I have loads more I need to understand too! And for the third time "you're". Bible obviously doesn't teach us great grammar.

Edit as I think it fits best here. When you finally get round to explaining these stories would you mind telling my the symbolism involved in the Adam and Eve myth when god told them not to eat of the tree of "knowledge"? Does it teach kids not to try and become learned? You did say it was just stories to tell children correct?

Sonics2k

Jesus Nut wrote: »

WHY? Its you who are confused mate I think. Fulton sheen was the best catholic teacher

Important question, if you'd be so kinda as to answer it.

When taking the communion at Mass. Do you think it is only the symbolic flesh and blood of Jesus, or the real thing?

ShooterSF

Must be a pretty good explanation coming...