Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is Atheism a religion?

Options
1…78101213…28

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #273
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #274
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #275
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #276
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.
    flatlining1.jpg


  • Options
    #278
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #279
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #280
    Calibos
    Registered Users Posts: 7,806 ✭✭✭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. :D
    Peer Review it and weep, Mothafcukaa's!!


  • Options
    #281
    Malpaisian
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #283
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #284
    Malpaisian
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #285
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #286
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #287
    Brinimartini
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭Brinimartini


    atheism is the opposite of religion


  • Options
    #288
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #289
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #290
    DuPLeX
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 250 ✭✭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 .,


  • Options
    #291
    DuPLeX
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 250 ✭✭DuPLeX


    Brinimartini wrote: »
    atheism is the opposite of religion
    Athiesm is a religion for people who don't like religion .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


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

    It's not religion. Deal with it.


  • Options
    #293
    Opticom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 362 ✭✭Opticom


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


  • Options
    #294
    18AD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭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]


  • Options
    #295
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #296
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #297
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #298
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #299
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #300
    Malpaisian
    Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Malpaisian wrote: »
    Malpaisian (an agnostic who dislikes religions)

    and yet exhibits all the characteristics he dislikes of religion


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement