Is Atheism a religion?

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

:eek:

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

you've got blue balls?

El_Duderino 09

[/QUOTE]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 ?[/QUOTE]

In all fairness this right here weakens your claim to know about scientific peer review (which is nothing to be ashamed of). The claim has to be falsifiable. The more observations that could falsify a theory, the stronger a theory is so long as it continues to stand up to those tests without being successfully falsified.

The creation claims are not strong on that point as they are unfalsifiable and so are not theories.

VinLieger

DuPLeX wrote: »

Science gave me this thing and it works ..... WOW
Is there any Hope for Humanity?

And...? your whole argument has been people simply believe whatever scientists say without any proof and apparently that = religion.
Pretty sure the computer your sitting at right now is proof that science is more than just people believing whatever scientists tell them without proof. Or doesn the computer your using run on magic pixie dust?

Sarky

DuPLeX wrote: »

Science gave me this thing and it works ..... WOW

Yes. That's kind of the point.

Is there any Hope for Humanity?

If science keeps giving us things that work, I'd say yes. Faith didn't wipe out smallpox or discover treatments for cancer and AIDS or develop new sources of energy or alter livestock and crops to provide more food.

You're not really getting your point across very well. Perhaps it's not a very valid point?

Zillah

DuPLeX wrote: »

Science gave me this thing and it works ..... WOW
Is there any Hope for Humanity?

Why do you use inappropriate capitalisation?

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

you've got blue balls?

Well, I'm not just a militant religious atheist secularist lefty pinko you know - I am also a man hating lesbo who obviously castrates every member of the male gender I encounter and makes play things out of their precious jewels.
:cool:

All the balls in Cork are blue today for the sun has gone away.

DuPLeX

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I accept Most of the above is (Erudite vernacular utilized irrespective
of necessity notwithstanding) how Science and the peer review process is supposed to be and no doubt is in most instances . However Everything is then taken on faith by the people who defer to these Experts.. At no time did I say that Clerical peer review = Scientific Peer review . What I did do was try point out that they are similar in so far as they are both carried out by an insider group who then make pronouncements which are then taken as fact by the followers . and this credibility is what gives a Priesthood its power. Scientific Priesthoods Included.

At no time did I compare it to Lads in the pub

DuPLeX

Zillah wrote: »

Why do you use inappropriate capitalisation?

BeCAUse I LIke It .

DuPLeX

Sarky wrote: »

Yes. That's kind of the point.



If science keeps giving us things that work, I'd say yes. Faith didn't wipe out smallpox or discover treatments for cancer and AIDS or develop new sources of energy or alter livestock and crops to provide more food.

You're not really getting your point across very well. Perhaps it's not a very valid point?

If you believe in the Climate Change "science" then scientific development is going to destroy the planet. So may be we should stop using science or maybe more science is the answer . who knows .
Let science decide......

Ok bye now

Turtwig

I'm just going to be concise again.

Science is the exploration of the vast realms of human ignorance and the refusal to ever accept that which humans claim to know as true.

Bannasidhe

DuPLeX wrote: »

I accept Most of the above is (Erudite vernacular utilized irrespective
of necessity notwithstanding) how Science and the peer review process is supposed to be and no doubt is in most instances . However Everything is then taken on faith by the people who defer to these Experts.. At no time did I say that Clerical peer review = Scientific Peer review . What I did do was try point out that they are similar in so far as they are both carried out by an insider group who then make pronouncements which are then taken as fact by the followers . and this credibility is what gives a Priesthood its power. Scientific Priesthoods Included.

At no time did I compare it to Lads in the pub

However- scientific experiments are verifiable and can be replicated.

TBH - one could make this tenuous 'faith' argument about motor mechanics as well - a great many people have no idea how a car works, they rely on those who do know. Is trusting/having 'faith' in a mechanic's ability also 'religious'?

I also think it is disingenuous to describe all scientists as being members of the same 'group' - most of the scientists I know just love to try and prove their 'colleagues' are wrong.

I am a historian - my work is peer reviewed by other historians as I review theirs- so by your logic we should all get a free pass as we are all members of the same insider group.
I can assure you - I do not receive, nor do I hand out 'free passes'.

Sarky

DuPLeX wrote: »

I accept Most of the above is (Erudite vernacular utilized irrespective
of necessity notwithstanding) how Science and the peer review process is supposed to be and no doubt is in most instances . However Everything is then taken on faith by the people who defer to these Experts.. At no time did I say that Clerical peer review = Scientific Peer review . What I did do was try point out that they are similar in so far as they are both carried out by an insider group who then make pronouncements which are then taken as fact by the followers . and this credibility is what gives a Priesthood its power. Scientific Priesthoods Included.

At no time did I compare it to Lads in the pub

You're still wrong though. Nothing is taken as fact in science. In fact, the "followers", as you like to label them do everything they can to disprove such pronouncements. "Accepted theory" is just a nice way of saying "Something we haven't managed to tear apart yet". Religious peer review is only interested in proving god. Scientific peer review is only interested in disproving everything. Anything that fails to be debunked is accepted, but only until someone manages to debunk it. You may as well say that making love to your girlfriend and raping them are similar in so far as they both involve people with their squishy bits out.

You're ignoring the mountain of supporting evidence a scientist needs to supply for his work to pass muster. Everything must be checked. His methods, his hypotheses, his results, his calculations, his conclusions. Any mistake or omission must be accounted for. If it ends up disproving something long regarded as fact or accurate, then they go back and examine that just as rigorously. Nothing is dogmatic, everything is fair game.

And don't try to suggest someone is pretentious for using big words. If you think "hypotheses" and "Empirical evidence" are mouthfuls, then the problem is with you.

Sarky

DuPLeX wrote: »

If you believe in the Climate Change "science" then scientific development is going to destroy the planet. So may be we should stop using science or maybe more science is the answer . who knows .
Let science decide......

Ok bye now

What the balls are you talking about?

VinLieger

Sarky wrote: »

What the balls are you talking about?

I think hes proven he doesnt have a clue and is just throwing words together to make an argument that he thinks makes sense

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

DuPLeX wrote: »

If you believe in the Climate Change "science" then scientific development is going to destroy the planet. So may be we should stop using science or maybe more science is the answer . who knows .
Let science decide......

Ok bye now

What the balls are you talking about?

The trouble with predicting the changing climate of a woman's emotions as she goes through her own unique cycle?

joseph brand

DuPLeX wrote: »

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.

Yawwwwwnnn.
You obviously have a lot of faith in that pc/ laptop/ whatever technological marvel you're using to talk rubbish. Never mind the faith you have in the world wide intertubes.

doctoremma

I have reviewed many papers for a variety of biology/genetics journals.

I don't want to recommend anyone's work for publication. Why would I? By definition, as a "peer", I am usually linked by some interest to what they have shown and I just love finding fault in what they have done. Invariably, the first thing that goes through my head when I receive a manuscript is "Oh f*ck, why didn't I think of that?".

Also, I have never been offered a sweetener at any point. Obviously, the journals I review for are run by editorial boards who, bizarrely, seek to attract decent research by which to boost their own importance. It's almost like having an obvious fraud, or a sleazy backhander, might...I dunno....detract from the journal's reputation.

If anyone is interested in scientific fraud (either intentional or not), take a look at RetractionWatch. A notable example I recall involved an academic's own staff member reporting the rest of the team for fraudulent data in several papers. If you can't even trust your own staff.....

I have also personally been involved in a case against a student, whom I reported for misrepresentation of data. So, furthermore, you can't even trust your own boss.....

Mark Hamill

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 ......

The peer review works nothing like that. Science doesn't work by consensus, it works by evidence. It doesn't matter how many scientists come to a consensus if there isn't evidence to support it. And its not done for any single paymaster, there is no single authority over or in all of science.

When you put something forward for peer review, a number of scientists in the relevant field attempt to find any and all mistakes you have made in you paper, be they typos, maths errors or unjustified conclusions. They are not trying to help you when they are doing this, its not a discussion between you and the reviewer. They don't even need to know you, it can be done anonymously. It is an attack on your work, and it has to be in order for scientific progression to be achieved.

You see, unlike religion, which merely makes declarations and people are expected to follow them (but never question or expand upon them), in science, peer reviewed results and discoveries are expected to be used or expanded upon by others. Every industrially produced chemical or biological agent or piece of physics equipment exists because of peer reviewed material. Somebody publishes an efficient way to synthesize something (maybe a polymer or a drug), or a useful application for some physical principle (a novel use for lasers or radiation) and these are brought into industry because they are useful. The only way that this can happen is if the original peer reviewed material has been sufficiently critically analyzed. If someone faked a result, or didn't examine it enough to truly justify its application, then it could not be industrially applied. If peer review isn't consistent then current industrial applications would not be nearly as efficient as they are, and so buy-able chemicals and equipment would not be as efficient and so results based on using them would be nowhere near as reliable. The entire system would collapse upon itself. And I don mean science would collapse - everything would collapse. You could never make complex electronic equipment or tools, everything from mobile phones to MRI machines would be impossible as the science required to make them work wouldn't be there. You wouldn't even be able to make them as the processes for forming the polymers they are made of wouldn't be industrially available.

Galvasean

spannerotoole wrote: »

You clearly don't see the definition of the word faith. 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. 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.

Personally I read the bible, and I understand what it says, I have read other religious texts, and even atheist texts and for me the bible is what makes sense.

If you don't agree with me, that is your business and I am not one to judge, because that is not my place to do that, only God can judge, and I am not God. I am an imperfect man like everyone else on the earth.

May God bless you all.

Wow, that was one hell of a post. Pity none of it related to what I said to him...

El_Duderino 09

DuPLeX wrote: »

I accept Most of the above is (Erudite vernacular utilized irrespective
of necessity notwithstanding) how Science and the peer review process is supposed to be and no doubt is in most instances . However Everything is then taken on faith by the people who defer to these Experts.. At no time did I say that Clerical peer review = Scientific Peer review . What I did do was try point out that they are similar in so far as they are both carried out by an insider group who then make pronouncements which are then taken as fact by the followers . and this credibility is what gives a Priesthood its power. Scientific Priesthoods Included.

At no time did I compare it to Lads in the pub

Fair one. Just trying to be clear in what I mean and I didn't mean to change the context of what you were saying.

2 points to clarify here.

When you say the priests and scientists are both insider groups, I dont really know how far you mean this analogy to go. The priests peers will probably be from the same religion. In science the hypothesis will be open to anyone to falsify. It is kind of an insider group but again the difference is hugely important. In all fairness the analogy works in one a one liner context but not much further than that.

I think we might have hit on a great point here. When those priests decide what is and what is not, it is there for the followers to believe as fact. In science theories are not held as fact in the same way. I don't believe in theories, only that they are our best understanding so far. It might sound absurd, but I do not believe in the theory of gravity in the same sense that a catholic might believe in transubstantiation.

On the point of credibility I cant see any reason to compare the credibility of priests and scientists based on the differences I have highlighted.

I appreciate the joke you made in that you were comparing the expertise of priests and scientists by applying the tern 'priests' to scientists. I hope my explanations have cleared up why the analogy doesn't work beyond the 'one liner' context.

DuPLeX

Sarky wrote: »

You're still wrong though. Nothing is taken as fact in science. In fact, the "followers", as you like to label them do everything they can to disprove such pronouncements.

It seems like you are a follower and not a science priest , I haven't seen you do anything to disprove anything you are merely defending dogma .

And don't try to suggest someone is pretentious for using big words. If you think "hypotheses" and "Empirical evidence" are mouthfuls, then the problem is with you.

I wasn't suggesting pretension, I was Highlighting a technique often used on these boards of increasing the complexity of the vocabulary so as to give the impression of intelligence thereby giving some weight to a (Non) argument I will admit to some sarcasm in doing so .. I was not referring to the use of "hypotheses" and "Empirical evidence" . I wont bother to post any more on this subject unless I see an interesting well thought out point which merits a reply ..

Turtwig

DuPLeX wrote: »

Sarky wrote: »

You're still wrong though. Nothing is taken as fact in science. In fact, the "followers", as you like to label them do everything they can to disprove such pronouncements.

It seems like you are a follower and not a science priest , I haven't seen you do anything to disprove anything you are merely defending dogma .

Last time I checked Sarky was a priest of the dogma some choose to call microbiology.

smokingman

DuPLeX wrote: »

IWhat I did do was try point out that they are similar in so far as they are both carried out by an insider group who then make pronouncements which are then taken as fact by the followers . and this credibility is what gives a Priesthood its power. Scientific Priesthoods Included.

At no time did I compare it to Lads in the pub

Insider group? Oh dear....

Like Doctor Emma, I also do peer reviews albeit on open source software and probably not in as cut-throat a manner as Emmas esteemed colleagues (us open source nerds are probably a much nicer gang of people; don't trust those doctors....they'll cut ya! )

However, the process of reviewing some piece of software before adding it into the final public product is just as rigorous. If someone says to me that they have coded an apache module (apache being the name of a particular web server that is sending you this page right now) that cross references your IP location with political maps of the country in order to serve you a forum on boards that is tailored to your personal philosophy...I'd be picking holes in it like crazy. I'd be doing this 'cause I think that'd be cool and I'd like to see it working as opposed to any personal glory. It wouldn't pass though if it couldn't be shown to work (and work without performance degradation but that's another thing).

If you like the idea of religious scientists so much, I would recommend you read A Canticle for Leibowitz but also note how long it takes for "religious scientists" to create their first steam engine...<hint...it takes a while>.

Turtwig

Hmm wolfy,

I see(n) ya.

coffee_cake

Jernal wrote: »

Hmm wolfy,

I see(n) you.

I don't know what you're talking about. I am a lovely friendly individual.

Dades

DuPLeX wrote: »

I love winding up religious Zealots ....

Consider this your first, and last, troll warning.

Turtwig

bluewolf wrote: »

Jernal wrote: »

Hmm wolfy,

I see(n) you.

I don't know what you're talking about. I am a lovely friendly individual.

I never said anything different. (Well, I may have but I probably deleted it.)

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

Hmm wolfy,

I see(n) ya.

She said what we was all thinking.






or did she...

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jernal wrote: »

Hmm wolfy,

I see(n) ya.

She said what we was all thinking

But then she thought better of us.