Is Atheism a religion?

Doctor DooM

Malpaisian wrote: »

That is sooooooo clever! Well done you!

It's not clever, it's the standard response given whenever anyone comes up with the tired an incorrect premise of this thread.

Look, Bison riding a Bison:

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

Well, many of you seem to "believe" that Creationists etc are mad,sad or bad or all three.

And many atheists have no opinion whatsoever about creationists. What was your point again?

Malpaisian wrote: »

Many of you seem to have a similar faith in science to a creationists faith in God. I presume you personally believe that when you die you will cease to exist in any form that's alive or sentient. Many atheists share a belief in the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. Many believe that they are RIGHT and that what they believe is the only logical thing to believe.

Indeed, and many atheists don't have an opinion either way. Are those atheists part of the *religion* too?

Malpaisian wrote: »

Many of you seem to have a similar faith in science to a creationists faith in God.

Really? Is science based on a collection of old books written millennia ago by people in the middle east?

You should remind your doctor of this next time you request an antibiotic.

coffee_cake

Malpaisian wrote: »

Your first scientific mistake was to assume that I am, in any way, religious or that I believe in the existance of a God.

Religious people do try to use the argument from time to time. The last time I heard it was "I have faith the traffic lights won't change when I drive through a crossroads"

How's that for a mistake?

Malpaisian

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It's not clever, it's the standard response given whenever anyone comes up with the tired an incorrect premise of this thread.

Look, Bison riding a Bison:

Hey, fundamentalist Christians like standard responses to!

Malpaisian

Fortyniner wrote: »

Here's a contribution from the OP in August last year:

'I have no interest in religion or religious forums. I've given far more evidence than you've given to the contrary. You are still doing your cowardly little drive-by postings without actually saying anything yourself.

Why don't you have the guts to do the following things for me:

1) Tell me exactly what you think about the BBC (and the mainstream news-media in general), It's real purpose and the veracity or otherwise of its reportage.

I have already asked you to do this, but you seem unwilling for some reason.

2)Define what you mean by "evidence"

3)Define what you mean by "opinion"

4)Make an effort to actually engage, in detail ,with the points I've made and the examples I've given to back them up.

5) Tell me exactly what you find amusing and why. (pathetic little comments like: "Amusing, for a number of reasons"
are a poor replacement for real arguments)

6) Tell me what is your interest in this conversation. Do you work for the media? Have you some agenda?

If you cannot do these simple things, then you are either incapable and/or cowardly.'

source: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74116162

I think this thread should be closed..

You are obviously only in favour of people being allowed to express beliefs and opinions of which you (and your fellow groupthinkers) approve and which you deem to be legitamte. You are no differet to any Christian or Muslim fundamentalist in that regard.

I fail to see why you have chosen to drag up an old, completely unrelated post of mine and place it, completely out of it's original context, in a completely different thread about a completely different subject.

In that post I was trying to get people who could do little more than engage in sneering ad hominems to actually engage with the points I was making. These people, as all groupthinkers do, also routinely dismissed everything that I was saying by saying I had no "evidence" and that I was expressing "opinion".

Well, I think it is very fair (indeed "logical and scientific") to ask them to define what they mean by "evidence" and "opinion" and to lay out what it is that they believe so that their beliefs can be judged by their own standards and definitions.

So what exactly is your problem and who are you to try and silenece me, the Ayatollah?

Sarky

I kinda miss dead one

coffee_cake

Sarky wrote: »

I kinda miss dead one

he's happily trotting off following dades around

im expecting him to start following me again to call me a witch

Malpaisian

koth wrote: »

it was an attempt at a joke, which obviously didn't land.

Your post that I quoted taken in isolation could have been read to say, "I don't exist" because the phrasing was so similar to the saying, "I think, therefore I am".

As to the rest of your posts, I don't see how not believing in any deities means someone is a member of a religion.

I like you. I can tell you are not a fundamentalist like some of the others.

coffee_cake

Malpaisian wrote: »

In that post I was trying to get people who could do little more than engage in sneering ad hominems to actually engage with the points I was making.

Malpaisian wrote: »

I like you. I can tell you are not a fundamentalist like some of the others.

lol

Malpaisian

Dades wrote: »

And many atheists have no opinion whatsoever about creationists. What was your point again?

My point is that many do. Not just opinions but opinons based on beliefs.

Indeed, and many atheists don't have an opinion either way. Are those atheists part of the *religion* too?

Perhaps not. But if they hold other beliefs they may,shock horror, be subscribers to a belief system.

Really? Is science based on a collection of old books written millennia ago by people in the middle east?

Well there are some old books involved allright. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is one which springs to mind. I suppose that one's not that old though. Still, just because something is new it does not mean it's improved, eh.

No, this is the way I'd put it. A belief in science, for the vast, vast majority of people on earth, is an act of faith. It has to be!

Malpaisian

HUNK wrote: »

Its kind of ironic to see some religious people use the term 'religion' as an insult.

Which "religious" are you refering to? Me?

Zombrex

Malpaisian wrote: »

No, this is the way I'd put it. A belief in science, for the vast, vast majority of people on earth, is an act of faith. It has to be!

What does a belief in science entail?

ShooterSF

If both faith in religion and trust based on a prior constant effort to refine itself that we can see in science are the same things then tell me this; When you are ill will you seek a doctor or faith healer? You have no personal evidence that one can help you more than the other. Or deep down do you realise the difference between trusting people who have shown a desire for the truth over those with a desire to protect their dogma?

Malpaisian

ShooterSF wrote: »

If both faith in religion and trust based on a prior constant effort to refine itself that we can see in science are the same things then tell me this; When you are ill will you seek a doctor or faith healer? You have no personal evidence that one can help you more than the other. Or deep down do you realise the difference between trusting people who have shown a desire for the truth over those with a desire to protect their dogma?

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

lol

WTF

Ghost Buster

HUNK wrote: »

Its kind of ironic to see some religious people use the term 'religion' as an insult.

Perhaps deep deep deep down they realise........

Malpaisian

bluewolf wrote: »

Religious people do try to use the argument from time to time. The last time I heard it was "I have faith the traffic lights won't change when I drive through a crossroads"

How's that for a mistake?

It's a mistake to think that any one group has ownership over an idea. It's a mistake to assume. If you become to used to assuming it can be bad for your health. This has been scientifically proven and if science says it, then it must be true. IMHO.

coffee_cake

Malpaisian wrote: »

It's a mistake to think that any one group has ownership over an idea. It's a mistake to assume.

Yes it is, so maybe you should stop doing the latter

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Of course it isn't - and no one is saying it is. Yes, scientists make mistakes. Who said they don't?
You are constructing a premise and trying to claim it fits all atheists based on no evidence.

It would be a very foolish person who claimed that just because a scientist said something - that makes it so. The correct response is - show us your evidence. Let us tear into this evidence and see if it stands up to analysis. Let us replicate your experiments etc etc etc.

Sometimes a scientist's work 'fails' the tests - sometimes it passes.

Malpaisian

joseph brand wrote: »

If they believe in Noah's Ark, then anything is possible.

All of this "US and Them" stuff! It sounds so sectarian!

I hope you are not suggesting that I believe in Noah's Ark.

I believe in shape-shifting lizards. Only kidding, I dont really!

ShooterSF

Malpaisian wrote: »

If your trust is in the constant effort of others and their conclusions,in a context of not having verified their processes and conclusions yourself, then you are relying on faith. I see your point though.

It's not faith though. It's trust. Trust built on the fact that science has given me a better chance to live into my 80's than I would have had 200 years ago and the underlying principle of trust is that you have to at least assume some people are out to help you in this world or you will perish, alone and fast. Who you trust and on what basis (faith or evidence of general good works) is the issue.

But tell me this. Just because you know that doctors (with the aid of science) can cure people or save their lives, does that make all science trustworthy. Is science completely free from agenda, corruption and manipulation. Religion has used lies,dogma and fear to mould people's perceptions and control them for thousands of years.Is it possible that science could be used in a similar way?

Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review. Science has no great leader, no one with a final say or a definitive answer. Again people should be taught to think critically but again without some trust and some assumptions based on good reason you will freeze up and die pretty quickly. Religion on the other hand is all about power and holding onto it and faith is usually all about fear of death when it comes down to it.

I have to run out the door so maybe someone else will correct this quote or attribute it to it's correct owner "Trust those that seek the truth, doubt those that claim to know it".

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's not faith though. It's trust. Trust built on the fact that science has given me a better chance to live into my 80's than I would have had 200 years ago and the underlying principle of trust is that you have to at least assume some people are out to help you in this world or you will perish, alone and fast. Who you trust and on what basis (faith or evidence of general good works) is the issue.



Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review. Science has no great leader, no one with a final say or a definitive answer. Again people should be taught to think critically but again without some trust and some assumptions based on good reason you will freeze up and die pretty quickly. Religion on the other hand is all about power and holding onto it and faith is usually all about fear of death when it comes down to it.

I have to run out the door so maybe someone else will correct this quote or attribute it to it's correct owner "Trust those that seek the truth, doubt those that claim to know it".

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.

Andre Gide
French critic, essayist, & novelist (1869 - 1951)

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Of course it isn't - and no one is saying it is. Yes, scientists make mistakes. Who said they don't?
You are constructing a premise and trying to claim it fits all atheists based on no evidence.

Im a bit of a stickler about the "E" word. Would you mind defining what you mean by "evidence".

It would be a very foolish person who claimed that just because a scientist said something - that makes it so. The correct response is - show us your evidence. Let us tear into this evidence and see if it stands up to analysis. Let us replicate your experiments etc etc etc.

People are ever increasingly encouraged to be this foolish all the theme.

Sometimes a scientist's work 'fails' the tests - sometimes it passes.

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

Sonics2k

From the looks of it, I believe you may be more at home here

Malpaisian

ShooterSF wrote: »

Science is not free from these issues but thankfully it acknowledges such and it's why it puts so much emphasis on peer review.

Perhaps the whole peer review thing has been corrupted over time. Maybe the peers doing the reviewing are bought and paid for?

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

So we are told. Perhaps real scientific discoveries get buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore.

TBH - it seems to me you are getting into conspiracy theory.

Malpaisian

Sonics2k wrote: »

From the looks of it, I believe you may be more at home here

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

Why do you feel the need to pigeon-hole people? Does that make the world less threatening for you?

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

TBH - it seems to me you are getting into conspiracy theory.

TBH. It seems to me that you are getting in to defensive pigeon-holing.

Delirium

Malpaisian wrote: »

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

You realise you've just done the exact same thing that you are criticising Sonic for doing.

Bannasidhe

Malpaisian wrote: »

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

Why do you feel the need to pigeon-hole people? Does that make the world less threatening for you?

Seriously - you have come on here attempting to start a discussion as to whether 'scientists' are engaging in a conspiracy which hides some unspecified stuff and deliberately publish falsified conclusions enabled by other scientists who are paid to give positive peer reviews.
When it is pointed out that this type of discussion is better suited to the CT forum you resort to thinly veiled insults. Does doing that make the world less threatening for you?