Is Atheism a religion?

Sonics2k

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?

No no, it's just you've come in here basically sprouting out Conspiracy Theories. It's nothing but an argument for the sake of argument with you, so there's no point in a real discussion.

Evolution is a working science, it's is not 100% complete and does not claim to have all the answers. It is based on discovered facts, peer reviewed and is changed with new findings. We base it on decades of work, careful study, chemistry, biology and other form of anthropology. It is all based on logic, and not "faith" in the same sense as religion.

Creationists believe, based on no real facts, that the Earth is less than 7,000 years old, the Flood managed to kill some 6 billion people, and many seem to believe that Mankind is actually de-evolving, despite all evidence and fact that proves the opposite.

So tell me, why are you even arguing this? You claim you're not religious, but refuse to accept alternatives, based on your belief (faith, if you will) that it's all to easy to change. Thus I linked you to the Conspiracy Forums, which is a wonderful place to talk about such things, which are basically Conspiracies.

ShooterSF

Malpaisian wrote: »

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

Possible, not probable in my estimation. Too many people "do" science for the love it of it. At least that's the reason they get into it. Some may get into it because there's possibly good money (I dunno if that's true) but we can assume that like any profession some at least seek it for the love of the profession; And science by it's nature is a desire to know how the world works around us, so, you would then need to assume that these people are willing to sell out their curiosity or at least hide it's results on a grand scale and I just don't see that as likely.
Money has existed for a long time and science has definitely made improvements during times when money was available to stop it or subvert it. So again it's not without any evidence that I place my trust in the scientific model.
Also there is a pragmatic issue at hand here. Were it plausible for us to each test everything including cures for every disease safely before risking contracting them and still seek to eke out some enjoyment in our life then that would be what I bet most of us would be suggesting as the preferred method but alas that isn't feasible so we need the next best option. But to suggest anything below total self investigation is all at the same level of imperfection is crude and wrong.

sponsoredwalk

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

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

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

I don't think anyone is saying this. It is hardly a reason to write off science and jump to the conclusion that peer review is all flawed and the entire scientific community is complicit in a mass conspiracy to... actually, what is it in a mass conspiracy to do?

MrP

Sonics2k

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

I fail to see where Bannasidhe or I slandered anyone.

In fact Bannasidhe already pointed out that lies (or honest mistakes) have been told and later on discovered. It is sadly a part of human nature to make mistakes.

The difference between the scientific method (Evolution) and the Creationist method is that one is based on actual science progressing over decades, constantly going through minor changes, but every year shows us more proof and direct evidence that Evolution is a complete fact.
The other one is taken from a book, written by a desert dwelling tribe thousands of years ago, who thought that the Moon actually gave light and had no real methods of science or understanding outside of their direct areas.

edit:
The irony is that he can't even take it to the Conspiracy Forums, because he doesn't actually have any proof. Just a belief it may happen, and again, arguing for the sake of it.

Bannasidhe

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So there are no examples in the history of science of this occuring?

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/MillikanII.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

It's always so much easier to slander though...

Who has denied some scientists haven't messed/falsified reports?
BUT that does not mean all scientists have - which was the libellous statement both Sonic and I were responding to.

Now we are being accused of slander for suggesting that such a sweeping statement belongs in a forum dedicated to conspiracy theories dedicated to such topics then in a forum dedicated to Atheism and Agnosticism?

There may or may not be dodgy scientists - I imagine like all humans some are very ethical and some are more interested in their own prestige - but what exactly does that have to do with whether Atheism is a religion?

coffee_cake

bluewolf wrote: »

he's happily trotting off following dades around

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

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Pishaw - people have been calling you that over in Politics for ages.
:pac:

Sarky

Bias was found, then corrected. That's not exactly a horrendous scandal. It's a reason why peer review exists. If science were based on faith, if the peer review process was bought and paid for, e would still be 1.5924(17)×10^−19 C. but lo and behold, it is not. And guess what? It'll probably change again in a few years when more evidence provides a more accurate picture.

There are just far too many scientists, publishing far too much and cross-examining each other, for any attempt to falsify data to last for long. My flatmate's astrophysics masters last year actually showed that someone's Ph.D. was based on incorrect data. That Ph.D. isn't going to be worth the paper it's printed on now. I don't think many non-scientists quite understand just how rigorous the peer review system is. It's not perfect, obviously, but it never stops, it is very, VERY thorough and eventually it catches the liars.

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

Nope, I've been upgraded to "bitch" now

lol

Oh my! isn't his faith supposed to command respect for women?

coffee_cake

Sarky wrote: »

Oh my! isn't his faith supposed to command respect for women?

that's what i asked until i decided not to engage
he'd probably tell me it's my own fault for not wearing a headscarf

anyway i think i better shut up now since he's banned and this would just be mean

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

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

Malpaisian, have some accountability for the things you post, instead of hiding behind some notion that you're trying to be pigeonholed.

You're trying to twist the notions of "faith" and "science" to get atheism and religion in bed together. It appears you're unwilling to let go of this pre-conception no matter what people say.

sponsoredwalk

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying this. It is hardly a reason to right off science and jump to the conclusion that peer review is all flawed and the entire scientific community is complicit in a mass conspiracy to... actually, what is it in a mass conspiracy to do?

MrP

People responded with slander about conspiracy theories to the claim that there there might be

real scientific discoveries get[ting] buried and fake ones are fabricated through falsified data and are pushed to the fore

as if it's never happened in history before. With the knowledge that it has in fact happened before, by what standard are we justified in thinking that it will never happen again? 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?

Sarky

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

Malpaisian

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

I mearly suggested possibilities. You will notice that I put them in the form of questions. Suggesting I take myself off to the CT forum, is to me, an insult. Given that conspiracy is part of the human condition and part and parcel of all human endeavour, and also given the capacity that human beings have for doing evil, especially when they have power, it seems strange to me that those who have a so called "conspiracy theories" approach to some issues are coralled off to their own forum like a bunch of lepers.

Having conspiracy a theory (about any issue is just part of the myriad of thoughts and opinions which should exist around any issue, in a healthy society were people are encouraged to engege in critical thinking. This ostracism of people who hold views which challenge the prescribed wisdom is anti-free speech, it is anti-critical thinking and yet another charachteristic of fundamentalist religion.

coffee_cake

Did you come in here just to reply to every single post with "you're a fundie"?

Malpaisian

Sarky wrote: »

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

how do you know it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

Dades

Malpaisian wrote: »

Suggesting I take myself off to the CT forum, is to me, an insult.

Some posters in this thread would consider that starting a thread with a sentence, typing "Discuss", and waiting until there's 195 answers to reply quoting a random one-sentence long post as an insult.

And yet here you are being honestly engaged - and still the one claiming to be 'insulted'.

shizz

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

The process that it goes through means that it will be found and corrected. It's impossible for it not to be at some stage, unless of course there is a mass conspiracy for some unbelievable reason. :pac:

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

People responded with slander about conspiracy theories to the claim that there there might be

Truth is a full defence to libel. The OP posted stuff which really does appear to be the stuff of CT. Pointing this out is not libel.

MrP

MrPudding

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

I presume to accept that even if there is a conspiracy it is not widespread?

MrP

sponsoredwalk

Sarky wrote: »

By that logic, wouldn't all the Christians in the world, for example, have to accept responsibility for all those bastards that manage conveniently to be "not true christians"?

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.

Penn

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.

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)

Penn

Sarky wrote: »

Because I'm totally fine with admitting that scientists sometimes make mistakes or deliberately cook data. When it's discovered, it's corrected. Same just doesn't happen with religion. Or conspiracy theorists.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"

- Tim Minchin

ShooterSF

Humanity has had in it's hand for more than half a century the power to wipe out all life - yet here we are today bickering in this gorgeous weather about whether(no pun intended) we can assume at large it is a cause of good.

And we hold this discussion through technology developed and refined by said humanity, technology that whist it has bettered us may (emphasis on MAY) have been created with desires of financial or power in mind, now hosts millions who demand it stay open, free so that humanity may share knowledge.

Many of us utilise open source technology to facilitate this discussion, technology whose main reason for development is the idea that we all benefit from improvements.

Few of us can lay claim that we would still be alive if we lived a mere couple of hundred years ago and fewer still a thousand all thanks to humanity's desire to better itself.

How you can look at all that evidence and suggest that all of a sudden a massive group including people who studied to know how the world works could all sell out collectively to trick another part of humanity does seem highly unlikely.

To suggest there are some bad apples amongst many good ones seems to fit with our past and in that case there will be fraud (amongst honest error) and it will and has as shown by sponseredwalk been found out. This is not perfect but it's the best we have and is still infinitely better than religion regardless of how you choose to define the word faith.

Zombrex

Malpaisian wrote: »

how do you now it's corrected when it's discovered. How do you know how much of it gets discovered? You don't.

Yes actually you do. Science is a transparent process. Research that cannot be independently verified is ignored.

The issue here doesn't seem to be science itself, but the misunderstanding of science and what it is by lay people, such as yourself.

Science is not, despite this view being bewilderingly common in society, trusting the views or opinions of scientists.

Personally I blame science education in this country and others that do not spend enough time distinguishing between a science teacher explaining something to children in a class room and what scientists themselves actually do. A lot of people seem to be left with the idea that this system of "I'll tell you what its like" that is encountered in school (which in fairness is a necessity of education) is some how repeated up the food chain as it were, so that teacher was told by someone higher up, who in turn was informed by a more senior scientists that this is how it is, and so on and so forth.

Lay people end up with a misunderstanding that science is about people being informed what the opinions of scientists are. In reality that isn't what science is like at all.

Sarky

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.

But we don't assume it's not happening right now. But every time so far that it has been found to be happening, it has been corrected. Often with serious consequences for the person involved. People have lost awards and qualifications and entire careers in the past because of such acts. There are millions of scientists, across a hundred disciplines. Conspiracy could happen in small groups, but it's impossible to maintain, because once you publish something you will have every other scientist in that field looking for ways to tear it apart.

So yes, it's probably happening right now, and it will probably continue to happen as long as scientific endeavour exists. And it is precisely why peer review exists. To allow otherwise would just be taking things on faith. And science doesn't do faith.

oldrnwisr

spannerotoole wrote: »

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.

You see here's the problem with relying on "prophecy" as a means of authenticating the Bible, it only counts if the prophecy is authentic in the first place. The book of Isaiah is 66 chapters long. However, only the first 39 chapters, called Proto-Isaiah is attributable to Isaiah. The other 27 chapters are split between Deutero-Isaiah (Chapters 40-55) and Trito-Isaiah (Chapters 56-66). The portion which covers the prophecy is Deutero-Isaiah which was written about 536BCE just six years before the death of Cyrus. The language and theme of the prophecy is similar to and seems to have been influenced by the Cyrus cylinder which suggests that it was Marduk and not Yahweh who chose Cyrus to free the Jews.
Ultimately, the point is that the portion of the Book of Isaiah dealing with the prophecy of Cyrus was written by an anonymous author almost 200 years after Proto-Isaiah and is heavily influenced by both Babylonian myth and Zoroastrianism. Any suggestion that this is a divinely inspired prophecy is frankly ludicrous.

spannerotoole wrote: »

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.

So this prophecy, which by your own admission hasn't come to pass yet is supposed to mean what exactly?

I have, at Dades' request, replied to your points about evolution here.

sponsoredwalk

Sarky wrote: »

But we don't assume it's not happening right now. But every time so far that it has been found to be happening, it has been corrected. Often with serious consequences for the person involved. People have lost awards and qualifications and entire careers in the past because of such acts. There are millions of scientists, across a hundred disciplines. Conspiracy could happen in small groups, but it's impossible to maintain, because once you publish something you will have every other scientist in that field looking for ways to tear it apart.

So yes, it's probably happening right now, and it will probably continue to happen as long as scientific endeavour exists. And it is precisely why peer review exists. To allow otherwise would just be taking things on faith. And science doesn't do faith.

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?

sponsoredwalk

Penn wrote: »

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.

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: