Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2015, 03:22 PM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
There must be more to the definition of faith than it just being a belief.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2015 05:52 PM by Simon Moon.)
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 12:41 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 11:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your definition of faith is therefore rather pointless because it is the same as belief.
It is the same as belief as far as I can tell. Virtually identical.


Belief and faith are not identical, virtually or otherwise.

Belief is simply the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition to be true.

Everyone has beliefs. The question is, what are one's justification for their belief.

Beliefs can be justified by evidence and reasoned argument, Or beliefs can be justified by faith. The single best method ever discovered for justifying one's beliefs is evidence, not faith.

Faith is the excuse one gives for their beliefs when they don't have a good reason (evidence).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Simon Moon's post
08-06-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 03:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 02:33 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I wouldn't equate them because of what underpins them. If you believe in gravity, without the evidence, you are not any better than a religious adherent. Even though you could be right.

That's right, you wouldn't equate them because one is a faith-based belief and one is an evidence-based belief. Even the person who is largely ignorant of gravity understands it well enough to know that there is observable evidence behind it.
I am trying to get away from drowning in semantics. One has more evidence. The other has less; maybe 0. When I look outside I see evidence that the earth is flat.

Neither has 100% evidence for whatever belief they have.

An example would be general relativity. An excellent theory.

When general relativity failed to correctly predict galactic rotation on the basis of what we can see. Scientists had a dilemma. Dump general relativity or assume there is something extra that preserves general relativity.

Rather than reconsider the theory, most scientists place their faith in general relativity. Because it has done such an amazing job at explaining and predicting things.

For a minority of scientists, there is no evidence for dark matter unless you assume general relativity is infallible.

Because they think the evidence for dark matter is just evidence for the limitations of general relativity.

For them, 85% of the matter being invisible doesn't sit too far from an invisible man in the sky.

The point I am making. There is a lot of faith based consensus even in the scientific realm. Especially where paradoxes are concerned.

After all, theories are nothing more than models of reality. They do not represent incontrovertible facts.

When a better explanation arises that resolves contemporary paradoxes, science will readily embrace it and move on. This is the difference.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
You see evidence the earth is flat? Have you never flown?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-06-2015, 05:58 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 05:57 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You see evidence the earth is flat? Have you never flown?

When you look at the world from such a tiny vantage point...it does appear flat.

Narrow view and all.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
08-06-2015, 05:59 PM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 05:54 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 03:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That's right, you wouldn't equate them because one is a faith-based belief and one is an evidence-based belief. Even the person who is largely ignorant of gravity understands it well enough to know that there is observable evidence behind it.
I am trying to get away from drowning in semantics. One has more evidence. The other has less; maybe 0. When I look outside I see evidence that the earth is flat.

Neither has 100% evidence for whatever belief they have.

An example would be general relativity. An excellent theory.

When general relativity failed to correctly predict galactic rotation on the basis of what we can see. Scientists had a dilemma. Dump general relativity or assume there is something extra that preserves general relativity.

Rather than reconsider the theory, most scientists place their faith in general relativity. Because it has done such an amazing job at explaining and predicting things.

For a minority of scientists, there is no evidence for dark matter unless you assume general relativity is infallible.

Because they think the evidence for dark matter is just evidence for the limitations of general relativity.

For them, 85% of the matter being invisible doesn't sit too far from an invisible man in the sky.

The point I am making. There is a lot of faith based consensus even in the scientific realm. Especially where paradoxes are concerned.

After all, theories are nothing more than models of reality. They do not represent incontrovertible facts.

When a better explanation arises that resolves contemporary paradoxes, science will readily embrace it and move on. This is the difference.

Incorrect. There is independent reason (the theory of relativity) to believe in things like dark energy and if it were shown to be wrong tomorrow, it would be abandoned.

You don't need 100% verified evidence to believe something without taking it on faith.

By your logic, I take it on faith I'm alive and breathing and not in the matrix. And then at the same time, I take it on faith that Gravity is a valid scientific theory. And that I take it on faith that a God doesn't exist.

Using your definition of faith, there is no opinion hat exists without personal faith. And it's still synonymous with the word "belief."

When one word has the exact same definition and usage as another without adding anything, it's a pointless and meaningless term.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 05:58 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 05:57 PM)Banjo Wrote:  You see evidence the earth is flat? Have you never flown?

When you look at the world from such a tiny vantage point...it does appear flat.

Narrow view and all.

Indeed.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 06:02 PM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
Also, scientific theories aren't assumed to be infallible in order to be useful or valid.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-06-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 05:54 PM)tomilay Wrote:  When general relativity failed to correctly predict galactic rotation on the basis of what we can see. Scientists had a dilemma. Dump general relativity or assume there is something extra that preserves general relativity.

So you think they should just drop the theory of GR because they can't fit some new observation in? Isn't it much more reasonable to acknowledge that GR has proven itself useful and use this new observation to modify or extend it? You don't just dump a working theory until the evidence against it, or for something else, warrants that. I hope you aren't employed as a scientist.

Quote:Rather than reconsider the theory, most scientists place their faith in genera relativity. Because it has done such an amazing job at explaining and predicting things.

No, they place their trust in it because it has done such an amazing job. That's the evidence that they have for their belief that the theory of GR is useful and that it makes much more sense to start with that and see how it needs to be changed than to just start over. If they had faith in it they wouldn't be looking for things that might identify its limitations.

Quote:For them, 85% of the matter being invisible doesn't sit too far from an invisible man in the sky.

Citation required.

Quote:The point I am making. There is a lot of faith based consensus even in the scientific realm. Especially where paradoxes are concerned.

You have yet to point out any instances where faith, in the religious sense, exists in science. You just keep swapping different meanings of faith around and claiming they are the same.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
08-06-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(08-06-2015 05:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 05:54 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I am trying to get away from drowning in semantics. One has more evidence. The other has less; maybe 0. When I look outside I see evidence that the earth is flat.

Neither has 100% evidence for whatever belief they have.

An example would be general relativity. An excellent theory.

When general relativity failed to correctly predict galactic rotation on the basis of what we can see. Scientists had a dilemma. Dump general relativity or assume there is something extra that preserves general relativity.

Rather than reconsider the theory, most scientists place their faith in general relativity. Because it has done such an amazing job at explaining and predicting things.

For a minority of scientists, there is no evidence for dark matter unless you assume general relativity is infallible.

Because they think the evidence for dark matter is just evidence for the limitations of general relativity.

For them, 85% of the matter being invisible doesn't sit too far from an invisible man in the sky.

The point I am making. There is a lot of faith based consensus even in the scientific realm. Especially where paradoxes are concerned.

After all, theories are nothing more than models of reality. They do not represent incontrovertible facts.

When a better explanation arises that resolves contemporary paradoxes, science will readily embrace it and move on. This is the difference.

Incorrect. There is independent reason (the theory of relativity) to believe in things like dark energy and if it were shown to be wrong tomorrow, it would be abandoned.

You don't need 100% verified evidence to believe something without taking it on faith.

By your logic, I take it on faith I'm alive and breathing and not in the matrix. And then at the same time, I take it on faith that Gravity is a valid scientific theory. And that I take it on faith that a God doesn't exist.

Using your definition of faith, there is no opinion hat exists without personal faith. And it's still synonymous with the word "belief."

When one word has the exact same definition and usage as another without adding anything, it's a pointless and meaningless term.
There are indeed good reasons why scientists believe in dark matter. I mention the track record of relativity. Gravity etc etc.

But can one ignore the fact that this is also a valid reason to question the validity of the theory? It's debatable. That is the beauty of science. I believe we are on the same page there.

Paradoxes in general challenge generally held assumptions. There is always a balance between incorporating a new idea to preserve a great hypothesis, and acknowledging the need for a radical shift.

In any case, there are scientists who think that declaring 85% of matter presently unobservable because that is how we reconcile relativity with observation is an unacceptable leap.

That is fine. Par for the course. But when one group of reasonable men chooses two diametrically opposed positions, the role of faith cannot be ignored.

Science has a great track record in the realm of epistemology. I believe it is our best bet. What distinguishes from other areas is not the presence of faith or lack thereof.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: