Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(09-06-2015 04:50 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(09-06-2015 04:05 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Faith is one of those words with two meanings.

For example.

Cock: A male sexual organ AND/OR A Male Chicken

Bark: An external protection of a tree AND/OR A sharp explosive cry

Faith: Complete Trust AND/OR Basing beliefs on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I can have faith in my wife. As in "I can have complete trust in my wife." But I would not be putting spiritual apprehensions to her.

I think this is where tomilay is getting confused.

Now I know i'm getting to this late. and only glanced over some of the conversation.

Atheism is a response to one question. Do you believe in god? It has no dogma's, no demands, no assertions. NOW a religion has these things. So yes Buddhism can be counted as a Atheistic Religion simply for the fact it doesn't have any deity it pertains to. But they do have assertions, dogma's and demands. Such as Karma, Reincarnation, and an achievement of Nirvana.

Now I've meet Atheists that believe in psychics, I've meet atheist that believe in ghosts, I've even meet Atheist that believe the Chargers are a good team. They can believe in all these things and still be considered an Atheist.

Now why doesn't Science fall into Religious Quilifactions. Science is a method.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.


Science as a method doesn't have any dogma. It's the tool of finding a Truth. Not a unmoving stance. And can be used to break down things that are thought as "Truth" as well. In science most things arise to the stance of a Theory. And held long enough, test constantly, and applied to other Science's, we can only accept these things as facts.
Example : Theory of Gravity, Theory of Evolution and The Theory of General Relativity
However, if at some point it can not stand up to these rigorous test, and something that can be even more provable comes along then that "Truth" can be brushed aside.

Science asserts things that can be proven. If a person clams to be able to turn invisible, we can us the scientific method to see if it's true. If he can't then it can not be asserted as capable. Maybe something else can, just not him.

Science demands.


1. The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.
2. Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
3. An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
4. An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
I had vowed to move on from this discussion. But this is a coherent response. Devoid of knee-jerk puerile responses that betray underlying inadequacies, real or imagined.

The kind that one can only arrive at after trying to understand viewpoint. Worthy of being in a forum with a name like theinsecurethinkingatheist.

The point quoted below is critical in understanding my view on what I consider the only fundamental difference between science and religion.

While I know most extant religion does not even approach this level of rigor, it hypothetically could and happily live with reinforcing outcomes.

Religious adherents can and often have no problem with the scientific approach, to a proposition, until something like this happens.
Quote:However, if at some point it can not stand up to these rigorous test, and something that can be even more provable comes along then that "Truth" can be brushed aside.

Science asserts things that can be proven. If a person clams to be able to turn invisible, we can us the scientific method to see if it's true. If he can't then it can not be asserted as capable. Maybe something else can, just not him.
The reason I call the scientific views as faith, as I defined somewhere earlier, is also captured in this same quote. Trust is placed in a model, which while rigorous, is only a "fact" because something better hasn't come along. It just so happens to be faith that can be impacted by empirical evidence. Religion remains impervious.

Sadly, you continue to use 'faith' in two different senses yet say they are equivalent.

You need to stop doing that if you want to have any useful discussion or get any respect here.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-06-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-06-2015 04:50 PM)tomilay Wrote:  I had vowed to move on from this discussion. But this is a coherent response. Devoid of knee-jerk puerile responses that betray underlying inadequacies, real or imagined.

The kind that one can only arrive at after trying to understand viewpoint. Worthy of being in a forum with a name like theinsecurethinkingatheist.

The point quoted below is critical in understanding my view on what I consider the only fundamental difference between science and religion.

While I know most extant religion does not even approach this level of rigor, it hypothetically could and happily live with reinforcing outcomes.

Religious adherents can and often have no problem with the scientific approach, to a proposition, until something like this happens.
The reason I call the scientific views as faith, as I defined somewhere earlier, is also captured in this same quote. Trust is placed in a model, which while rigorous, is only a "fact" because something better hasn't come along. It just so happens to be faith that can be impacted by empirical evidence. Religion remains impervious.

Sadly, you continue to use 'faith' in two different senses yet say they are equivalent.

You need to stop doing that if you want to have any useful discussion or get any respect here.
I use faith in the broadest sense of the word. Use http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith. Or wikipedia if you will.

With all due respect, I am not here to entertain you or seek your respect.

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
10-06-2015, 10:03 AM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 09:36 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sadly, you continue to use 'faith' in two different senses yet say they are equivalent.

You need to stop doing that if you want to have any useful discussion or get any respect here.
I use faith in the broadest sense of the word. Use http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith. Or wikipedia if you will.

With all due respect, I am not here to entertain you or seek your respect.

And in the broadest sense, it's not useful as you use it.

For instance, evolution in the general sense only means "change over time", but that isn't what is meant when we say species evolve as it is too simplistic.

When you use faith in such a broad sense, it doesn't mean anything more than believe, which makes its use redundant and useless.

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
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
10-06-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 10:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 09:36 AM)tomilay Wrote:  I use faith in the broadest sense of the word. Use http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith. Or wikipedia if you will.

With all due respect, I am not here to entertain you or seek your respect.

And in the broadest sense, it's not useful as you use it.

For instance, evolution in the general sense only means "change over time", but that isn't what is meant when we say species evolve as it is too simplistic.

When you use faith in such a broad sense, it doesn't mean anything more than believe, which makes its use redundant and useless.

The link I give has several definitions.

Most religions will have all defintions incorporated. Science will have 1, 4 and 7.

Therefore we can work with where they intersect i.e. 1, 4 and 7. That would be fair.

Anything else is cherry picking.
Quote:1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

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
10-06-2015, 10:43 AM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
Definitions 1 and 4 are the same as believe.

Definition 7 doesn't make any sense to me in a scientific sense. But adherence to a promise or oath doesn't require faith.

Do you understand why people are pointing out the issue with calling science or the understanding of science (or the utilization of scientific methods and information by scientists) faith?

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
10-06-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 10:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Definitions 1 and 4 are the same as believe.

Definition 7 doesn't make any sense to me in a scientific sense. But adherence to a promise or oath doesn't require faith.

Do you understand why people are pointing out the issue with calling science or the understanding of science (or the utilization of scientific methods and information by scientists) faith?
Okay, let's drop 7. So we have 1 and 4.

I don't know why it should not matter whether you lump them as belief; to me it just seems like redefining what is already there in front of you.

It's not obvious what purpose that serves. You've been talking a consistent definition of faith. You get it. Now you want to shift goal posts. That is how it looks to me.

In any case it would appear that we agree that elements 1 and 4 of faith are present in the scientific and religious approach.

Your last question is not clear to me. Its purpose and what it is referring to. If you share perhaps a link or quote. That might become clearer.

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
10-06-2015, 10:58 AM (This post was last modified: 10-06-2015 11:03 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
Also, look at the examples given for each definition you want to use. The context of the sentence makes it clear how it is being used. But when you use it (and how you have used it) to describe science it implies a usage similar to how one would use it for describing religion. But you've already admitted that you mean two different things when using the word "faith" for science vs religion. Does it not make more sense to not use the same term in the same way to mean two different things?

When you conflate these terms and utilize them in a similar way to describe science as you would religion (when in one case you mean faith as an evidence-based belief and the other as a lack of evidenced based belief), you support the religious assertion of science being a religion. They quote mine people like you because you use religious terms to describe non-religious beliefs.

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
10-06-2015, 11:09 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 10:20 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 10:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And in the broadest sense, it's not useful as you use it.

For instance, evolution in the general sense only means "change over time", but that isn't what is meant when we say species evolve as it is too simplistic.

When you use faith in such a broad sense, it doesn't mean anything more than believe, which makes its use redundant and useless.

The link I give has several definitions.

Most religions will have all defintions incorporated. Science will have 1, 4 and 7.

Therefore we can work with where they intersect i.e. 1, 4 and 7. That would be fair.

Anything else is cherry picking.
Quote:1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

See but the the problem still is your using multiple definitions of the word and melding into one. Using it as check list, more then a description of it multiple uses.

If a person has Faith that their team will win this year. Would you call a sports team a religion? If a person had faith that John Snow wasn't going to die this season. Would you call Game of Thrones a religion?

And if you do would you feel it acceptable if these groups got a tax ride off from the government? Because i'm sure many colleges, museums, scientific labs, and historians would LOVE for your definition to be applied to them.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
10-06-2015, 11:15 AM
Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 11:09 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 10:20 AM)tomilay Wrote:  The link I give has several definitions.

Most religions will have all defintions incorporated. Science will have 1, 4 and 7.

Therefore we can work with where they intersect i.e. 1, 4 and 7. That would be fair.

Anything else is cherry picking.

See but the the problem still is your using multiple definitions of the word and melding into one. Using it as check list, more then a description of it multiple uses.

If a person has Faith that their team will win this year. Would you call a sports team a religion? If a person had faith that John Snow wasn't going to die this season. Would you call Game of Thrones a religion?

And if you do would you feel it acceptable if these groups got a tax ride off from the government? Because i'm sure many colleges, museums, scientific labs, and historians would LOVE for your definition to be applied to them.

I'll build off of this and give two examples that you might use.

1) Christians have faith in God.

2) Scientists have faith in science.

You've already said that you don't mean faith in the same way for sentence 1 as you do sentence 2. So why would you use the same word when no one will understand what you mean by "faith" unless you go through a lengthy explanation on your use of the term in each case?

Why not simply use a more appropriate term for sentence 2, like "understand science" or "trust science as a body of knowledge and the scientific method as a means of acquiring that knowledge."

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
10-06-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: Atheists are religious, Atheism is a religion
(10-06-2015 10:58 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, look at the examples given for each definition you want to use. The context of the sentence makes it clear how it is being used. But when you use it (and how you have used it) to describe science it implies a usage similar to how one would use it for describing religion. But you've already admitted that you mean two different things when using the word "faith" for science vs religion. Does it not make more sense to not use the same term in the same way to mean two different things?

When you conflate these terms and utilize them in a similar way to describe science as you would religion (when in one case you mean faith as an evidence-based belief and the other as a lack of evidenced based belief), you support the religious assertion of science being a religion. They quote mine people like you because you use religious terms to describe non-religious beliefs.
I used the word faith. And gave the definition. The definition certainly gives context to how those elements are used. I insist on using it broadly, and I explain it below.

Already we agree that at least 2 elements of the definition can be found in science and religion.

In other words, it is entirely possible to have a religion that only incorporates those aspects you find in science.

As long as that remains the case, it is identical to science. It morphs into a religion when that faith(confidence) remains unshakeable even as new information invalidates it.

To understand my argument, consider a hypothetical "religion' that is fully in agreement with science at a given point in time.

Today they believe the universe is expanding and rely on abundant evidence for that.

Tomorrow, if it is discovered that in fact the universe is not expanding. The religious will persist in that belief. While the scientist will drop it.

That is why I say science and religion can potentially be indistinguishable but for what they do with new contradictory information.

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: