I'd say we're more likely to ask "How?"
Dude, no! I was saying atheists are an ethnicity-but-not-a-religion given your description, not white people; I was so totally not trying to bring in the racial aspect. My fault for lack of clarity.Is white a color? Atheists do have culture and system of beliefs. It's called Logic, science, and the scientific method. I would wager that most atheists are atheists because they hold these things in the highest regard.Except that you're describing an ethnicity, not a religion.
Before anyone makes (justified) accusations of semantics, let me say this is exactly the sort of discussion the field of semantics was made for.
I'm talking about the pallet color, not Caucasians. Is the lack of something (or more technically the encompassing of all) still categorized the same. As in is the lack of religion (aka atheism) a religion or not.
In hind site it's a bad comparison. Feel free to ignore that part and concentrate on the comments about culture.
Lol. Gotta love semantics.
I'd say we're more likely to ask "How?"
IMO the difference between "How?" and "Why?" encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Science couldn't care less why something happens, only how.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although, it has to be said, scientists does occasionally make one want to ask, "Why would you even do that?" (Although far from as often as religious or atheistic fundamentalists.) ;)
Athiest say "show me evidence."
The religious say "Prove to me it's not true."
In a nutshell that's my issue with religion.
Also whereas a radical religious person (pick a religion) will blow something up (or otherwise bring violence) a "radical atheist" will say "lets go drink mircobrew and talk about outer space."
Science incorporates a lot of "Why" questions. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why did the Mayans abandon their cities? Why should we build a park in this high retail value land? Science is also important in the "Should We?" department as well.I'd say we're more likely to ask "How?"IMO the difference between "How?" and "Why?" encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Science couldn't care less why something happens, only how.
It's important to note that ethics and religion are mutually exclusive. Religion can be ethical or unethical. Ethics can have religious aspects, but does not have to.
You have good/ethical religions (most of the popular ones at least on the surface) and you have bad/unethical religions (not touching that with a 10 foot pole, but I'm sure you're all smart enough to think of one or two in history).
|
LazarX,
And the puddle said "Wow, this depression in the ground is perfectly fitted for me. It must have been made with me in mind." We are as we are because of the constants of the universe, not vice versa. If they weren't 'just right' we wouldn't exist to observe them. Well. we might but we'd be very different beings with a very different set of physical laws to understand.
This.
I accept this fact without question. To do otherwise prevents any useful sort of thinking or analysis.
Everything else remains an unknown. Why is humanity here? How did this planet, among the countless potential planets, create intelligent life? Are the things I see really as I see (or otherwise perceive) them?
Remaining curious and skeptical allows clarity and accurate analysis of observed situations.
Allowing the conclusion to drive the questioning leads to errors in methodology, record keeping, and experimental design.
The universe exists.
Or are we in the Matrix? Did you take the blue pill or the red pill?
*twilight zone music*
;-)
@CBDunkerson
I'm not interested in the "any answer is correct" sort of argument you are framing. I just finished talking about how many many things are certainly possible under our understanding of our existence. What I was not willing to do, however, is postulate that ANY of it is true without evidence.
It is not framing my view as the positive proof, it is framing that any worldview that is based on empirical evidence requires such a thing, and until then, is viewed as the speculation that it is.
See also: Occam's Razor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a "radical atheist" will say "lets go drink mircobrew and talk about outer space."
I prefer coffee but outer space is cool.... I think we should can this conversation about what is and what inst the definition of atheism....
All this conversation will achieve is a demonstration of high-level philosophical wankery as people who get their jollies by telling others how wrong they are, mouth off.
Lets talk about space instead.
N-space?
a "radical atheist" will say "lets go drink mircobrew and talk about outer space."I prefer coffee but outer space is cool.... I think we should can this conversation about what is and what inst the definition of atheism....
All this conversation will achieve is a demonstration of high-level philosophical wankery as people who get their jollies by telling others how wrong they are, mouth off.
Lets talk about space instead.
Agreed. Wormholes. you go first. ;-)
You're saying one thing and contradicting yourself. If you are claiming that ethics and religion are mutually exclusive, you've shot that claim in the foot when you point out that there are good/ethical religions.Perhaps what you're trying to bring out are the distinctions between ethics and morality, but that's another area of discussion entirely.
Mutually exclusive was the wrong choice of words. Perhaps they are separate topics would be more accurate.
You can have both ethics and religion without the other.
Why is humanity here? How did this planet, among the countless potential planets, create intelligent life?
My point is that "Why is humanity here?" isn't a question that answered very meaningfully by the scientific process. "Because all the human's parents had sex," is about as close as you come. If you ask "How is humanity here?" (or less jarringly, "How did humanity come to be here?") you've got a question that can be answered with the theory of evolution.
As I admitted several posts ago, semantics.
|
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
Perhaps you could list some of the ways atheism is similar to religion? Because I'm not seeing it at the moment.
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.Perhaps you could list some of the ways atheism is similar to religion? Because I'm not seeing it at the moment.
They're both systems of belief. The only real difference is that atheism is founded on logic and religion (all of them) are founded on faith.
That's as simple as I can phrase it.
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.Perhaps you could list some of the ways atheism is similar to religion? Because I'm not seeing it at the moment.They're both systems of belief. The only real difference is that atheism is founded on logic and religion (all of them) are founded on faith.
That's as simple as I can phrase it.
I'm not so sure I'd call atheism a system of belief, I just don't believe what religious people do.
Having at least helped derail the thread into science vs religion, I have to say there's no reason a scientist can't follow any of the many religions out there. It's just that any scientist how allows their religious beliefs to color their scientific process isn't doing very good science.
“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.Perhaps you could list some of the ways atheism is similar to religion? Because I'm not seeing it at the moment.They're both systems of belief. The only real difference is that atheism is founded on logic and religion (all of them) are founded on faith.
That's as simple as I can phrase it.
I'm not so sure I'd call atheism a system of belief, I just don't believe what religious people do.
Having at least helped derail the thread into science vs religion, I have to say there's no reason a scientist can't follow any of the many religions out there. It's just that any scientist how allows their religious beliefs to color their scientific process isn't doing very good science.
Athiests believe in logic and reason, do they not?
Many do, but it is not a prequisite. And there are those who are just as blindingly obnoxious, illogical, and hate-filled as the Westboro Baptist Church.
Athiests believe in logic and reason, do they not?
Well, the illogical atheists are about as atheist as the Westboro baptist church is Christian.
I'm a very white guy who is technically Cherokee indian (1/16). I don't call myself indian because I know next to nothing about the culture and it wasn't how I was raised. However, I could call myself an indian and it would be technically correct, but only on paper not in practice.
Illogical Athiests and hateful christians are only part of those groups "on paper," but not in practice.
Well, we accept logic and reason; I have yet to experience anything in my life that can't be explained by logic and reason, but belief isn't a big part of it.
I suppose I have faith that everything I experience in the future up to and including angels and aliens will be codifiable (not a word) by the by the scientific process, but that's so different from religious faith that you might as well call bald a hairstyle, etc.
This is where the evangelists will point at me and tell me i'm not really an atheist, because I don't actively disbelieve in God, but I disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we accept logic and reason; I have yet to experience anything in my life that can't be explained by logic and reason, but belief isn't a big part of it.
I suppose I have faith that everything I experience in the future up to and including angels and aliens will be codifiable (not a word) by the by the scientific process, but that's so different from religious faith that you might as well call bald a hairstyle, etc.
This is where the evangelists will point at me and tell me i'm not really an atheist, because I don't actively disbelieve in God, but I disagree.
I'm an athiest, but I will happily believe in god. All I need is quantifiable evidence. If anyone has such evidence I recommend you write it down, get peer reviewed, and collect your Noble prize.
It's just that any scientist how allows their religious beliefs to color their scientific process isn't doing very good science.Again, not always true. IT's the SCIENCE that the scientist does that's the judge of their work. For many scientists, their religion can and does motivate them to do excellent and accurate scientific work. There's nothing wrong with a scientist being a better astronomer because his Catholic beliefs motivate him in the search for truth. He may be a better astronomer, BECAUSE he's that kind of devout Catholic. But as long as he's producing good science, that last is all that matters.
Lazar, I'm not trying to start an argument, but why did you edit out everything I said in that post that's in agreement with what yours says? Being motivated by your faith and letting your beliefs color your scientific process are two different things. The beliefs that give bias to which evidence you accept don't have to be religious, but bias always makes for crappy science.
I'm an athiest, but I will happily believe in god. All I need is quantifiable evidence. If anyone has such evidence I recommend you write it down, get peer reviewed, and collect your Noble prize.Well, we accept logic and reason; I have yet to experience anything in my life that can't be explained by logic and reason, but belief isn't a big part of it.
I suppose I have faith that everything I experience in the future up to and including angels and aliens will be codifiable (not a word) by the by the scientific process, but that's so different from religious faith that you might as well call bald a hairstyle, etc.
This is where the evangelists will point at me and tell me i'm not really an atheist, because I don't actively disbelieve in God, but I disagree.
Neal Stephenson wrote it in Anathema: "The thing is, if anyone did prove the existence of God, we'd all probably just say, 'Hey, nice proof,' and go back to what we were doing."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The irony about atheism is that there are disagreements how to define it in the same fashion that Christian sects are unable to agree as to what exactly defines one as a Christian.
Diversity ... or schism?
Be thankful you have choices. :)
Neal Stephenson wrote it in Anathema: "The thing is, if anyone did prove the existence of God, we'd all probably just say, 'Hey, nice proof,' and go back to what we were doing."
Possibly, but possibly not. It's like saying if aliens came down to visit we'd just say "interesting" and go back to doing what we were doing. I tend to disagree. The legitimate proof of a deity of the legitimate proof of intelligent aliens is a world changing event. However it doesn't matter because neither has been proven. Though the possible existence of alien life has more evidence (note I didn't say proof) than the existence of a deity.
FYI Athiests have a church. I'm ordained and can marry people as an Athiest Minister. ;-)
Look! A bunny!
Look! A bunny!
Easter Reference?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.
I missed the "proof" that God doesn't exist. What lab was this done in?
To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.I missed the "proof" that God doesn't exist. What lab was this done in?
There is no more proof that he does than he doesn't. The same thing can be said for zeus or the flying spaghetti monster or the easter bunny or santa etc.
However,reasonably one doesn't have to prove nonexistence of anything. One must instead prove existence.
Edit: It's like saying you can't prove we're not in the matrix therefore we must be in the matrix. It's a logical fallacy.
|
|
To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.I missed the "proof" that God doesn't exist. What lab was this done in?
CERN. They haven't found the God Particle, ergo God doesn't exist. ;-)
(I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, am prepared to be convinced by actual evidence that there is a divine being but even if I am will hold to my philosophical position that if there is they deserve no worship and I will therefore be consigned to whatever creative and unpleasant afterlife they have prepared for the irredeemably stupid who refuse to bow down to the great tyrant in the sky).
For the record, I'm not singling out Elinor. This statement struck me as a useful tool to illustrate the point as to why atheism can be regarded as religion. I've emphasized certain portions of the statement to help make my points.
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Take a good look at the first definition for the word "religion." With the exception of the section concerning superhuman agencies, which is clarified with the word "especially" rather than "always," this fits the above statement.
Why be militant about atheism? I've known other atheists that described themselves the same way. They consider it a duty to confront the "irredeemably stupid" practice of religion at every turn, ensuring that everyone knows their stance. ("Devotional and ritual observances," anyone?) Obviously atheism is superior, as "anyone with a faith" is stupid, and therefore lesser in the eyes of the "militant atheist," which apparently gives them the right to act like jerks. Doesn't this smack of the same sort of absolutism that they give religious folk such a hard time about? ("A moral code governing the conduct of human affairs," anyone?) And of course, the enemy thinks the same about us, hence the assumption about religious folk thinking the atheist is "irredeemably stupid" for not worshiping their god. That assumes the religious person is thinking about this in the same manner, which they likely are not. One person is working from logic, the other, faith. Why "stupid," and not "misguided," or "lost," or any of the other words commonly associated with one who does not have faith. Because the atheist doesn't speak the language and is simply looking at things from their own viewpoint, which is as narrow as the one looking back from the other direction, for all intents and purposes.
The point I'm making is that this kind of atheism looks a lot like religion, at least the tunnel-vision image of religion that some atheists have. I've known religious folk who are intolerant, rude, pushy, and condescending. I've known atheists who are exactly the same way. And I've seen both of them going at each other like two dogs fighting over a bone. I've also known people, both atheists and people of faith, who are intelligent, kind, and genuinely good people to be around.
People tend to form impressions of a particular group of people by their observations of the most extreme examples of them, because they are the most visible. Perhaps the reason that atheists and people of faith don't get along is because all they ever hear or see (or at least remember) are the jerks.
Tiny Coffee Golem,
Having discussed religion with Moff before, he isn't saying that. He's challenging Swivl's statement that God had been proved not to exist, which isn't true because you can't prove God doesn't exist.
Ahh. I misunderstood.
|
|
Tiny Coffee Golem,
Having discussed religion with Moff before, he isn't saying that. He's challenging Swivl's statement that God had been proved not to exist, which isn't true because you can't prove God doesn't exist.
Much like the invisible pink unicorn.
Only if at various points in history or in different places in the world me saying I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns would not have lead to be being killed for heresy.
Tiny Coffee Golem,
Having discussed religion with Moff before, he isn't saying that. He's challenging Swivl's statement that God had been proved not to exist, which isn't true because you can't prove God doesn't exist.Much like the invisible pink unicorn.
Only if at various points in history or in different places in the world me saying I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns would not have lead to be being killed for heresy.
This is the entire basis of the Flying Spagetti Monster religious parody. It's also why religious logic is an oxymoron.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To steal a good line, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.A more useful and accurate line would be that Atheism is not a religion, but more than a few Atheists pursue it as such.
Think of it this way. If for hundreds of years you were told that if you didn't worship some imaginary being, you would be oppressed at minimum, and risk being tortured and killed. And then you look around and realize that the majority of wars and conflicts come from people arguing about which invisible sky god was the best invisible sky god...maybe you would like people to consider reason and logic for a change.
I'm just sayin'
I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, ...Where's Kirth? I wanted to make sure he saw this.
Sorry -- I was too busy blowing up buildings. OK, no -- actually I was drinking beer and thinking about science stuff, which is of course equally heinous.