Atheism will eat itself

[Andrew_C]

Feeling a little grumpy are we ?

Nope. Just HERB

[witch]

Nope. Just HERB

 

Love it!

[MkII]

Atheism IS NOT a faith. Faiths are for the delusional.

 

Agnosticism is a statement of truth, atheism and deism are statements of faith.

[pooley]

Only someone religious would argue that atheism is a faith ?

[MkII]

Only someone religious would argue that atheism is a faith ?

 

Of course atheism isn't actually a 'Faith', but what I'm saying is that it's a faith stance... you assert something you can't know, like theists do.

 

(although there are qualifying characteristics: it reflects and justifies the zeitgeist, it has prominent evangelists making a living from it..)

 

If you're limited to the realm of empirical proof, then I would suggest that agnosticism is the only correct position to take. Of course agnosticism is far too weedy a concept for anyone to want to be associated with, so people tend to adopt the more respectable label of atheist.

 

Like Tommy Sheridan was trying to say to LaToya Jackson on Celeb Big Brother, if you don't know about something, why have an opinion (she was talking about being sure of the existence of extra terrestrial life). 'Religion' has deservedly a very bad rep, but IMHO you'd be denying yourself a rich seam of human experience and knowledge by dismissing it.

 

 

.

Edited January 8, 2009 by MkII

[jamesb]

Personally I prefer apatheism to atheism, theism, or agnosticism.

 

The key to it you see is that while theists and atheists are certain, and generally waste a lot of energy worrying about their position and arguing for it, and agnostics are considered weak and uncertain, an apatheist just honestly doesn't see how the whole debate affects their lives and so doesn't care.

[gwendes]

Mark, you know that you and I can't coexist on this forum without occasionally having 1000 post threads!

 

Of course atheism isn't actually a 'Faith', but what I'm saying is that it's a faith stance... you assert something you can't know, like theists do.

 

Nope. Atheists don't exist as a group that you can make statements like that about. I can instantly prove you are wrong since I am an atheist and I have never asserted something that I don't know. I make a judgement on how probable something is.

 

Atheism is not a 'faith stance'.

 

Religion is a faith stance because it claims to know for certain the 'truth'. If you don't do this then you are not religious. If you think God is likely but ultimately you cannot know then you are technically agnostic - like me.

 

To clarify, I am agnostic (I cannot know either way) and atheist (without one or many gods)

 

 

(although there are qualifying characteristics: it reflects and justifies the zeitgeist, it has prominent evangelists making a living from it..)

 

Come on. That would give politics 'qualifying characteristics' of religion. You might as well say that anything that people are a fan of is somewhat religious - you're redefining religion there...

 

Of course agnosticism is far too weedy a concept for anyone to want to be associated with, so people tend to adopt the more respectable label of atheist.

 

This is due to the way we choose to use language. Agnosticism would have been very dangerous not so long

 

 

'Religion' has deservedly a very bad rep, but IMHO you'd be denying yourself a rich seam of human experience and knowledge by dismissing it.

 

 

Not even Dawkins dismisses religion. He describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and appreciates the art and architecture, music, festivals - loves Christmas. He dismisses the idea of being certain of the unknowable and fights against causes which you share - like the teaching of Genesis in Science classrooms...

[MkII]

Personally I prefer apatheism to atheism, theism, or agnosticism.

 

The key to it you see is that while theists and atheists are certain, and generally waste a lot of energy worrying about their position and arguing for it, and agnostics are considered weak and uncertain, an apatheist just honestly doesn't see how the whole debate affects their lives and so doesn't care.

 

Atheist / apathetisicm... meh - same thing!

[MkII]

Mark, you know that you and I can't coexist on this forum without occasionally having 1000 post threads!

 

A weak justification but I'll play along.. )

 

Nope. Atheists don't exist as a group that you can make statements like that about. I can instantly prove you are wrong since I am an atheist and I have never asserted something that I don't know. I make a judgement on how probable something is.

 

Wow. Mince words whydontcha!?

 

Atheism isn't a group with badges and placards (well it is), and members don't get together to listen to the evangelists (although they do), and followers don't blindly regurgitate rhetoric (ahem )... so I get what you're saying, but I'm talking simple definition of the label.. most people, I blindly assume, think atheism means a belief that there is no God. A definite statement of faith, as no one can empirically prove such a statement.

 

Atheism is not a 'faith stance'.

So it definately is.

 

Religion is a faith stance because it claims to know for certain the 'truth'. If you don't do this then you are not religious. If you think God is likely but ultimately you cannot know then you are technically agnostic - like me.

You said it. Oddly backing up what I'm saying.

 

To clarify, I am agnostic (I cannot know either way) and atheist (without one or many gods)

I understand.

 

Come on. That would give politics 'qualifying characteristics' of religion. You might as well say that anything that people are a fan of is somewhat religious - you're redefining religion there...

Isn't it a matter of degree? My qualifications are a bit thin. I wasn't aiming to be definitive; just highlight the similarities. I'm sure you could go along with that?

 

Not even Dawkins dismisses religion. He describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and appreciates the art and architecture, music, festivals - loves Christmas. He dismisses the idea of being certain of the unknowable and fights against causes which you share - like the teaching of Genesis in Science classrooms...

Ooh antagonistic! - You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers. Surely it's him that's being intolerant?

[SYNACK]

You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers.

 

Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?

[Andrew_C]

Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?

They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!

[MkII]

Or perhaps it is fear that religion will prevent the use of science to answer said questions or obscure any of the answers that it does find in order to prevent itself from loosing face?

 

Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science (separating eastern science). A popular misconception that Religion is scared of Science - Science is wonderful and generates wonderment at nature for me. Perhaps you're scared to death. I'm certainly not. I love it.

Edited January 8, 2009 by MkII

[MkII]

They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!

 

Another very popular misconception. For a very short period of time this was the popular point of view, not originated by religion, that was very brifly taken on by some religious people, insignificantly.

[SYNACK]

Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science (separating eastern science). A popular misconception that Religion is scared of Science - Science is wonderful and generates wonderment at nature for me. Perhaps you're scared to death. I'm certainly not. I love it.

 

This is well traveled ground:

 

I disagree. Christianity did not give birth to science, people did. The fact that Gregor Mendel was a monk simply gave him the time, location and resources to perform the experiements.

 

The point was that there was an enviroment fostering questioning (a tenet of Christianity) at the time contrary to gwendes' statement.

Or some guy breaking the rules, I do think that you are right on this matter but at that time such questions were new and not considered dangerous.

 

Once more around the merry-go-round?

[gwendes]

They wouldn't do that would they? The sun goes around the earth. The church says so, Mr Galilei, and if you say it doesn't again, you'll go on the bonfire!

 

Well put.

 

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair]Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

It's causes like this, that remain, that I am passionately anti-religion about. People like mark that agree with the science and choose to have a creator God instead of my 'Big Bang' are not a problem - we are equally uncertain and can never know the answer.

 

Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

You've tried this one before and it's rubbish. Religion actively attacked Science - look at poor Galileo.

 

Religion gave people power, money and time. Religion had the resources to study science in pursuit of knowledge about God - they just didn't find it.

 

Certainty that the truth is already known is the thing that is dangerous. Why is it such a big problem for religion to just admit that it doesn't know for sure?

[gwendes]

 

Once more around the merry-go-round?

 

I was THIS close to writing exactly that!

[Friez]

Scientology Thread MkII GO!

[MkII]

Once more around the merry-go-round?

 

The Christian church sponsored scientific study when theology was part of it, and this was a major contribution to science acknowledged by Dawkins and the like. You can split hairs and say that cave men were scientists to some degree, but the facts remain.

[Andrew_C]

Most of us have learned that theology has no place in science (America excluded). Some still hold out for a return to the dark ages...

[gwendes]

A weak justification but I'll play along.. )

 

Thanks I couldn't resist.

 

Atheism isn't a group with badges and placards (well it is), and members don't get together to listen to the evangelists (although they do), and followers don't blindly regurgitate rhetoric (ahem )... so I get what you're saying, but I'm talking simple definition of the label.. most people, I blindly assume, think atheism means a belief that there is no God. A definite statement of faith, as no one can empirically prove such a statement.

 

But you've been proven wrong. I can say 'Christians believe in God' and it is 100% true - you cannot, by definition, be a Christian without accepting that.

 

You cannot say that atheists know something is true based on faith because they don't - I know that because even if the majority did (and I don't believe they do) I don't and I am one.

 

I think it's quite simple.

I don't know that there is no God. (agnostic)

 

I don't think that it's likely.

 

I live my life as if there is no God. (atheist in real terms)

 

Isn't it a matter of degree? My qualifications are a bit thin. I wasn't aiming to be definitive; just highlight the similarities. I'm sure you could go along with that?

 

Not really because it's not a useful similarity and we can't learn anything from it. You might as well be saying that both are concepts that humans partake in.

 

Ooh antagonistic! - You know I don't agree with creationism, but speak out against censorship. Something Richard Dawkins seems happy to promote. I'm happy for him to have his blind faith that science will provide all the answers. Surely it's him that's being intolerant?

 

I was just trying to get you on-side. I don't agree with everything that Dawkins says either. I do think that the important thing that he stands for is not anti-religion but anti-irrationality.

 

Liberal religion is not a problem - I understand he is good friends with the Bishop Of Oxford.

[SYNACK]

The Christian church sponsored scientific study when theology was part of it, and this was a major contribution to science acknowledged by Dawkins and the like. You can split hairs and say that cave men were scientists to some degree, but the facts remain.

 

A good chunk of the theological study involved finding new ways to read the same source material in an attempt to find more answers. This diverted huge amounts of funding and attention away from physical sciences that did not seek to prove religious theology. The presence of religion as one of the major sciences directly hindered the progress of several other forms of science and made publishing their work much more difficult as it did not seek to prove the popular theories. Again pretty much a reversal of the scientific method into 'fact' looking for supporting proof rather than the healthier and less bias idea looking to be proved or disproved.

 

Religion may have helped by providing some of the funding but it was very much a "my house, my rules" affair which may have in fact hindered as much as it helped depending on your point of view.

[Friez]

Strange then that Christianity gave birth to Science

 

The Christian church sponsored scientific study when theology was part of it.

 

Provided that it fit in with what they were saying, the church were happy for scientists to come up with stuff for them. God forbid ™ that they find out something that goes against the grain! Death to the infidel!

 

Oh, doesn't mean that Christianity spawned science, it just means that they sponsored it in a highly biased manner so that they may use it for their own diabolical ends to convince the uneducated peasants that god is for real, even though they still don't know for sure

[gwendes]

The Christian church sponsored scientific study when theology was part of it, and this was a major contribution to science acknowledged by Dawkins and the like.

 

I agree. Religion is not scientific though. The intention was to understand God's creation not do silly things like showing that Genesis had things all wrong.

 

It's only metaphorical after science.

 

You can split hairs and say that cave men were scientists to some degree, but the facts remain.

 

Of course they were.

[MkII]

It's causes like this, that remain, that I am passionately anti-religion about. People like mark that agree with the science and choose to have a creator God instead of my 'Big Bang' are not a problem - we are equally uncertain and can never know the answer.

But I believe in the big bang too. Like I've said many times.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

You've tried this one before and it's rubbish. Religion actively attacked Science - look at poor Galileo.

Religion actually attacked science.. yes it did. As you say we've covered the ground before, but it remains the point that Christianity gave rise to science and contributed to it's development in a significant way. That is because scientific discovery was deemed to be productive and Christianity promoted free thinking and actually allows people to believe what they want, hence our current society. The Roman Catholic Church as a whole in it's history has done the opposite mostly. As we've covered previously at depth, Catholicism hasn't followed Christinaity in that respect. You can't continue to attribute poeple making mistakes with the belief - the two are incompatible.

 

 

Certainty that the truth is already known is the thing that is dangerous. Why is it such a big problem for religion to just admit that it doesn't know for sure?

You're assuming religion seeks empirical evidence, when such pursuit is idiotic. I believe in the Big Bang and a personal God. for you that is impossible. I say you're missing half of human experience.

[MkII]

Provided that it fit in with what they were saying, the church were happy for scientists to come up with stuff for them. God forbid ™ that they find out something that goes against the grain! Death to the infidel!

 

Oh, doesn't mean that Christianity spawned science, it just means that they sponsored it in a highly biased manner so that they may use it for their own diabolical ends to convince the uneducated peasants that god is for real, even though they still don't know for sure

I think you're mixing up the facts with common prejudice. Politics colours everything in society so one view pervades. As i've said, I think religion has no place in politics.