I hope you aren't looking at scientists being opinionated or having beliefs (after all, they're less human than anyone else) and saying that, therefore, science is ALL beliefs and opinions. That would make you look silly.
I do agree that the only items of absolute certainty existing today are in the realm of scientific observation and mathematical proof/logic. I understand that scientists' findings are not set upon belief or opinion (for the reason you acknowledged; that would be just silly). However, I do feel that science and faith are in fact a matter of conception; some people choose not to accept science and turn to religion (despite any amount of logical reason/justification), while some choose to uphold logical thought and rationality in the pursuit for comprehension (science, that is).
Also, as you said, nothing can be proved to be absolutely certain (apart from the strongest degree of logical reasoning and proof that you described); which only goes to clarify my point that there is spacious room for opinion.
(By the way, I am also a Christian/scientific advocate; this was not meant to be considered a generic "faith vs. fact" disputation. Don't take this the wrong way, either; just stating my opinion)
I'm very sure most people know what atheism is. None of the "miss conceptions" pointed out in this thread are common at all.
I'd love to see you justify this claim, because - if this were true - atheists would not be stigmatized in the media and in general society the way we are.
You're just following the natural atheist tendency
There is no such thing. The fact that you use this kind of terminology speaks to your own misconceptions about atheists. Most notably, atheists are not a unified group due to the fact that the only similarity we share, by definition, is not believing in a god.
to preach your "non belief but sort of a belief kinda" system
Do you even know what preaching is? You're making yourself look foolish.
(not to be confused with a religion of course) harder than Billy Graham preaches about God.
That's really cute - comparing someone talking about mistaken definitions and misconceptions to a con artist and lunatic whose job is to get people to follow him.
...Modern science is based on the belief that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience. This is called empiricism. Empiricism is a system of beliefs regarding the nature of knowledge.
Empiricism is a philosophical theory of knowledge. In the philosophy of science, this takes the form of methodological empiricism due to the emphasis on testing ideas. This method is sound and has proven to be the most reliable method for gaining knowledge the world has ever known.
By using the word "belief" you're inferring that the idea is not supported by anything. This notion is nonsense.
The idea that science is not belief based is rather naive.
You can go ahead and keep using that word, but you're doing it wrong.
I do agree that the only items of absolute certainty existing today are in the realm of scientific observation and mathematical proof/logic. I understand that scientists' findings are not set upon belief or opinion (for the reason you acknowledged; that would be just silly). However, I do feel that science and faith are in fact a matter of conception; some people choose not to accept science and turn to religion (despite any amount of logical reason/justification), while some choose to uphold logical thought and rationality in the pursuit for comprehension (science, that is).
Also, as you said, nothing can be proved to be absolutely certain (apart from the strongest degree of logical reasoning and proof that you described); which only goes to clarify my point that there is spacious room for opinion.
(By the way, I am also a scientific advocate; this was not meant to be considered a generic "faith vs. fact" disputation. Don't take this the wrong way, either; just stating my opinion)
No worries - I just wanted to make sure what your position was, because it seemed like you weren't coming from the weird position of "science fails because it can't know things with absolute certainty". I've unfortunately come across that quite a lot >_>
I'm possibly THE only non Religious person in this thread.
Win.
Also, despite what people say, Athiesm or however it is said is a religion.
Lies, I'm atheist and I disagree. It is not a religion. It is not a system of shared beliefs, nor does it have some sort of hierarchy, where the higher up you go the more wise you are considered.
Lies, I'm atheist and I disagree. It is not a religion. It is not a system of shared beliefs, nor does it have some sort of hierarchy, where the higher up you go the more wise you are considered.
Lies? Its OPINION. I call it religion, you don't. I really hate those who mistake opinion, being incorrect, and lieing.
Lies? Its OPINION. I call it religion, you don't. I really hate those who mistake opinion, being incorrect, and lieing.
How is calling one group a religion an opinion? I could easily say that Christianity isn't a religion. Certain things can be religion, other things need to be agreed upon.
Lies, I'm atheist and I disagree. It is not a religion. It is not a system of shared beliefs, nor does it have some sort of hierarchy, where the higher up you go the more wise you are considered.
The problem is that you have your own definition of religion and atheism, and you are trying to enforce those definitions on other people.
According to the Oxford dictionary, religion is defined as:
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:ideas about the relationship between science and religion.
A particular system of faith and worship:the world's great religions.
A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:consumerism is the new religion.
To which for many people the third can be applied to atheism.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion as:
I dont follow atheism, I just simply am one because I dont not follow any religion and atheist is the title of one who does not believe. Listen I get that you want to make us out to be some kind of religion but it's just not going to happen. Trying to get atheists to stand as one unified group is like herding cats as Richard Dawkins put it. If it makes you feel better you can call me a freethinker or simply not religious or spiritual. I have no ties to the title of atheist like the religious have ties to their's. I will use atheist to describe my thoughts on the subject simply because it's a handy descriptor, nothing more
I am marginally Christian. Not really devout. But I think we need to let each have his own. Atheists can stop both sending and receiving flames.
Religious freedom, mate.
I hope you realize the irony of you generalizing Christians as insulting, demeaning, or hostile.
Nice how you cropped out the part where I said I don't usually generalize because generalizations are usually wrong. I'm simply basing it on my own experiences, which sadly have never been positive with "christians".
I'm possibly THE only non Religious person in this thread.
Win.
Also, despite what people say, Athiesm or however it is said is a religion.
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a contextual catch all term for people that do not believe in a god. Even a devout christian can be described as an atheist in the context of non-christian deities.
"To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn't be wrong to ask."
Nice how you cropped out the part where I said I don't usually generalize because generalizations are usually wrong. I'm simply basing it on my own experiences, which sadly have never been positive with "christians".
If you don't generalize because they're usually wrong, then why did you generalize? If I say I don't usually insult people, and then insult you, does that make the insult null and void?
Lol at everyone on this forum (besides like 2 people).
1. Christians arent all mean and what not, thats like saying all Muslims want to blow you up.
2. Atheism is not a religion, that would be hypocritical. (biased off your form of Atheism)
3. In the end all you debates are pointless, we all will die and then we will see whos rite and whos wrong. (Go Spaghetti God :biggrin.gif:)
4. Also, you wount change anyones opinion by dissing their beliefs.
5. Admins, please lock this thread, pointless and full of fools.
Ty :biggrin.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Iv been warned for "Flaming" and by God ill do it again.
Lol at everyone on this forum (besides like 2 people).
1. Christians arent all mean and what not, thats like saying all Muslims want to blow you up.
2. Atheism is not a religion, that would be hypocritical. (biased off your form of Atheism)
3. In the end all you debates are pointless, we all will die and then we will see whos rite and whos wrong. (Go Spaghetti God :biggrin.gif:)
4. Also, you wount change anyones opinion by dissing their beliefs.
5. Admins, please lock this thread, pointless and full of fools.
Ty :biggrin.gif:
You're being silly. Why is it that whenever someone sees people debating religion and other similar topics, they always think that their goal is to change the other persons mind? I don't think that's ever the goal. The goal is to better understand the opposition, so that you can learn more about why they believe what they believe.
If you don't generalize because they're usually wrong, then why did you generalize? If I say I don't usually insult people, and then insult you, does that make the insult null and void?
I'm just going to guess you didn't actually bother to read the post. Otherwise you would have understood it's meaning and intent better then you do. (hint, it has to do with the quote I was responding too)
And it is no more logical or correct than Christianity or any other religion.
They're all claims that an individual can conclusively know that there is no god.
Which, of course, makes no sense, just like the claim that an individual can conclusively know that there is a god.
Agnosticism ftw.
Nuu. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. How can that possibly be a religion? It's like saying not believing in Unicorns and Goblins is a religion.
I do agree that the only items of absolute certainty existing today are in the realm of scientific observation and mathematical proof/logic. I understand that scientists' findings are not set upon belief or opinion (for the reason you acknowledged; that would be just silly). However, I do feel that science and faith are in fact a matter of conception; some people choose not to accept science and turn to religion (despite any amount of logical reason/justification), while some choose to uphold logical thought and rationality in the pursuit for comprehension (science, that is).
Also, as you said, nothing can be proved to be absolutely certain (apart from the strongest degree of logical reasoning and proof that you described); which only goes to clarify my point that there is spacious room for opinion.
(By the way, I am also a Christian/scientific advocate; this was not meant to be considered a generic "faith vs. fact" disputation. Don't take this the wrong way, either; just stating my opinion)
I'd love to see you justify this claim, because - if this were true - atheists would not be stigmatized in the media and in general society the way we are.
There is no such thing. The fact that you use this kind of terminology speaks to your own misconceptions about atheists. Most notably, atheists are not a unified group due to the fact that the only similarity we share, by definition, is not believing in a god.
Do you even know what preaching is? You're making yourself look foolish.
That's really cute - comparing someone talking about mistaken definitions and misconceptions to a con artist and lunatic whose job is to get people to follow him.
Empiricism is a philosophical theory of knowledge. In the philosophy of science, this takes the form of methodological empiricism due to the emphasis on testing ideas. This method is sound and has proven to be the most reliable method for gaining knowledge the world has ever known.
By using the word "belief" you're inferring that the idea is not supported by anything. This notion is nonsense.
You can go ahead and keep using that word, but you're doing it wrong.
No worries - I just wanted to make sure what your position was, because it seemed like you weren't coming from the weird position of "science fails because it can't know things with absolute certainty". I've unfortunately come across that quite a lot >_>
I hope you realize the irony of you generalizing Christians as insulting, demeaning, or hostile.
Win.
Also, despite what people say, Athiesm or however it is said is a religion.
Lies, I'm atheist and I disagree. It is not a religion. It is not a system of shared beliefs, nor does it have some sort of hierarchy, where the higher up you go the more wise you are considered.
Lies? Its OPINION. I call it religion, you don't. I really hate those who mistake opinion, being incorrect, and lieing.
How is calling one group a religion an opinion? I could easily say that Christianity isn't a religion. Certain things can be religion, other things need to be agreed upon.
The problem is that you have your own definition of religion and atheism, and you are trying to enforce those definitions on other people.
According to the Oxford dictionary, religion is defined as:
To which for many people the third can be applied to atheism.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines religion as:
Again, the third definition can be applied to atheism.
(FYI, I am an atheist.)
-Rikaelus
Religious freedom, mate.
Nice how you cropped out the part where I said I don't usually generalize because generalizations are usually wrong. I'm simply basing it on my own experiences, which sadly have never been positive with "christians".
Atheism isn't a religion, it's a contextual catch all term for people that do not believe in a god. Even a devout christian can be described as an atheist in the context of non-christian deities.
"To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn't be wrong to ask."
If you don't generalize because they're usually wrong, then why did you generalize? If I say I don't usually insult people, and then insult you, does that make the insult null and void?
1. Christians arent all mean and what not, thats like saying all Muslims want to blow you up.
2. Atheism is not a religion, that would be hypocritical. (biased off your form of Atheism)
3. In the end all you debates are pointless, we all will die and then we will see whos rite and whos wrong. (Go Spaghetti God :biggrin.gif:)
4. Also, you wount change anyones opinion by dissing their beliefs.
5. Admins, please lock this thread, pointless and full of fools.
Ty :biggrin.gif:
You're being silly. Why is it that whenever someone sees people debating religion and other similar topics, they always think that their goal is to change the other persons mind? I don't think that's ever the goal. The goal is to better understand the opposition, so that you can learn more about why they believe what they believe.
I'm just going to guess you didn't actually bother to read the post. Otherwise you would have understood it's meaning and intent better then you do. (hint, it has to do with the quote I was responding too)
Atheism is a religion, actually.
And it is no more logical or correct than Christianity or any other religion.
They're all claims that an individual can conclusively know that there is no god.
Which, of course, makes no sense, just like the claim that an individual can conclusively know that there is a god.
Agnosticism ftw.
Nuu. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. How can that possibly be a religion? It's like saying not believing in Unicorns and Goblins is a religion.
No, good sir. That's agnosticism.
You have the two confused. A common ignorance of the definition of the two.
Atheists claim to know there is no God.
Agnostics make no claim whatsoever, as the only thing they know is that they cannot know. See: Socrates.
Not at all. Being an atheist is the Lack of Belief.
Being agnostic is claiming that a certain thing (usually religion) is unknown or unknowable.