Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

If "there is no god" is a religion, then "there is a god" should be a religion. It is not the case.
It may be a guess or a belief,(they would be if you guess or believe these ideas), but lack everything that does a religion. Dogma, hierarchy, ...

The point of my first post was that an Atheist doesn't have to believe as a religious man. Nor does a theist actually. It just occurred to me that, a lot of poeple I know would maybe qualify as theist but not religious... we really shouldn't oppose atheism and religion, but atheism and theism. And belief and science. You can be theist and scientific. It would just be a guess, but as atheism is.

edit: not using a translator. Could you Pm me the problematics parts?
       In short beliving is god doesn't suffice to qualify as a religion, nor does not beliving in god.

[Micro102]

According to the definitions given on this thread, atheism is a religion.

According to Neruz' and Grakelin's private definition, atheism is a religion according to Grakelin and not a religion according to Neruz.

Nezur says it is not a religion, but he also said that it's because we don't have a belief in the purpose of the universe, which I'm quite sure I have....

Phmcw, I can't understand what you are saying. Are you using a translator?

[RedKing]

Then please amend that statement. Not all athiests preach their beliefs, only some.

Just as not all Christians waged the Crusades. And not all Muslims blow themselves up in marketplaces.

And not all those who choose to believe in an unprovable, unseen force are illogical, superstitious and/or deluded.

The problem here is that the atheists are doing a conceptual mistake : you cannot have faith in something scientific.
Actually, science is the way of understanding the universe without faith. No dogma.

I utterly disagree. Science, as the vast majority of humanity experiences it on a daily basis, relies heavily on faith in authority. Have you ever actually seen Pluto? Do you believe it's out there? Why? Do you believe it is as distant as textbooks say it is? Have you personally measured the distance? If you had the appropriate tools to measure such a distance, how do you know the tool is accurate?

At some point, all science relies on suppositions which are taken as true on the basis of prior authority. Yes, if you really want you could go back and duplicate effort and prove each step of the chain of supposition, but in practice no one does (and for a non-Ph.D., most wouldn't even know how).

It's worth remembering that less than 150 years ago, scientific consensus was that empty space was filled with an imperceptible form of matter called aether. Or that 600 years ago, the Earth was the center of the universe.


This should not be taken as an anti-science attack. On the contrary, I'm all for scientific advancement, rationality and logic. What I'm not for is a certain self-assured dismissal of religious systems or non-rational belief. I fully believe one can be a scientist and religious simultaneously, and indeed a great many leading scientific minds over the centuries have been.

[chaoticag]

Did you just say that most science is based on faith? Oh boy.
I think drieche2 ought to speak up right now. I think he said somewhere that he is a scientist.

But you pretty much hit the nail on the last statement: Not all who believe in a god are deluded people, not all who believe act violently. They are a pretty small minority there, and it would be unfair to judge them all by the acts of the few.

[Sergius]

Everything is un-possible!

God is a hypercube!

[Phmcw]

@ Redking : You are missing my point ,  which seems logical because of my bad writing.
Let's try to rephrase.... scientific truth is no religious truth. It is not "psychological" truth.
Let's say it that way : religious truth is "word of god", scientific truth is refutable. This is the first difference.

When someone say he believe on quantum mechanic he is a fool. Because we know that theory is false. (Obviously because there is no notion of mass-energy equivalence in quantum mechanic)
Physic is a work in progress, and the last theories in date are ... complicated. (euphemism of the year). But no one working on them think they are the ultimate truth. (Actually they are rambling about theirs ugliness, and mathematical flaws. I know, they teach me.)
The only things that seems irrefutable are just well established. For instance there is no more reasons to believe pluto is not there, to refute atomic theory or evolutionist than to believe that there is no black peoples, that eating is useless, or that you are secretly a brain in a Jar.
Learning from poeple mean you thrust them a little. But hey, I've never been in America, still I'm not bothered at night by the question of its existence.

Surly you can see that believing in god and believing in basic fact are not the same thing. There should be different world.

[RedKing]

@ Redking : You are missing my point ,  which seems logical because of my bad writing.
Let's try to rephrase.... scientific truth is no religious truth. It is not "psychological" truth.
Let's say it that way : religious truth is "word of god", scientific truth is refutable. This is the first difference.

When someone say he believe on quantum mechanic he is a fool. Because we know that theory is false. (Obviously because there is no notion of mass-energy equivalence in quantum mechanic)
Physic is a work in progress, and the last theories in date are ... complicated. (euphemism of the year). But no one working on them think they are the ultimate truth. (Actually they are rambling about theirs ugliness, and mathematical flaws. I know, they teach me.)

I'm wondering if you see the inherent contradiction in these two lines. Physics (particularly high-level theoretical physics) is a work in progress, without an ultimate truth, and have stated that science lacks dogma; but at the same time you dismiss quantum mechanics as "false" because it violates a specific supposition and anyone who subscribes to the theory as a "fool"?

Maybe you should have said "heretic".

The only things that seems irrefutable are just well established. For instance there is no more reasons to believe pluto is not there, to refute atomic theory or evolutionist than to believe that there is no black peoples, that eating is useless, or that you are secretly a brain in a Jar.
Learning from poeple mean you thrust them a little. But hey, I've never been in America, still I'm not bothered at night by the question of its existence.

Surly you can see that believing in god and believing in basic fact are not the same thing. There should be different world.

Not at all. The reason that most people believe in Pluto or atoms or any number of things which are not observable without rare, specialized equipment is because:

A. They read it in a Book.
B. They were told it exists by a Very Smart Person.
C. Everyone around them agrees it exists.

The reason many people believe in God (in whatever form) from an early age:

A. They read it in a Book.
B. They were told He/She/It exists by a Very Smart Person.
C. Everyone around them agrees He/She/It exists.

For the vast majority of humanity, for whom the technology and education to make direct observation of these phenomena is simply not an option, science is a faith. Perhaps for the astronomer staring through the scope at Palomar, directly observing a tiny-blue blob that is located where his data tells him Pluto is located, it's not faith. He sees an object that he was expecting to see, which cannot be accounted for except by the theory of a planet (well, former planet) orbiting the Sun at such a distance and such a speed.

But then understand that for a number of people, a religious experience is direct observation/contact as well. It's an encounter with something outside of themselves which they were not expecting and cannot account for outside of a theory that allows for the existence of something beyond rational explanation.



Or to put it another way, for the truly devout, religious belief is not a matter of faith, it's an acknowledgement of what they consider to be proven fact which has been directly experienced.

[dreiche2]

This should not be taken as an anti-science attack. On the contrary, I'm all for scientific advancement, rationality and logic. What I'm not for is a certain self-assured dismissal of religious systems or non-rational belief. I fully believe one can be a scientist and religious simultaneously, and indeed a great many leading scientific minds over the centuries have been.

Fair enough, but saying one can be both a scientist and religious is not the same as saying science is a religion.

I utterly disagree. Science, as the vast majority of humanity experiences it on a daily basis, relies heavily on faith in authority. Have you ever actually seen Pluto? Do you believe it's out there? Why? Do you believe it is as distant as textbooks say it is? Have you personally measured the distance? If you had the appropriate tools to measure such a distance, how do you know the tool is accurate?

At some point, all science relies on suppositions which are taken as true on the basis of prior authority. Yes, if you really want you could go back and duplicate effort and prove each step of the chain of supposition, but in practice no one does (and for a non-Ph.D., most wouldn't even know how).

Well you have to differentiate a little bit in between the principles of science and what is pragmatically possible in practice. Of course I can not go back and check by hand the evidence for every single possible scientific theory out there, and yes, that means as a human I need to sometimes take statements 'on good faith'. You're also mixing up issues of science itself with issues of human capabilities and communication. Of course, when I read a book about the evidence that Pluto exists but hat book is full of lies, I will come to the wrong conclusions, but that is not an inherent problem with science.

The difference in between science and religion as a human endeavour is that the former seeks to be true to the evidence in principle. Of course, this principle can still be violated in practice. And the difference in between a scientific statement and a statement based on faith is that the former can be verified or falsified at least in principle.

It's worth remembering that less than 150 years ago, scientific consensus was that empty space was filled with an imperceptible form of matter called aether. Or that 600 years ago, the Earth was the center of the universe.

As I stated earlier in this thread, the latter was never anything "scientific", as proper science didn't exist back then. But even then, I don't see how what you're saying matters because all you're describing is that scientific theories are being revised over time.

I'm also with what I think Phmcw is saying in that science is not about truths, it's about continually finding better descriptions of reality.

I'm wondering if you see the inherent contradiction in these two lines. Physics (particularly high-level theoretical physics) is a work in progress, without an ultimate truth, and have stated that science lacks dogma; but at the same time you dismiss quantum mechanics as "false" because it violates a specific supposition and anyone who subscribes to the theory as a "fool"?

Maybe you should have said "heretic".

QM is most likely an incomplete description of reality and it will at some point be superseded by a better one, that's all.

Not at all. The reason that most people believe in Pluto or atoms or any number of things which are not observable without rare, specialized equipment is because:

A. They read it in a Book.
B. They were told it exists by a Very Smart Person.
C. Everyone around them agrees it exists.

The reason many people believe in God (in whatever form) from an early age:

A. They read it in a Book.
B. They were told He/She/It exists by a Very Smart Person.
C. Everyone around them agrees He/She/It exists.

The difference is that in the first case, the book would at least claim to be based on evidence, and states things that I know can be tested at least in principle. Religions often reject the need for evidence altogether. And, all you're describing is just about providing evidence for something. Religions also have the tendency to ignore evidence against the statements they make.

Also, as we're talking about how things are in practice, let's get concrete in terms of what religions do as well, because in practice nearly all religions make statements that go far beyond personal experience: That pluto exists is a statement. That the earth was created 6000 thousand years ago is also a statement. That the bible is god's word is another statement.

Do you think these three statements of equal merit?


Apart from that, I have to say that I will have to stop spending so much time with these discussions, so sorry if I drop out...

[Andir]

@Andir, Neruz, thank you for sharing why you are here. Your reason is not mine, however, I'm not here to "win", not here to accomplish something, and neither here to troll or annoy people.

Then why are you here?

I'm just throwing out theories on why you keep posting the way you do... not proving anything, repetitively stating that it doesn't matter (it must matter if you keep posting...) and not really continuing the conversation, but ending it with somewhat silly arguments and comparing us all to cave men like you are some high and mighty person.

I used "winning" in this case as if this were a debate and you were trying to prove something (because you obviously are or you wouldn't still be posting...)  There's obviously nothing to "win" so stop trying to put words and intentions in our posts.

[Phmcw]

@ Redking : No, you see, for quantum mechanic, I took his example because this theory apply to the motion of small particles (or not so small ones) but only the motion. No the creation or decaying of particles. It's intended because the standard theory to explain emission and decaying of subatomics particles is QFT and is much more complicated. you can give an introduction course of quantum mechanic, but you cannot explain QFT without a strong background in group theory.

None the less my point is that there is various kind of belief. When I sit I usually believe that there is a chair behind me. It's a circumstantial belief that can be disproved easily (and painfully). When I believe that America somehow exist, it's also a circumstantial belief and one that could just as easily be disproved.  Of course, that would mean that something is quite wrong with my entourage, as my sister has been in New York.

That kind of "it's there except if it is not" belief is scientific belief, if you will. Some we don't see how they could be disproved, and seems safe bet (pluto, evolution, atomic theory, mass energy equivalence). Other seem fundamental and will be considered true until disproved (here  mean scientific proof : one exception and it's out. Not religious proof : of course that is proving  everything we believed until now is false but the mystery of faith is great.) Conservation of energy, causality, ....
And yet other are assumption, more or less safe (big bang, existence of higg boson)
If scientific believed religiously in their theory, we would stop research. Which almost happened just before Einstein's paper, amusingly.

[Svafa]

I agree with RedKing; he reasons well.

Consider this: it has been stated that Pluto exists, but how can one prove its existence to another?  Both accept on faith that it exists, or do not.  Perhaps they would not consider it faith, but rather as fact.  But are they not approaching on the truth of RedKing's last line: "for the truly devout, religious belief is not a matter of faith, it's an acknowledgement of what they consider to be proven fact which has been directly experienced."?

dreiche2 asks if it is fair to say that the existence of a God and the existence of Pluto are of equal merit.  Is the assumption of a rock which cannot be proven to exist not the same quality of assumption as the existence of a God?  They are both matters of faith and in that respect equal.  One presumes the existence of a rock as fact because he is truly devout, while another presumes the existence of a God as fact because he is truly devout.  That one proposes a far greater truth than the other is certain, but is inconsequential to this scenario.

As an example, one might point to the truth of Pluto, expounding it as fact.  He might point to the words of wise men who have spent their lives studying the matter.  Perhaps he can show its existence through observable phenomena.  Or he may simply call upon the historicity and general accepted nature of the matter.

Yet, another might point to the truth of a God, expounding it as fact.  He might point to the words of wise men who have spent their lives studying the matter.  Perhaps he can show its existence through observable phenomena.  Or he may simply call upon the historicity and general accepted nature of the matter.

And it is left to each man to decide which of these is true and which is not.  But however he chooses it shall always be on faith: faith in the words of another, faith in tradition, faith in the observable, faith in causation, faith in his sanity, faith in his own sensation.  Whatever means by which he decides, it resides in his faith.

But then again, I may be wrong- I'm only a philosopher.

[Phmcw]

You are easily proven wrong because you forget an easy point : Mine.
You do NOT say the same thing when you say pluto exist or god exist.
The amount of faith needed to say pluto exist is the same that the one to say earth exist. It's just as tangible now and only a world wide conspiracy, or an pranking god could make this wrong. These kind of fact can only be denied if you deny your senses.
No need of such things to be an atheist.

[dreiche2]

Oh and one more thing:

In the discussion so far, I was of the opinion that certain forms of atheism do entail 'beliefs' in a certain sense, although that doesn't make atheism a religion.

I just realized however that this does not apply to science: In principle, I can be a scientist and not believe in anything whatsoever. Different scientific theories are just different hypotheses than can be evaluated in specified ways. A better theory is one that performs better according to these criteria (matches evidence better etc.). However, to say that something is the best theory we currently have does not imply that I have to 'believe' in what the theory says. Of course, in practice as a human I will still make statements of belief, but science, in principle, does not rely on beliefs. If I assume a theory to be 'true' and go from there, then it's just that, an assumption (what if...). It doesn't need to be true. I explore a theory that is based on an assumption, and the next day I explore a different theory based on a different assumption. Then I compare the results and say which is better by some criterion, but at no point I actually have to make a statement of belief what is actually true.

Now in practice people will base beliefs on scientific theories (for example, I might believe that Pluto's existence is not just a good explanation for evidence, but that Pluto actually exists - while being willing to change my belief when I see evidence to the contrary), and in parts people will even make claims that are against the spirit of science. But that does not make science a religion (again, making a statement of belief does not imply a religion).

Svafa:

Science doesn't have to be about truth.

The hypothesis that the bible is god's word and that the earth is only six thousand years old is not unscientific as such. It's just pretty bad at matching up with evidence, and there are better explanations out there. That's all.

Unscientific, or at least unjustified by science, would be to pick this hypothesis over those other explanations.

[Svafa]

You are easily proven wrong because you forget an easy point : Mine.
You do NOT say the same thing when you say pluto exist or god exist.
The amount of faith needed to say pluto exist is the same that the one to say earth exist. It's just as tangible now and only a world wide conspiracy, or an pranking god could make this wrong. These kind of fact can only be denied if you deny your senses.
No need of such things to be an atheist.

Yet none has ever seen Pluto; ever walked upon its surface; ever breathed its air.  How is it the same amount of faith as stating that the Earth, which all humans interact with in a very personal manner, exists?

I would propose to ask which sense it was that tells one of Pluto's existence.  Does one hear Pluto?  Does he feel it with his hands, his feet, his skin?  Does he taste it with his tongue or smell it with his nose?  Does he see it with his naked eye?  What sense directs a man to believe in Pluto?  What sense must he deny to cease believing in it?  In what manner is Pluto tangible?


I would also argue the contrary of your statement.  It is far easier for one who interacts with a God in a personal manner to state that a God exists than for them to state that Pluto exists.  For the man who has personal contact with God, Pluto is more difficult to believe and less tangible.

[Phmcw]

Sorry, but i won't answer anything else than the boring : the only way it is not there is a world conspiracy. So I apply my own version of Occam's razor : If something is utterly ridiculous and have no chance to happen, then I can make the bet it is not happening. I also make the bed that the sun doesn't need a human sacrifice to rise an shine tomorrow. You are speaking no odds against a lot.