Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

You might if there's still an opening for a penis in the posting while blowing contest.

Uh...no. The ancient Egyptians would not have turned the Nile red for any reason, because they associated the color red with evil, hence why they didn't touch water from the Nile or its tributaries during that time. They didn't replicate that plague in the slightest, though I'm certain if red itself was evil, the Nile could've been filled with ochre...but ochre isn't blood, and there'd need to be a lot of it.

 

Yes, that's why religions are popular - they co-opt activities that people would do anyway, and then market them under the additional pull of being approved by a divine entity. My point was that atheism doesn't involve those things. Hence, it is not a religion. Sure, atheists may still do some of those things, but they don't do them under a banner of atheism. I bet you can't name a single thing that atheists do that theists do not do.

Okay... here we go...

There. That was easy.

Actually, this is precisely what motivated atheism before science took over as the main weapon against religion. Atheists disbelieved the claims of religion because it just didn't seem plausible that the arbtitrary callous world that we live in was deliberately created by a supposedly loving God. I actually have more respect for those atheists than I do for ones today - it's pretty easy to be one today, given that scientific enquiry has systematically demolished all major religious claims.

I can't, and I don't need to. Interesting that you're still banging on about science in a discussion of atheism, after claiming that you aren't confusing the two.

You're right. It's not an explanation. That's why, instead of attempting to provide an explanation, he said "We don't know why it happens." The clue is in the way that he didn't claim to give an explanation.

Evolution selects for survivability. In the past this was tied to intelligence. These days it isn't any more. This has nothing to do with atheism though.

It's a by-product of the neural activity in your head, which was selected for in the past because linking disparate brain functions with a notional sense of self led to greater survival chances. But this also has nothing to do with atheism.

Well, I don't know about you, but I do things that I think will make me feel contented in the long run.

I guess you could kill yourself, but I'd advise seeking help first. When you do, try not to confuse atheism with science.

No, it makes it the best explanation available at the time. And when did I not adhere to this?

Well sure, if you're going to turn this into philosophy then we can never know the truth. The only realistic option available to us is to accept the best explanation available. The alternative is to reject the best explanation, and that's obviously stupid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since "someone" is a subset of "something", this would mean that Creationism is just a more specific version of the Big Bang Theory, which it isn't. (Surprise! I don't agree with Xyle.) So perhaps your understanding needs some refinement. Anyway, my point was that there is far more to the theory than the one-line summary you have there, and it's all the extra details which lend the theory its weight, contrary to Creationism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm pretty sure that at least the first one is a scientific question. Why would you think it is not?

 

It's not, really. A scientific mind should ideally dismiss unique events and focus on repeatable, verifiable phenomena.

Focussing on our origins doesn't advance science, merely our human need for myth and pointless bickering.

In conclusion, thy mother, English!

 

Yeah, but our origin is the result of repeatable, verifiable phenomena. For example, elements are being formed in the hearts of stars right now all around the universe. And this also explains how the elements that we're made of came into existence. So what do you suggest - that we pretend it doesn't? That's an odd philosophy - "Go ahead and perform your science, but make sure none of it could apply to the past." You're a strange fellow. Maybe it's because you live your whole life upside down.

 

Thy. Mother. English.

 

Why would a scientific mind dismiss unique events? Wouldn't he just try to recreate it in order to be able to understand it?

 

You're right, I can't - but only because that was my point.

No, it wasn't, because all you did was re-establish that I said something not agreeing with what you read. "Atheism is faith in science" doesn't equal "atheism is science," just as "Theism is faith in God or gods" doesn't equal "Theism is God."

"Precisely"? Oh, so you were there when the first atheists didn't think the same things as the theists? Wouldn't it make more sense that their arguments were more complex at the time and were simply denigrated to "My life sucks, therefore God is imaginary," given history is always written by the winner? Starting about 50,000 years ago, people were just as intelligent and creative as we are today, so what, aside from lack of microscopes and telescopes, would prevent them from elucidating solid arguments against theism? If those were indeed their arguments, those were arguments before serious scientific evidence really piled up in opposition. You say it's easy to accept science, to use study to back your opinions? It's not half as easy as proclaiming a lack of religious substance because of your own sorry life.

Because atheism works better with science than "My life is shitty, so God doesn't exist." That doesn't and never will mean that I think atheism and science are the same thing, mister "agnostics are really atheists in disguise." Interesting that you're banging on about my word comprehension after I've already demonstrated you conveniently blank out on words and end up reading entirely different sentences.

I never said he explained anything, I was trying to say how people will use that as proof of science "winning" without actually understanding the context of the statement or even why it happens - more information regurgitation than retention. How many consecutive truisms do you need in the same paragraph, while saying the same thing as me, to sound pretentious? I'd say one, and you gave me four.

So evolution dictates the thought processes of intelligent people? Here, I was under the assumption that they just didn't want kids either because they don't feel like it or are concerned with the stupid people overpopulating the planet - now, wouldn't it make more sense for the intelligent people to band together, have kids and start an elimination squad? Boy, I'm sure glad this intangible driving force of random mutations is telling me how to think.
How is intelligence no longer a driving force? Have you seen people growing so corpulent they can't leave their houses unless they buy a wider door frame? How the hell do they not see that coming? People are capable of becoming so large they can't reproduce.
What about people drinking and driving? That's pretty stupid, and people get hurt/die.
Intelligence is still a factor in survivability, but we take care of our sick or incapable, even if they're born that way - that doesn't directly translate to lack of necessary intelligence to survive and pass on genetic traits.
I wasn't claiming it had any direct influence on atheism, but I was trying to say how more aware atheists will use evolution as an argument. Random mutations go both ways, and while there's no guarantee "smart" people have "smart" kids, it's more likely due to educated dietary choices and a healthy environment in which to raise kids...with their genes.

Human consciousness, Smuel. That isn't simply defined as a byproduct of firing neurons. We've got symbolic references to everything pertinent to our lives, be those words, pictures, or sounds, and the only reason "people" are self aware is because those collected symbols enter a closed loop that has ultimately become self-referential, with further symbols coming to either add on to or break down the established self. If it's simply a byproduct of associated systems working in tandem, why are there different levels of consciousness among varying species on this planet? Brain size has very little to do with intelligence or levels of consciousness, so if it's as simple as you say, why has nothing else taken our place? On top of that, you're addressing a man with a particular neurological disorder that allows me to superficially reference myself while not really giving it any stock. I don't have any problem surviving at all. Neither does a feral cat, and there's something we would have in common - No theory of mind. Interestingly enough, I evolved right along side you.
Now as for what this in particular has to do with atheism - it's the reason atheism has a name, why atheism itself can be defined on human terms. The only reason you're capable arguing with me is because you have opinions differing from mine due to being intelligent and aware on a human level.

Does knowing this make me happy? No. It's very disappointing to have "knowledge" of why people are. Mysteries are more fun without answers, but that's just me, though I'm eager to find a better explanation.

In the long run?
Atheist POV; Die, rot, lack of consciousness, nothing remains but molecules and compounds that used to be a living human, plus bacteria with "fresh" food that's now defenseless.
Theist POV; Die, rot, go to the afterlife, forget everything you've ever done while alive.

My point was, either way it ends up, you don't remember a thing when you're dead.

I never did in the first place. What I would do? I'd make my own universe where I liked the answers.

Really?

Normally, when a person "appears" to be doing anything relating to the truth, they've defended it as the truth - only consciously minded individuals say "it's the best we've got," and you yourself said "If that's what they appear to be doing, what they really mean is *BLANK*". This is where you didn't adhere to it, by assuming others with less educated opinions think like you. The exception does not rule out the majority of opinion, because there are far more people claiming science as truth than there are scientists to say "Whoa, buddy. We don't know that for sure". Hell, I could say "Billy Dee was the best black guy to have been in the first Star Wars trilogy," but what I actually mean (despite making a glaring error) is, "Billy Dee is the best black guy to have been in the first Star Wars trilogy that we see." James Earl Jones is pretty awesome, too.

Here you go avoiding your "best we've got" statement again. This isn't philosophy if it exists in more ways than the form of a concept. We can know the truth, I never said we couldn't. I was trying to say how expecting the current consensus of opinion as the truth all the time isn't accurate, as there can always be something turned up later that really wouldn't fit within established reality as per consensus. I've said something before relating to an experiment that actually shows this to be the case, about three times in full explanation.
It's not always "the truth," but we might be getting there. For example, why do witches float? Because they're made of wood. People actually thought this at one time, despite it being a Monty Python quote. Anyone who knew how to swim in certain societies was called a witch (due to rarity of the ability to swim)...and was killed after an aggressive trial with God as the judge, regardless of the outcome.
It's only stupid if you're not willing to work at a better answer and still think the best explanation is dumb. I, on the other hand, do the work because I don't trust other people.

 

I think bets should be placed on who will win this argument, or at least how long things take to fizzle out, given that the posts are now becoming essay-like in proportion.

For my guess on the fizzling - a week. Any advances?

 

I was going to say a week:/ TO make it interesting I say two weeks.

 

No it wasn't. Your point was that "dogmatic atheism is a religion". My point was it is NOT a religion because it doesn't have any of the characteristics of one. Religions have rote prayers, or places of worship, or ancient prophets who cannot be wrong by definition. These are all things that religions have which atheism does not have. However, there is nothing that atheism has which religions do not have. Therefore, atheism is not a religion.

Firstly, I never said that you thought they were the same thing - only that you were confusing them. The statement that "atheism is faith in science" is pretty clear cut to me. But fine, let's play this your way. You seem to have confused atheism with (faith in) science. In fact atheism has nothing to do with (faith in) science, and this is obviously true because atheists existed before (faith in) science really got going.

Really? I think you would find it's far more difficult to reject the dominant religion of the time when you don't have a mountain of hard scientific evidence to back you up.

Yes! I agree. Atheism does work better with science. But it doesn't mean that atheism IS (faith in) science. You can have atheism without science - the science just helps.

Though I think this doesn't really fit with your earlier assertion that it's easier to be an atheist using your own sorry life instead of science. Science always helps.

Who on earth would use the observation of electrons travelling back in time as proof of science winning anything? That doesn't even make sense.

Honestly, are we at that point again when you claim that we're saying the same thing, and yet you keep on arguing with me? I don't want to get too ad hominem, but this seems to happen to you a lot. And not just with me. And yet you always claim that other people lack reading comprehension skills. Have you considered that perhaps you're not quite as good at getting your point across as you think?

Not really. Evolution selects for survivability. If being more intelligent increases your survival chances, then evolution will end up selecting for intelligence. What people choose to do with that intelligence is up to them. In the past, they used it to increase the likelihood of successfully rearing offspring, so it was selected for. These days they don't - they use it to make money and have recreational sex. So evolution is no longer selecting for intelligence.

This probably is what happened several times on the path from neanderthals to modern man. But I guess these days too many intelligent people disapprove of the idea on moral grounds. So it doesn't work any more. Though that hasn't stopped people occasionally trying.

Frankly, I wish an intangible force of random mutations WOULD tell you how to think. It might result in a more consistent argument. Zing!

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Atheists usually think that evolution is the best available explanation of how we came to exist. But I've never heard of them using "Why do intelligent people choose not to have kids?" as an argument. It sounds more like an argument that a theist would use against evolution. But it isn't an argument against evolution either, as I hope I've explained above. Intelligence is just something that was selected for in the past.

What does this have to do with whether or not atheism is a religion? This is a side-issue, but I'll discuss it anyway because discussion is fun, and we've now got to try to spin this out for a bit longer because I've got "a week and a half" in the fizzling-out pool.

It would have started off as a by-product, and then been selected for because it gave a survival advantage. Now it's probably more of a discrete system, though a kind of distributed system where all the components contribute. I must admit I'm not an expert in this particular field of investigation.

Okay, but it means that other people with a better sense of self would have the edge in survival, in the long run.

Oh please. This could be said of anything. The only reason that music, or art, or science, or religion exist is because humans have the intelligence to create them and the consciousness to appreciate them. It doesn't have anything to do with atheism specifically, so bringing it up in an argument about atheism is rather pointless.

Okay, but MY point was that, while I'm alive, I might as well try to enjoy myself.

Okay, calling something "the truth" is a linguistic short-hand for "the best explanation we have available after rigorous analysis of the evidence". I mean, honestly, what else could it mean? There is no other way for humans to consider whether or not things are true. If you're talking about mathematics then, yeah, you can probably do something like "one plus one is defined as two, therefore 1 + 1 = 2 is a true statement", but in terms of anything related to real life, all we can do is take the best explanation available and call it the truth. Of course, it's perfectly valid to say "we haven't yet got a reasonable explanation for this particular phenomenon", but we should be honest about it.

A corollary to this is that the less educated have to trust that the more educated are not lying to them. But again - it's the only realistic choice they have. I'm not an astrophysicist, and I do not understand most of the equations used by astrophysicists, nor have I examined the evidence, but they say that the universe is 13 billion years old, and started with a kind of "big bang". I have no reason to think they would make this up, so I'm going to trust that it is true. That's linguistic shorthand for "I'm taking the only reasonable course of action available to me."

I expect you'll find that scientists think most science is true (using my definition given above). It's only on the boundaries of research that they say "we're still looking into this."

Okay. I think this is the nub of our disagreement really. I say that the "truth" is a linguistic shorthand for "the best explanation available at the time", and that this is an entirely reasonable approach to scientific discovery, and furthermore that it doesn't really matter if less educated people don't appreciate the distinction because in all important ways the distinction is moot.

You seem to think that the distinction is important, because any given scientific discovery could be overturned at a moment's notice, and so anyone who acts as though this isn't possible is being dogmatic. I'd say they were just being realistic. Most major scientific theories - certainly all the ones that relate to everyday life - are now so well established that it is improbable any of them will be substantially changed.

Perhaps the problem comes from the way that religious people use the word "truth". They use it more in the mathematical sense of "cannot be wrong". So saying that science and religion both lay claim to the truth doesn't work because they use the word in different ways. The same thing happens with the word "faith". It's not really applicable to science or atheism in the first place.

This may be the reason behind our disagreement. I do tend to trust other people - at least when it comes to scientists reporting their findings. Why would they lie? That seems even more improbable then them being collectively wrong about something substantial after all these years.

 

Bah! Fine! My point was concerned specifically with an origin theory and apparently not the entire Big Bang Theory.
If narrowing the scope of my argument doesn't help my stance, just pretend I cited some source that supports my point while discrediting yours.

 

In before Grossenschwamm claiming he was agreeing with Smuel all along.

 

Excluding claiming that God (or equivalent) doesn't exist? The sheer fact that the two groups are different indicates that there is a difference of behaviors which separate one group from the other. Therefore, as long as the two groups are considered mutually exclusive, that is an asinine bet.

Which, of course, indicates that your statement is a shitty argument to say that atheism isn't a religion. Because if atheism is a religion, they would be doing the same things as theists which would still give the suggested outcome of "Nothing." The trick, therefore, must be to define religion in a way that excludes atheism by showing that atheism does a thing that religion does not do, or that religion does a thing that atheism does not do. Therefore, I could alter my initial statement (in order to argue against you) and claim it to be the same as what religions do: speak about their beliefs. Which, because some call that preaching, atheists could be said to "preach." Therefore, with the proper spin, every action that an atheist takes can be turned into a comparable action done by religions.

This then presents the idea that atheists don't go to "church", and yet the same thing can be said for those that claim to be of a religion, but also don't go to church.

The best that I think that you can come up with is that a greater percentage of atheists are irreligious that their theist counterparts, and, even then, I doubt that would account for 100% of those that claim to be atheists.

Of course, the real issue is what impact your arguments would have upon society if they were believed: The reason that I would give to suggest that atheism be treated as a religion is religious freedom. If atheism was not protected as a viable religious alternate, the law could outlaw atheistic beliefs. And I doubt that you want that. Therefore, your entire argument is counter-productive to your position as an atheist.

Lame!!! If a scientific mind wants to create a theory that accounts for all phenomena such as the "holy grail" of physics: the Unified Theory, that person must account for the unique events in order to discover the laws that have been missed.

Tenure (subset of Love of Money). Pride. For all the reasons that everyone else does. To quote House (TV character) "Everyone lies."

Now, if you have multiple scientists independently discovering the same thing, then it isn't naive to believe them.

 

Matthew 7:26 springs to mind, "Everyone who keeps on hearing these messages of mine and never puts them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand." Why bother responding to what Smuel and ytzk are saying without responding to my own questions like I requested? Are your arguments so baseless that you cannot form a valuable response? If you cannot, then you are the one who is "lame" and shouldn't be childishly name-calling other people as such.

Are you saying that the repeatable, verifiable correspondance principle has no weight? If you are you are more ill-educated than I thought.

Clearly truly anomalous "unique" results should be ignored - you cannot base science on a series of freak occurences that do not have a pattern to them and aren't repeatable. Going back to an earlier point...

So "But again the magicians of Egypt used their magic, and they, too, turned water into blood. So Pharaoh's heart remained hard. He refused to listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had predicted." proves that these events are repeatable? Are you saying you believe in both miracles and Egyptian magic? Because that sounds a lot like having faith in witchcraft to me.

 

I don't think I could be more bored of this.

 

I just saw a chap on tv promoting his book, about how much atheists can learn from religion, and how it is very useful especially for non-believers, to use the stories for humanistic (=mythological) needs.

For example, that it is better to be told that life is suffering and we must struggle, than it is to be told that technology can make life perfect. It is better to pray or meditate daily than it is to be constantly connected to mass media. It is better to follow religious calenders where the basic human needs are never forgotten throughout the year than it is to abandon all ceremonies. He also suggests secular places of silence as a legitimate ambition for modern society, an atheist's church.

I think his book is called, Smuel Can Suck It.

Xyle, quoting scripture as literally true is one kind of crazy, but using three exclamation marks at once is just plain psychotic.

 

No, you've missed the point. The point is that religious people do things that are exclusive to religions. Even if not all religious people go to church, going to church is still a religious activity, because nobody who isn't religious does it. However, there are no corresponding "exclusive to atheism" activities.

Example: A man gets up, gets dressed, eats breakfast, goes to work, comes home, watches a football match on TV, discusses his beliefs on an internet forum and then goes to bed. Is he religious, or an atheist? You can't tell, because these are behaviours that anyone could exhibit.

Now consider: A man gets up, gets dressed, eats breakfast, goes to work, comes home, watches a football match on TV, discusses his beliefs on an internet form, SAYS HIS NIGHTLY PRAYERS, and then goes to bed. Is he religious, or an atheist? He is obviously religious. You could even work out which religion he is by listening to the prayers he uses.

This shows that atheism is pretty much DEFINED as the absence of religious activity. Saying that atheism is a religion shows a complete failure to understand what a religion, or atheism, is.

OMG! Pwned!

Not really. For one thing, some religions make it a specific requirement that you should try to recruit others. It is part of the religion. Atheism doesn't do that, because it has no rules or regulations in the first place. For another thing, this can be demonstrated to be false with a thought experiment:

Imagine a world where everyone was religious - would anyone preach? Of course - they would do it in church, or try to convert people from different religions to theirs. Preaching is PART of religion. Now imagine a world where everyone was atheist. Religion doesn't exist. Would anyone go around talking about how they don't believe in God? This would be highly unlikely, since if the religions didn't exist then nobody would be bothered about the concept of God in the first place. Discussing the non-existence of God is not PART of atheism.

Because atheism is not a religion.

The complete impossibility of this demonstrates why atheism is not a religion. It's time for another thought experiment!

Imagine that we decided to make religion illegal. Presumably churches would be knocked down, and it would be forbidden to have religious gatherings. Holy books would be banned, and they would be seized and destroyed. Being caught saying prayers or discussing religion would result in imprisonment. All pretty obvious stuff really.

Now imagine instead that we wanted to make atheism illegal. How would that be implemented? There are no "atheist buildings" to knock down. There are no "atheist rituals" to outlaw. You could burn all of Richard Dawkins' books, but that's not really going to hinder anyone being an atheist. There is no holy book for atheists. You could punish people who talk specifically about atheism, but suppose someone goes the whole day without mentioning religion? Would you force everyone to spend some of the day talking about it? How about when they aren't talking about it - how can you be sure that they aren't "being atheist" when they're watching a football match? You'd have to force everyone to "act religious" all the time, in order to prevent them from ever "acting atheist", and that means that nothing else would get done. It's completely impractical.

In short, you can't ban the "practice of atheism" because atheism is by definition the absence of such practices. Because it is not a religion.

Yeah, I meant I trust scientists as a collective group. Any individual scientist might lie to try to get ahead. But immediately there will be a bunch of other scientists working on exposing the lie in order that THEY get ahead. That's just how science works. That's why it is so successful.

- - - - - - -

Hey, I'm not against religious practices per se - I'm just against them being claimed as divinely approved. It's undoubtedly the case that meditation is beneficial. And it's likely that any positive effects seen from prayer are the result of it being a form of meditation. But we should be honest about this, rather than pretending that positive effects are a result of the specific prayers being "answered by God".

Having said that, last night I had a prayer that was answered by your mom.

 

Since when does calling an argument "lame" equate to calling the speaker of the argument "lame"? It was a lame argument for the reason(s) given. If I was name-calling, it would have been followed by a personal attack and not a argument.

No weight? Ill-educated!? Slander and name-calling!!

Clearly? You used emotional arguments that discredit my position on the basis of your beliefs and you think that you are being clear?

A star explodes, and we call that a supernova. We cannot repeat the event based on the factors of the star's mass, age, concentrations of each element, etc. And you want to discredit all the knowledge that astronomy has acquired from such events? Including the Big Bang theory that is based on such knowledge? (Know you of anyone who has ever harvested heavy elements from a supernova? Should we discredit the idea that supernovas are the source of heavy elements in our universe because we cannot verify the theory?)

History is a series of unrepeatable events dependent on the unique individuals who make up history with unique skill sets, perceptions and inabilities that must be overcome for the person to accomplish the historical event that history remembers them for. And you want to discredit all the knowledge of history as being unusable for the advancement of science?

You must not realize how many events in the history of science are not repeatable, but witnessed by enough reliable scientists to have advanced human knowledge to the point where they can learn how to repeat the event. The principal that you mention has weight and value. But it is limited. That limitation exists in the areas that we have not advanced our knowledge to sufficient degree in order to repeat the experience. Electricity didn't start off as a repeatable event until after man acquired knowledge of how to generate it. In order to learn how to put "lightning in a bottle," man did not limit his knowledge to exploring repeatable events. Instead man explored things beyond his control until he learned how to control it.

Faith in science is the same as faith in witchcraft: You are putting your faith in the hands of something other than God which breaks the commandment to love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength. But just because my faith and trust is in God and not Science or Mysticism, doesn't mean that I put no credence in science or mysticism.

Faith and belief do not mean the same thing, anymore than trust and faith means the same thing. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

I speak of miracles and of powers that God has given man so that you might get to know my Faith. If you don't know my Faith, you do not know me.

===============

psychotic, melodramatic... it's all a matter of perception.

===============

I am not religious, but I am a Christian. I do "religious" things for the benefit of doing those things. I attend church so that I can worship God in as part of community, and I listen to the pastor's sermon so that I can learn about the Scriptures. People attend concerts in order to sing and enjoy it more so than alone because of the impact that others have upon the individual. People go to school in order to learn about their interests because the school environment is conducive to learning. For periods of time, I even failed to go to church because, while being part of a community of like-minded people is beneficial to the individual, I believed that I was a detrimental influence upon others. Wherefore then is the exclusivity that you speak of as it pertains to being a theist? By the absence of religious activity? I claim to perform no religious activities, and yet I am not atheist. Therefore, I can claim that Christianity isn't a religion because it is not based on the rituals of religion, but that Christianity is a relationship between the Christian and God. Therefore, Christianity is no more of a religion that marriage is, and is even compared to marriage in Ephesians 5.

Many Buddhists are not religious and don't attend a "church" or equivalent. They're attitude towards mediation isn't to pray to a god, but rather to gain the benefits from mediation that any individual can gain regardless of their belief system. Buddhism therefore isn't a religion, but rather, a philosophy and/or a world view.

Judaism actively discourages conversion to Judaism because they believe that all righteous individuals with gain heaven and that their Way is a harder road because they have to obey 400+ commandments in comparison to seven moral precepts that non-Jews have to obey. The practices of Jews encompasses every aspect of their behavior to the point where it tells them how to prepare their food, what they can and cannot eat, when to rest, when to work, etc. Judaism therefore isn't a religion but rather a way of life and an ethnicity's culture.

If all these "religions" are not religions, what is religion?

Is religion theology? Theology means the study of God. IF God is Not (doesn't exist) then that is all you need to know about God. Therefore, atheism is a theology. If atheism is a theology, but not a religion; religion cannot be said to theology, and theism or the belief that God exists is not religion (especially because belief is not guaranteed to alter a person's behavior).

 

Thats what Christians say when they don't want to mess with atheists.
The same logic as in "I am not atheist, but I am agnostic" or "I am not fag, but I am gay".

 

So something with the word dogmatic in front of it isn't similar to a religion, where the word "dogma" first gained relevance? Alright, a select group of people thinking the same basic thought (no God) in opposition to each and every religion. Something taking the place of established religion must be similar enough to one for people to stomach.

Do I really need to put "dogmatic" before I say atheism to make a point? I thought it was like saying someone's name in the start of a narrative and then using a pronoun to refer to them (if it isn't, my bad). Confusing two things and saying they're the same thing, in this context, is identical. You even said I was confusing atheism with science, which might, to me, indicate that what you read was "atheism is science," which drove my argument, along with you using my post asking you to clarify where exactly I said atheism and science are the same thing. Now you're saying you didn't think I thought they were identical but instead confused the two?

Not every society had/has a religion. Their evidence could be as simple as, "I've never seen this God fellow. Why don't you give me proof of this almighty whodunnit mystery?" Countering "THE PROOF IS ALL AROUND YOU," with "Well, that's nice, but I just shit in a hole that I made in your God." Sounds pretty easy to me, though this hypothetical situation was admittably ideal.

Doesn't help everybody - I know an atheist who has a funny word describing her sexuality; Pansexual. She doesn't believe in god, but also doesn't believe in evolution. I learned this from her sister, and didn't bring either thing up when I had a chance to speak with her. That, to me, seems really hard to do. Then again, domestic violence makes a girl think funny things.

Alright, you've got me - how the hell do you observe time travel?

My only required argument here is the only time travel in any major religion involves going forward, and never back. That is how someone would argue that point. But I've heard very few people saying similar things and actually knowing what the point is. I won't say you don't, because I don't know you don't.

It's easy enough for us to say the same thing regarding a single point - notice how "That's not an explanation" is quite similar to "You're right. That's not an explanation. The clue is in how he didn't give an explanation." Considering I said he didn't and I made a hypothetical SCIENCE ROCKS but I don't understand it all the time quote afterwards, I thought what we said meant the same thing.

By your argument, evolution wouldn't be selecting for any relevant survival traits, meaning you may have vaguely predicted the death of humanity. Welcome to the forums, John Edward.

I'll admit, your words confuse me at this point - are you saying we evolved from neanderthals? If you are, they were a homo-subspecies that could interbreed with us and make viable offspring. They're far from dead, also - after mapping the human genome and the neanderthal genome, something interesting was discovered. If you've got any DNA in you other than pure African, you may have up to 4% neanderthal in your genes.

Consistent by who's standards, yours or mine? I don't care who "wins," because this is the internet, though I speak in a manner of my thinking, as most people do. Therefore, as I jump from subject to subject, I can still see how they're connected, while you or anyone else can't. I'm capable of agreeing and disagreeing with you on various points. Does my parlance confuse you? *My sister used that word in Words with Friends...she got 108 points for it, against me.

Look, don't give Xyle any ideas. At that point I was posing questions people might not like the answer to, unfortunately using things I would not like to know the answer to - but already have an idea. More of a point regarding "Life would suck if science had actually answered every question."

This can fizzle any time, doesn't need to take a week or more. I was simply arguing with your definition of consciousness as a byproduct of systems working in tandem, I wasn't arguing about atheism at this point.

We're in the same boat here.

Not necessarily. There are about 43 million people like me on this planet, making that 1:150. Self tends to get in the way, from any observation I've made - it seems harder to think about something when you're muddied up in your concept of self. Now, psychopaths...their genes should fizzle out.

You're so right, because the human concept of God is different from any of those things.

I agree.

Did you not like my Billy Dee reference?
If something is true, it's true - and if it isn't, it isn't. I didn't call all of science into question, and I don't doubt there are solid theories out there to gain even more proof adhering to them. However, there still remains the possibility that the best current explanation might be wrong. How many theories competed with the meteorite hitting earth circa 65 million BC that were just as viable as it was until the iridium layer was found (and on top of that, the crater near the Yucatan Peninsula)? Now, the meteorite one was my favorite as a child, but my feelings about something have never defined their veracity (and they really shouldn't in any case), which is why I research and experiment when I can.

Given your definition, yes.

How is it moot if evidence against something is possible to find? Truth is something corresponding to fact or reality. The best explanation at the time can fulfill both of those conditions, but it's not a phrase synonymous with truth. Now, given my period as a rather psychotic person, what I experienced was true to me, and everything out of sorts I saw/felt/smelled/heard defined my reality. Anything I was saying was the best explanation at the time to me, due to my state of mind. It wasn't the truth, as you're all aware. There's a lot of time left in the universe, so if you can put a real number on that improbability, you may indeed be able to calculate how likely something countering established theory will be found within the next 3.5 trillion years.

People in positions of authority should be on a short leash. Hell, when those particle physicists noticed muon neutrinos traveling 60 nanoseconds faster than light at CERN, they had the humility to say "We need to make sure" despite having evidence of that very thing over the 3 years leading up to their findings. The reason? It went against General Relativity. I love that theory, I really do - but it just goes to show how people in seats of authority can prevent progress (though I'm not going to rule out computer error). Einstein himself loathed that he had become an authority figure. I don't think people are lying about their findings, I just think they don't always have enough information about the things you're defining as the truth.