Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by unconditionalsurrender
reply to post by AutomaticSlim
 


You are absolutely correct AutomaticSlim. I am a professional biologist(MD/PhD), won't go into details here about my background. My opinion; there is no empiric evidence for the formation of a bird heart-lung from that of a reptile, nothing in the fossil record. If you know of it, let's see it, hear it.

I am not a "believer" in terms of "religious belief", but as a life long student of living systems, I can honestly that say I have been forever pelted with one weak argument after another and never bought into the neoDarwinian approach to explaining our being here. How can one? The model as presented is weak.

As I am fond of saying, as are some of my friends that study this sort of thing, because bacteria develop resistance to penicillin, or HIV to various anti-retrovirals, this does not mean a fish became a man based on the evolutionary mechanism as currently presented to college students. There is no empiric evidence, molecular, fossil or otherwise.


Empirical evidence (by this I mean first hand knowledge) supporting evolution would be difficult to come by considering large changes in speciation, but yes, I have seen bacteria form resistance to antibiotics in the laboratory environment, and we do have MRSA these days...anyhow, I'd just love to hear a rational scientific explanation of how life began in the first place. The experiment that was done by Stanley Miller with Harold Urey has essentially been debunked, what is the latest research? Robert Shapiro has some ideas how it could have happened, but there are a lot of 'might haves' and 'could haves' in his discussion. New theories of life
The same article has this theory: "Biologist James Ferry and geochemist Christopher House from Penn State University found that this primitive organism can get energy from a reaction between acetate and the mineral iron sulfide. Compared to other energy-harnessing processes that require dozens of proteins, this acetate-based reaction runs with the help of just two very simple proteins."
Interesting that there is still a need for "primitive organisms" and "two very simple proteins" to have been formed in order for the reactions to occur. Again, a lot of what ifs...

Based on the available data, I deem the origin of life question unanswered. Therefore, no one is either right or wrong.
edit on 3-12-2012 by AutomaticSlim because: added some comments




posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



Atheist means no belief in a god but those claiming to be atheist have a belief. A true atheist would have to have no knowledge of the concept of a God


Of course atheists are aware of the concept. How could someone lack a belief in a concept they are not aware of?

Being aware of the concept of God does not mean you have to believe in its reality...
edit on 3-12-2012 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scrounger
 



How many times has science been forced to change its "facts" when other facts come to light.


Forced?

That change is integral to what science is to begin with.


Ah sadly a little research show the answer to be NO.

Lets look at some thing scientists today continue to mock and challenge.

1. Arsenic based life form

In an article of popular science a young lady went though the rigors standards to show she had found that there was proof of an arsenic based life form. The whole article showed even to a non PHD scientist like me every attempt to discredit, villify, and destroy this lady by the "scientific community".

2. A scientist in the same publication (though I may be wrong it appeared in this specific one, I get so many) that some diseases (example heart and stomach) were caused by viruses and batcteria. He was mocked for YEARS.
Now after fighting the mockery for years the "community of experts
" now were quoted "may be something to this but more research is needed".

3. The evidence egyptians may have had a primitive lightbulb (a topic here on ATS) that caused reputable scientists to be discredited by the establishment. Even though the bagdad battery exists with plenty of potential to rewrite science history.

4. The idea something CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING being the only hard scientific rule but that the "establishment" still says the BIG BANG is the starting point for all creation.

A simple goggle search (or one here for that matter) can come up with many more examples.

The hard truth is that "established scientific community" (no matter what the field) does not like change no matter what the facts are if it is different that that they have "established".

Alot of the time the zeal they use make the taliban look tame.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
This question comes up over and over again. This is how I see it - Atheists don't believe God exists. Therefore, the defining characteristic of a religion can't be God, but the belief in God. This belief shapes behavior, there is no doubt, and that is what is really important.

Personally, I think religion has nothing to do with believing in a God or not, in fact, believing in a God can easily be explained as the God representing the paragon of that religion, something to strive for, especially if you are talking about Christians and Jesus (although they do a fairly bad job of it).

Therefore, if Atheists behaved as if they were a religious group, that would be enough in my book to classify them as one, regardless on whether or not they have a figurehead (although they might have a few mortal ones).
edit on 3-12-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 


I didn't mean that to include the politics of science. I didn't realize you were including that. My response was about the scientific method, not the science community now or throughout the ages. If I had taken that into account I would not hesitate to use the word 'forced' either



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Not so. Our Judeo-Christian heritage informed us from whence we came and WHY we are here. Now NeoDarwinism does just that. It IS very much a religion in that important and undeniable regard.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


This makes me laugh.


Atheism is nothing like religion which controls people's lives. It is an opinion and a reaction, not a way of life and only comes to light when others discuss religion.


Really it is only an opinion and a reaction not a way of life?

I think there are several million russians who suffered under communism that openly claimed to be an "atheistic state" that would disagree with that premice

I think russia communist who openly stated there is no god and only the state is the ultimate showing of atheism being seen as a religion.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


What theists believe is that YOU were made with intention and with a furtherance of purpose in mind. Atheists do not believe this to have been the case. Atheists believe you are the product of an intentionless mechanical process. This is the main difference in the western tradition.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



Therefore, if Atheists behaved as if they were a religious group, that would be enough in my book to classify them as one


That's the problem there is no set doctrine to classify them by. Atheists are as diverse as there are people in the World. Should we find all the atheists that read and follow Nietzsche's philosophy and say they belong to the religion known as Atheism? Find all the atheists that read Frost's poetry and get inspiration from it and deem them members of the Atheist religion?

What do atheists read? Can you answer that definitively??? I couldn't. What do Christians read? Well I could definitively say they at least read the Bible.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AutomaticSlim
 


That is what science is all about. If you have nothing empiric, you are blowing smoke, which is what evolutionists are doing. Not that people should not be trying to figure this out, but given the nature of the problem, it may not be amenable to explanation. No fossil record of fish to man. Cannot wait for it to happen again, if it ever did happen. Nothing microevolutionary to support it. I think it will be one of those problems we never solve. Perhaps we even lack the capacity it being sufficiently complex.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


The problem with science is that (unfortunatly) you cannot separate the two.

Pure science as it were does not exist.

You have those as the leaders/establishment that view themselves much the same as a high priest of the religions of old.

They use their influence and more importantly their knowledge to quiet any dissent to their teachings (starting to see the likeness to religion).

They give their studies/facts/evidence as law and it is up to others to prove them wrong BY THEIR OPINIONS.

Now even in the face of this they are more often than naught will not admit fault. Even in the face of overwelming evidence or no alternative that fits their previous facts.

Two examples of this are the previously mentioned one of the big bang vs scientific fact something cannot come from nothing.

The second is the bumblebee principle (my words).

That being up untill about 15 years ago according to all known and proven (by the establishment) laws of aerodynamics, power systems, physics, you name it something made TO THE EXACT SPECIFICATIONS of a bumblebee could not fly.

Someone forgot to tell the bumblebees this and they were flying for thousands of years.

The fact (IMO face saving at its finest) that changed that was that someone "discovered after decades of studying" bumblebee wings that there is a thin slit/gap in their wings that give them some extra lift.

Not the fact they were flying or the fact the wings were studied, disected, microscope viewed, disected again, electtron microscope viewed for decades before this "discovery"
.

So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
A religion also consists of ritualised worship of the myth and its symbols, and some kind of contemplative, consciousness altering practice to have a self-transcendant experience within the confines of that myth (even if it's just a group singalong).
Otherwise it's just a story you happen to believe in.

Atheism does not have those.
edit on 3-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AutomaticSlim
 


See even the supreme court shows that a "religion" is not based on wiether one believes in a god at its base, you chant in a building called a church or don't have to pay taxes.

Ok now you athism not a religion supporters who use the court to get manger scenes removed tell me again how you are not a religion?

Do you now say the supreme court is wrong?

Cant have it both ways


Where do I sue?



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You have your morals because you grew up in a society that gained its ethics through religious morals.

read this



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


How can someone lack a belief in something they are unaware of? Really?

Before reading the end of this sentence, you do not have the knowledge, and therefor the belief, of the monster known as kjg'apofa'sf'agkla.

There you go, you had no belief of kjg'apofa'sf'agkla because you did not have the concept of its existence - now that you do, you can form a belief of whether or not you think he exists.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by scrounger
 



So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread


Never-minding science for the moment.

Where do you draw the line then. It seems to follow based on what you just said that any belief system would be considered a religion. That would be a very loose definition.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You have your morals because you grew up in a society that gained its ethics through religious morals.


Which would imply societies that were not introduced to religious teachings don't have ethics.

Your argument has already failed on that alone. If you don't see how, I really don't have an interest in explaining to you how these societies could have moral thought and moral action.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by scrounger
 



So while off topic of athiesm the OP first stated i think it shows that ANY SYSTEM can be considered a "religion" by the very basic definition of the word and not limited to belief in alah, god, old man in the clouds, the great spagetti monster, or something in that thread


Never-minding science for the moment.

Where do you draw the line then. It seems to follow based on what you just said that any belief system would be considered a religion. That would be a very loose definition.


Religion is a very loose word.

And a belief system is a religion.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



How can someone lack a belief in something they are unaware of? Really?

Before reading the end of this sentence, you do not have the knowledge, and therefor the belief, of the monster known as kjg'apofa'sf'agkla.

There you go, you had no belief of kjg'apofa'sf'agkla because you did not have the concept of its existence - now that you do, you can form a belief of whether or not you think he exists.



I didn't lack the belief in kjg'apofa'sf'agkla until I became aware of your concept of it.... sorry didn't follow your point.

Nor do I understand how this relates to your earlier point that a 'true atheist can't know about the concept of God'.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 





I'm not trying to start a religion-based flame war here, I really am curious. I just find it interesting that an Atheist can say that they have no religion or faith, but they cling almost fanatically to evolutionary science


Atheism and evolution do not go hand in hand. I am an atheist, yet I have not formed a solid opinion on evolution. There are many questions I find troublesome with evolution; the Cambrian Explosion being one of them.

When it comes to Atheism vs. religion, one of the main differences is a matter of ego. Atheists know that we are from this planet, and our flesh and bones will become one with the planet when we die. This knowledge is very simple and very humble.

The religious and spiritualists, however, have this arrogant belief that the universe was either created specifically for mankind, or that we play a major role in some cosmic consciousness. Sure, the living organism on this tiny speck of dust on the outskirts of one galaxy amongst billions of galaxies is important doncha know. lol If this huge ego manifested itself physically, then each of us would be dragging around a nice set of jupiters between our legs.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join