Ah, trying to classify people as groups of people? Aww man, shame. They come in all forms and serve many functions. Classifications are not true. Classifications are false. The essence of what is, is obscured by categorization, classification, labeling, etc. Rather, Just be. I mean, to make sense I haven't met enough of them to give you a valid judgment. So unable to judge properly or truely, I refuse to.
The moment that a so called atheist addresses religion, he's no longer doing atheism, he's doing religion. I love the ones who say, "science is the reason religion is false" but never can seem to elaborate. It's funny really.
Science is a religion. To those atheists bashing on faith, if they look at themselves they'd see they have deeply ingrained faith as well. Faith is inescapable, and a force that once connected to on a deep level, can bring you the joys and sorrows of love.
This thread be blowin' my mind yo. I don't even know where to start. 1. Atheism satisifes not one critierion to qualify as a religion. Without fail those who say this are noting only that the atheist, like the religious theist, has conviction, and this one similarity is all they need to imagine that the atheist would secretly like to start his own cult. 2. Saying that atheists have faith that gods do not exist is nonsense, and it is merely a weak attempt to equate one side of the argument with the other (a pervasive theme these days) in order to imply that the atheist is a hypocrite. Do you need faith to believe that there are no elves hidden in your computer screen? Or is there a good reason as to why you think they aren't in there? It is not nonsense to complain about nonsense. 3. Online conversations do not reflect real-world actions. Since most of the world believes in some sort of hypothetical, supernatural entities, it is not desirable for the atheist to start a conversation in real life in order to discuss and criticize the theist's beliefs. It's not often that people want their beliefs scrutinized let alone criticized. (BTW, these people are non-philosophers. ) So how does one driven crazy by the ubiquitous insanity go about venting to someone about all of this? Yep, the Internets, where anyone can freely enter or leave the conversation with the click of a button. Exactly because people largely don't want to offend the people close to them is why religious skeptics seem so commonplace on the web. It's the go-to place to actually have an honest conversation.
With inspired collaboration and co-creation comes shared wisdom and unbounded appreciation. Love is truly understood as the force of nature, consistent throughout the whole cosmos, capable of miraculous things. ^this, i like but the work isnt calm its hectic because, i cant meditate and love is always fighting hate, love is brewing subconsciously all the time, let some out
It's an oversimplification, but there is validity to it. Science is NOT a religion, however there are elements of faith to it. Science at times is speculative, and to believe in a theory takes the same leap of faith as to believe in a god. Though the evidence may be more observable, the system that organizes it still concedes to certain beliefs that could very well be wrong. Least of them being the possible fallacy of faith in the human senses. That being said, this is not an justification for belief in religion, but rather to create a reconciliation between the two said disciplines.
I understand what your saying and some do believe atheists are *better* people because they tend to think more rationally or are more down to earth and possibly not as hypocritical as a bible fanatic but that is way to big a generalization to make
Science may not be a religion, but religious people, (atheists) attempting to assert the process of science somehow speaks to religious issues are flat wrong. I love how people say, "you don't understand science", and that's it.
Why not? Religious experiences, for example, come from an organic brain that can be studied scientifically. I don't understand how the process of science cannot address some religious questions...
When it deals with the brain as an organic substance, and studies only the observable and physical aspects of it, it's not doing religion, it's doing science.
This is just sooo funny to me. The fact that in order for your religious views to make sense you have to separate them from science. Science and religion work to explain the same thing, if one says something is absolute fact, cough science, then the other, cough religion, must be wrong. Science, however has yet to explain soooo many things and probably will not suceed with some questions ever. So, theres alot of open area for religion to take a stab at. To disregard science entirely because it only explains the physical is absolutely nonsensical. You head down that path and you wind up following the creationists who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. You sir, just proved the OP's point. good day
Hey buddy. Those aren't my religious views. Also, no one said they had to be separated entirely, simply distinguished from one another. I mean, science isn't religion, and religion isn't science. I don't disregard science in any way whatsoever. You have dramatically misunderstood the context of my statement.
1. you just said religion isn't science 2. science involves a fair amount of faith, similar to religion. 3. sorry, my bad.
Well, I have faith that I'm typing this post, but I don't think I'm being particularly religious about it. And I know that it's gonna be translated into some kind of code and logically sent across the internet to appear on another screen via some physical process, but I don't think I'm being scientific by posting it. I agree that both share some properties with one another. But we wouldn't call them 2 different things if there wasn't a distinction to be drawn. The point that I was originally trying to make is that atheism is not equal to science. Just because science gives descriptions of physical phenomenon doesn't mean that metaphysical ones have been disproven.