Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.

But they are never good enough.

Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

(Disclaimer: I am 100% certain that God exists and created everything. I also believe in evolution and science. Shocking, but apparently you can believe both.)

There is some great evidence that could prove god exists, he could make a appearance on Oprah for starters. Maybe a new book, or the rapture would be a good sign.

I'd say the big difference here is can you accept that you are wrong? lets say god does show up and says Jesus was just a con man, and Mohammad is your man, would you switch to Islam? or if he said Hi I'm Zeus, see my son started the Olympics, go team Canada, kick some ass in London. could you stop being a christian?

No one ever said science can explain everything, especially not today. But what it does figure out leads to some impressive things.

Kaldor wrote:I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."

Man, I've heard smart, like, really actually smart people telling me that the Bible proves itself.

d-usa wrote:Plenty of evidence, especially in the actions of the people that saw Christ.

But they are never good enough.

Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of a God, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that God exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision.

Same as fundamentalist religious folks and science. Once some people make the choice to reject the concept of science, no evidence is ever enough to make them change their mind. There is no simple "here is the definitive proof that evolution exists", but there is plenty of pieces of evidence that together let you make a fairly informed decision that evolution is a valid theory.

I think fundamentalist Christians rejecting science are just as wrong as Atheists rejecting any notion of a God because science can "explain everything".

The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.

daedalus wrote:

Kaldor wrote:I once had a really long debate with an otherwise intelligent guy who had converted to Islam late in life. He maintained he had done his research, and that Islam was the only religion that had empirical evidence to back up it's claims. When pressed, his comments basically boiled down to "Well, there was this magic book..."

Man, I've heard smart, like, really actually smart people telling me that the Bible proves itself.

I have the utmost respect for people that believe in God because of the Bible saying he's real. After all, the Bible was written under God's influence, so everything in it is the truth. And, we know God is real because the bible says so.

Sure, it's circular logic, but it is logical (even if it does beg the question).

I think you need to find a better, less offensive to a lot of other posters, way to express yourself here.

Thanks

Reds8n

dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.

Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.

When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.

dogma wrote:

dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.

Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.

When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.

So things people believe based on evidence I can't call beliefs?

And I can't refer to science as it?

I apologise profusely.

The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.

Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:

dæl wrote:

dogma wrote:

dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that it will change its belief if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes it from faith.

Science doesn't have beliefs, its a process.

When you call said process "it" you vest it with the sort of capital that faith trades on.

So things people believe based on evidence I can't call beliefs?

And I can't refer to science as it?

I apologise profusely.

The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.

Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:

"Science" is a consensus based on peoples' interpretation of evidence...

dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.

Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:

No, it is actually worse, because you're still using "science" like "God".

Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.

LordofHats wrote:Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.

But science is not a religion. why are the christians pushing that every belief needs to be a religion? That's the real question. Or more to the point, why are christians pushing every belief they don't accept needs to be a religion?

Is dakkadakka our religion here? Do you believe the web site exists? well if you believe this web site exists it must be your religion right?
Or do you not believe this web site is here, so that is your religion?

LordofHats wrote:Hence the statement "science is the new religion." Semantic quibbling yes, but the statement holds some truth to a large number of people, regardless of what they think they think.

...and we're back to the same fallacy as page one; it's like these five pages never happened.

To peel away the sophistry again, yes, one could indeed argue that science (or, for the sake of exactness, the scientific method applied to empirical evidence) holds in the modern world the same place religion held in earlier centuries, in so far as both seek to explain the world.

The truth of that particular parallel, however, does not necessarily make any other parallel between science and religion true.

If Jesus existed at all, he existed far too long ago for any supposed witness reports to be reliable.

Also, whilst scientific theories can be wrong, science itself can't be wrong by definition. Science is the study of how the world works. It has no bias, no culture, no grudges-just pure, unadulterated fact.

It takes too much faith to be an athiest, i stick with agnosticism.

dogma wrote:

dæl wrote:
The whole point of science is that science will change science's logical assumption based on evidence provided by scientific process if presented with appropriate evidence. That is what distinguishes science from faith.

Is this less offensive to your sensibilities? :sigh:

No, it is actually worse, because you're still using "science" like "God".

How am I using science like God? Science is a collective of findings that have been proved and then superseded as they were disproved until we reached what we have today. It has created a widespread knowledge base, which most people are at least aware of some basic aspects of. How is that in any way like a superhuman deity?

dæl wrote:
How am I using God like God? God is a collective of findings that have been proved and then superseded as they were disproved until we reached what we have today. It has created a widespread knowledge base, which most people are at least aware of some basic aspects of. How is that in any way like a superhuman deity?

Yep.

Yep.

Generally questions that begin with the word how don't tend to lend themselves to yes or no answers. :more sigh:

Oh I see, you tried to be clever, whilst failing, admirable attempt though.

God is a collection of findings(?) that has been proved(?) and then disproved(?) Really?

You didn't read my post.

dæl wrote:
God is a collection of findings(?)

Yeah. Hence the holy books.

dæl wrote:
that has been proved(?)

Depends on standards.

dæl wrote:
and then disproved(?) Really?

Young internet believes so.

The holy books are assertions, not findings.
God supposedly cannot be proved or disproved, to do either would invalidate faith.

Out of interest, have you a background in science?

The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.

A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.

For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people

EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.

LordofHats wrote:The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.

A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.

For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people

EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.

You've touched upon the crux of the matter, namely the literalist nature of modern English.
People assume "religious" = follower of an established, named religion, rather than as a part of human nature.

Beer_&_Bolters wrote:It takes too much faith to be an athiest, i stick with agnosticism.

I prefer to use the term "Athorist", or the lack of belief in Thor. It leads to much more interesting discussions regarding religion. After all, who said that atheism only applies to the christian god?

Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the word religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

LordofHats wrote:The point isn't that science is literally a religion. This debate derives from an ongoing (and studied trend) for people to vest belief in science in an almost religious manner. Its the same thing with atheism. People attribute to these things beliefs and ideals that are very religious-like in nature.

A thing is what it is, but its also what people think it is.

For example, I could be a middle aged white guy living in his parents basement. But I could also be extremely annoying to certain people

EDIT: It doesn't help this debate that religion in the west in discussed in defined in almost universally Christian terms. Some people have even noted Atheist is less anti-religion and more anti-Christian than anything.

The dakka trolls, religiously troll, ergo dakkadakka is a religion because I think it is.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Do we not all agree to the rules of the forums? Yep. Atheism doesn't even have rules, so dakka is closer to a religion than atheism is.

most of these debates are in christian terms because christians will try and pass x into law because its in there bible (not really but if you read it a funny way they'll say it is). people not of that religion go who cares what your book says. christians claim everyone's being mean to them and violating their freedom of religion and being anti-christian.

Saying you can't put religious symbols in public spaces is not anti-religion.
Using your bible as a basis for anything, brings it up for criticism. Criticizing the bible is not anti-christian when you bring it up as basis for your argument.
You are free to follow your religion, and practice it at your church, there is no need to pass religious laws into secular laws, or bring your beliefs into the public. If its against your religion, then don't do it.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Is dakkadakka our religion here?

Dakkadakka is the only true religion.

LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).

LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

This is exactly why I am atheist rather than anti-theist. I may have some issues with the actions of organised religion, but I don't wish to deny someone their faith.

No need to get personal lynchmob No one is talking about passing religion into law here. We're talking about the possibility of atheism (or science) being embued with religious qualities.

Point 1: Read my post just above yours. The idea that religion is organized is an almost strictly Abrahamic concept. Most religion is in fact not organized at all. They don't have clearly defined rules.

Point 2: Like I said above, your defining religion in a very Christian sense. Typically I find that inadequate to define religion hence things like 'faith' or 'theism' are not central to something being religious.

d-usa wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Well, I don't know if I'd agree with that. But people do have an overt tendency to associate the world religion with organized religion, and to assume religion is inherently organized which I feel is false.

One thing to consider there may also be that while atheists argue that atheism isn't a religion, many do act "religious" about their belief (or lack of).

Define acting religious, after all there are no pilgrimages to the Natural History Museum, atheist's don't ask for Darwin's and Newton's birthdays off work, they don't kneel to the concept of Physics.

Big one is "converting others". While many atheists are happy to leave others alone, others want to point out to everyone that they found the "truth" and want to convert them.