[bettingonosports]

This is something I've said for sometime, hence the word: aetheist.

[AncewwewBus]

If you want to understand the world, understand buddhism.

Buddhism basically supports the "it's fundamentally reasonless" view, along with the guarantee that you WILL go mad if you think about it too hard. If you wish to have all the sanity that it is possible to have, you do well to not seek reason in the reasonless.

[SpecialOFFER]

Atheism is a religion also most certainly

I feel that science in some ways is a religion, in that many people accept the modern tenets of science on faith because they don't have the knowledge or ability to comprehend the actual science behind it. The complexity of scientific understanding, combined with the general lack of ability to communicate on the part of most scientists (those of you who date scientists will know what i'm talking about ) mean that the 'common person' is generally both unable to determine the validity of scientific statements themselves, and very much at risk of being 'converted' by a rogue 'scientist' who is able to communicate but does not necessarily tell the truth (Kevin "Natural Cures" Trudeau, anyone?).

Solution:
1) Greater dissemination of the ability to judge the validity of scientific theories. This includes a) a greater understanding of the underpinnings of science, which is taught in high school but often is too specific, and taught poorly such that kids don't actually learn it (GIGO), and b) teaching directly how a scientific theory should be judged - both how to identify a valid theory (ie doesn't claim what it can't prove) and how to parse the theory into what it actually is saying.
2) Teach scientists how to write/speak to the People, and teach that it is IMPORTANT. Many scientists are unable to converse without jargon to the point that they actually don't know what the jargon means in plain english - which tells me they don't know what it means at all (or that they don't know english...) Richard Dawkins was a good start, but that needs to be EVERY scientist, or at least a good portion of them.

[Auzuigcx]

Originally posted by snoopy369


This is largely true, except in that science is the attempt to study the reasons behind those beliefs and tear them down into the smallest bits possible, while religion (or at least western religion, ie christianity) considers the beliefs truly fundamental and does not seek to discover the reasons for those beliefs, only the corollaries as a result of said beliefs. Not necessarily. Modern science evolved from changes in attitude toward religion. There was a movement away from blind faith toward a more rationale and philosophical explanation of faith. It's the trend back to blind faith (especially strong here in America) that is disturbing. I blame the inevitable degradation of protestantism.

[Adamanta]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
(for most an example is "God exists" which is like this, and yes Blake, I know that for buddism this isn't true). Isn't for sure, for buddhism, it isn't for sure.

I mean, God might exist, but it isn't for sure.

[CtEkM8Vq]

By the way, I don't consider what some of the people quoted in the second article to be doing as science. String theory is very questionable as far as science goes right now (it is much closer to physically inspired mathematics then physics) and those guys like going beyond that.

Jon Miller

[Podborodok]

Originally posted by DaShi


Not necessarily. Modern science evolved from changes in attitude toward religion. There was a movement away from blind faith toward a more rationale and philosophical explanation of faith. It's the trend back to blind faith (especially strong here in America) that is disturbing. I blame the inevitable degradation of protestantism. Yes, except that there are core elements that cannot be questioned - 'is there a god', 'was Jesus Christ the savior', etc. Those must be - by definition - taken on faith. The bible goes into detail on this - Jesus explicitly states that you must believe, on faith, in him. Admittedly that was probably added post-fact (even if anything was true of the bible, of course) by the writers of the gospel(s), but ... point is, you must take some of it on faith no matter how much you 'question'.

[Metalhead]

I propose that we abolish the notion of "natural law". It's so 18th century. Instead we should refer to the regular relationships of nature as "properties" - of gravity, of thermodynamics, of genetics, and etc., etc.

[jimmy28]

Originally posted by Zoid
I refuse to accept that there is no reason behind the universe. If there isn't any reason, what's the point of being here? Things don't just happen, they happen for a reason. We may not understand that reason yet, but we're getting there. Throughout human history man has searched for the meaning of life and existence. Why are things the way they are and not the other way around? Now you could handle this by saying that it's fundamentally reasonless, but I think that's a cop-out. We have an obligation to ourselves to strive for knowledge. What is the point of there being a reason? Does it really change anything for there to be a meaning, or not? Will the earth stop spinning around the sun, or will plants stop photosynthsizing if it turns out there is no reason or meaning to any of it?

[metropropuskruww]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I would suggest you mean organized religion. Many religions are not organized... and atheism is most certainly a set of beliefs (which is one definition of religion). No, that is PART of one definiton of religion.

Here are a few defintions:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom

and the Etymology:
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
religion

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

[triardwonvada]

Well. I do understand the guy's point, but there are differences between faith and science. Not that they are mutually exclusive, they aren't, but you still can't call science faith either.

[12Cickprior]

Originally posted by GePap
I am sick of people saying "Atheism is a religion."

No one ever says "Polytheism is a religion" or "Monotheism is a religion", so why then **** is saying "Atheism is a religion" any less nonsensical??

A belief (ie. dieties do not exist) is not " a set of beliefs", it is just one, singular, belief.

It would be possible to have an Atheistic religion, but Atheism in an of itself is no more a religion than Polytheism or Monotheism by themselves. Please create your own thread to argue semantics. It's just sad to see it here.

[jenilopaz]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Atheism is a religion in which Nothing is sacred.

0 = Good point Zkribbler!

[rowneigerie]

Np +1

[jamemeveRhype]

One difference between most of natural science and religious faith IMHO is, that theories in natural science normally are based on reproducable experiments.

If you find out that under certain physical conditions a metal ball accelerates with 9.81 m/s² towards earth, you can be sure that you can get the same results if you reproduce te experiment under the same conditions (otherwise the theory can be falsified).

Not so for the works of the bible/Toah/Quran. for example, which normally aren´t reproducable (or even contradict observations, like for example fossil founds or just rational thinking)

I absolutely agree that when science asks why the natural laws are like they are (or what was before big bang) then it enters the dominion of religion, although this has to be a religions that has more in common with buddhism (which Blake already mentioned) than with any of the Abrahamix religions.

[QEoMi752]

Originally posted by Zoid
I refuse to accept that there is no reason behind the universe. If there isn't any reason, what's the point of being here? Things don't just happen, they happen for a reason. We may not understand that reason yet, but we're getting there. Throughout human history man has searched for the meaning of life and existence. Why are things the way they are and not the other way around? Now you could handle this by saying that it's fundamentally reasonless, but I think that's a cop-out. We have an obligation to ourselves to strive for knowledge. Yeah... but what if there actually is no reason behind the universe?

I've always supported the "Life is a cosmic accident" theory. To me that makes much more sense than there being a reason behind it.

I mean what reason could there be behind some molecules starting to self-reproduce?

Life did just fine for many billions of years without reasons, reasons are a purely human invention (although any sentient could invent them, nothing special about humans).

Just as man created god and not vice-verca, man created reason and not vice-verca.

It's really not that hard to understand.

“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.”
--Confucius

[STYWOMBORGOSY]

But there's no sustenance in it .

[loolitoertego]

No one ever says "Polytheism is a religion" or "Monotheism is a religion", so why then **** is saying "Atheism is a religion" any less nonsensical??

A belief (ie. dieties do not exist) is not " a set of beliefs", it is just one, singular, belief.

It would be possible to have an Atheistic religion, but Atheism in an of itself is no more a religion than Polytheism or Monotheism by themselves. Good point.

We should separate the Marxist religion from the Darwinist religion, and both are different from the Neitzche religion.

[RotsLoado]

Really, it's a description of what happens.

Of course the word "Law" or "Rule" has a dual meaning. Traditionally it means "This is what you must do, otherwise you risk punishment", while scientifically it means "This is what XYZ is like".

Things fall, that is what gravity is like.

[TravelMan]

Originally posted by Starchild


What's with this desire people have for there to be a reason or a point to existence? So what if there's no point to being alive. Things still are. You may be a brief collection of atoms and aspirations but you still love and lust, grieve and mourn. So what if in the whole of eternity that means absolutely nothing? So what if its a collection of chemical interactions proceeding down a negative slope toward entropy? It still happens. It still matters, even if only to you. Spend all your time trying to find a point for existing and you'll never give any time to being the the point of existing. That's a very good point. I suppose I'm looking for reason in the universe because I can't find any reason for my own existence. So by being a part of something bigger than me, that makes sense, it doesn't feel as bad.