Atheism is a belief system? - Page 17

kowalskil · 04-05-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Smellyoldgit wrote

Every theist will share your disbelief in every religion except their own.

Yes, disagreements between theists are very common.

Ludwik
.
.

Sternwallow · 04-05-2011, 06:26 PM

Welcome L

I think the issue here is not differences between religions, but rather the issues of belief and disbelief.

Ellanoor · 05-02-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

I agree with you, Davin, and disagree with PZ.

I'm not cool with the "plus" concept either. Would you call black people who joined together to fight civil rights violations "blacks plus"?

No I wouldn't. I think that is a better analogy than some of the ones I mentioned, my "problem" was with analogy...and I may have added some of my own experiences into the mix.

MFN_BOSS · 12-14-2011, 10:00 AM

Neither atheism nor theism are belief systems. They are simply an answer to a single question.

Do you believe a god exists?

If you answer yes, you're a theist.

Any other answer, you're an atheist.

Atheist's aren't trying to sell anything, we're just not buying what the theist is selling.

kowalskil · 12-14-2011, 10:15 AM

Two statements “God created us on his image,” and “We created God on our image,” do not necessarily have to be called contradictory. We are part of material world; God is part of spiritual world. Endless conflicts between materialists (scientist) and spritualists (theologians) would gradually disappear if all people started accepting such position.

I am not the first one to formulate that idea; I accepted it and I am promoting it, as often as I can.

Ludwik Kowalski
.

nkb · 12-14-2011, 10:25 AM

I agree with you, with one minor correction:

"We are part of material world; God is part of imaginary world."

Davin · 12-14-2011, 10:38 AM

I love how people see shit as science and religion fighting. Science only cares when religion comes in and tries to mess up the place. Religion cares because they're insecure, so they go and try to mess up science. If religious fuckers didn't try to limit science for religious reasons, then science wouldn't give a single flying rat's ass about what religion does.

kowalskil · 12-14-2011, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Davin wrote

I love how people see shit as science and religion fighting. Science only cares when religion comes in and tries to mess up the place. Religion cares because they're insecure, so they go and try to mess up science. If religious fuckers didn't try to limit science for religious reasons, then science wouldn't give a single flying rat's ass about what religion does.

I am not confusing religion with God.

Best wishes to all,

Ludwik Kowalski
.

Davin · 12-14-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

kowalskil wrote

I am not confusing religion with God.

Best wishes to all,

Ludwik Kowalski
.

Who said you were?

lostsheep · 12-14-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Davin wrote

I love how people see shit as science and religion fighting. Science only cares when religion comes in and tries to mess up the place. Religion cares because they're insecure, so they go and try to mess up science. If religious fuckers didn't try to limit science for religious reasons, then science wouldn't give a single flying rat's ass about what religion does.

I don't know, Davin. Maybe science has to care about religion, and vice versa. If religion and science are claiming conflicting things about reality, then maybe conflict is inevitable. I mean, if people believe that spirits possess people and that possessed people should be burned at the stake, but science leads to far different conclusions, then how can scientists be indifferent to this behavior and beliefs? A material philosophy seems incompatible with a spiritual one.

Sternwallow · 12-15-2011, 12:34 AM

Quote:

lostsheep wrote

I don't know, Davin. Maybe science has to care about religion, and vice versa. If religion and science are claiming conflicting things about reality, then maybe conflict is inevitable. I mean, if people believe that spirits possess people and that possessed people should be burned at the stake, but science leads to far different conclusions, then how can scientists be indifferent to this behavior and beliefs? A material philosophy seems incompatible with a spiritual one.

Well said

In fact I was in Davin's camp on this issue, that science and religion could be compatible if only religion would restrict itself to spiritual or moral issues. Your example showed that spiritual or supernatural phenomena are usless to consider if they do not have an effect on reality.

See, people, it is quite possible, with an open mind, to change one's position when supporting evidence is presented.

ILOVEJESUS · 12-15-2011, 03:03 AM

Quote:

MFN_BOSS wrote

Neither atheism nor theism are belief systems. They are simply an answer to a single question.

Do you believe a god exists?

If you answer yes, you're a theist.

Any other answer, you're an atheist.

Atheist's aren't trying to sell anything, we're just not buying what the theist is selling.

An excellent view point.

Davin · 12-15-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

lostsheep wrote

I don't know, Davin. Maybe science has to care about religion, and vice versa. If religion and science are claiming conflicting things about reality, then maybe conflict is inevitable. I mean, if people believe that spirits possess people and that possessed people should be burned at the stake, but science leads to far different conclusions, then how can scientists be indifferent to this behavior and beliefs? A material philosophy seems incompatible with a spiritual one.

I don't think science should care at all about what religion claims, caring would only make a bias harder to remove, which would lead to not being very scientific. With our current scientific method, we are getting a very accurate depiction of reality, there is no need to throw in caring about religious claims to fuck it all up.

The second part is a call to something outside the context of science. If the science leads to there being something other than demon possession, then the people should act, science is just a methodology and we must emply other methodologies to deal with that kind of behavior, not attach it onto science to make it even worse. Use science to explain things and why you think one should or shouldn't do something, but don't try to increase the scope of science.

kowalskil · 12-15-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Davin wrote

... The second part is a call to something outside the context of science. If the science leads to there being something other than demon possession, then the people should act, science is just a methodology and we must emply other methodologies to deal with that kind of behavior, not attach it onto science to make it even worse. Use science to explain things and why you think one should or shouldn't do something, but don't try to increase the scope of science.

Yes indeed; dealing with spiritual claims belongs to spiritualists (theologists) not scientists (materialists).

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), athor of
http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html
this autobiography is based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

nkb · 12-15-2011, 08:58 AM

Unless the spiritualists are making claims about the material world (as they often do), then their bullshit is fair game for science.

Pssst, Ludwik! Do you know the forum rules on spamming?