Atheism and science

There seemed to be misinformation in regarding to atheism and science. They are 2 different things, not only by definitions, but by concepts and applications.

Atheism is only about religion, or its concept toward religious belief or theism in that "there are no gods". That's all it is. Atheists don't believe in spiritual belief, such as god, devil, angels, spirits, heaven, hell, etc.

It is totally unrelated to science. Anyone can be scientists, if he or she is willing to take the time to learn about science, regardless of religious background and belief.

Theists also loved to blame atheism for communism. Atheism is not about politics. Anyone can participate in politics, regardless of religious background and belief. There are atheists in capitalism, democracy, socialism, monarchy, and other forms of politics, and not just in communism.

The problem with mixing religion with politics is that they often try to push what should be religious matters into politics and laws, which is not good mix. That's why I advocate for separation between state and politics.

The same problem can occur in mixing religion with science. Religious people have the tendency to cloud pre-conceived religious notations with scientific matters, which would cause a biased results.

T. H. Huxley, the British biologist, who coined the word agnosticism, fought long hard against theologists interfering with science, trying to separate theology from science, and he was right in doing so.

The only people I ever see conflating atheism and science are atheists.
"Atheism is more rational."
"Science is my god."
...
I certainly have no problem understanding that one can be both a theist and a scientist.

Honestly, the problem here is that people go back and forth on what they mean by "atheism." For some, it is merely a rejection or the absence of theism. In which case, it has no content in and of itself and of course it's not related to things like communism. But other atheists - or perhaps the same atheists in different circumstances - DO ascribe content to atheism. They say atheism is pro-science (implying that theism is not), that atheism believes in separation of church and state (implying that theism does not).

Sorry, but either atheism is the absence of content, in which case it can neither be praised nor criticized. Or it does espouse something, in which case it can be judged like any other belief system.

Edit:
On second thought, I have seen a limited number of theists who attack science as anti-god. Honestly, I just write them off as crazy. But if I am to be fair, then the first statement that I made in this post is untrue.

Most of my atheist friends are not scientists by professions. Most of them are in one form of business or another, such as sales, marketing or accounting.

Does that mean all businesses are run by atheists?

Being atheists have nothing to do with business.

gnostic said:

Most of my atheist friends are not scientists by professions. Most of them are in one form of business or another, such as sales, marketing or accounting.

Does that mean all businesses are run by atheists?

Being atheists have nothing to do with business.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah... I agree. What is your point?

That the scientists do not studying atheism anymore than they would study theism.

Nor do they work in the fields of science for the sake of atheism.

gnostic said:

That's all it is. Atheists don't believe in spiritual belief, such as god, devil, angels, spirits, heaven, hell, etc.

Click to expand...

This is inaccurate as atheism only relates to positions held on the subject of gods.

lilithu said:

Sorry, but either atheism is the absence of content, in which case it can neither be praised nor criticized. Or it does espouse something, in which case it can be judged like any other belief system.

Click to expand...

The word is currently being used as a label for both. I am sure in time that will change. As I understand it atheism use to mean the same thing as antitheism.

Jeremiah said:

This is inaccurate as atheism only relates to positions held on the subject of gods.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he means Materialist Atheists who deny any sort of dualism where such entities or places are supposed to exist. Although I suppose one could think of angels and demons as physical entities like ourselves, but I can't think of many people who still believe that.

lilithu said:

Honestly, the problem here is that people go back and forth on what they mean by "atheism." For some, it is merely a rejection or the absence of theism. In which case, it has no content in and of itself and of course it's not related to things like communism. But other atheists - or perhaps the same atheists in different circumstances - DO ascribe content to atheism. They say atheism is pro-science (implying that theism is not), that atheism believes in separation of church and state (implying that theism does not).

Sorry, but either atheism is the absence of content, in which case it can neither be praised nor criticized. Or it does espouse something, in which case it can be judged like any other belief system.

Click to expand...

Being an Atheist or Theist does by the very word itself only deal with one's perceptions on the notion of God(s). Atheist and Theists of course if they do live in one way or another in reality usually develop political and cultural opinions, which then colors them in realms of communism, socialism, capitalism, republican, democrat, independent and such an such. An Atheist can be as much of a materialist, dualist or idealist as a theist can.

Ulver said:

Perhaps he means Materialist Atheists who deny any sort of dualism where such entities or places are supposed to exist. Although I suppose one could think of angels and demons as physical entities like ourselves, but I can't think of many people who still believe that.

Click to expand...

You'll only muddle things more if you associate atheism with materialism. While most materialist are likely atheist the same is not true vice versa.

Jeremiah said:

You'll only muddle things more if you associate atheism with materialism. While most materialist are likely atheist the same is not true vice versa.

Click to expand...

I was only saying he perhaps made that assumption, which is a mistake I can imagine many making when giving a quick comment on a message board.

gnostic said:

That the scientists do not studying atheism anymore than they would study theism.

Nor do they work in the fields of science for the sake of atheism.

Click to expand...

Well if that's your point, then AGREED.

According to a double-blind study done by University of Minnesota students, approx. 88% of atheists used some sort of rational, logical, scientific thought to come to their conclusion. "Scientific thought" defined for our purposes was thought that could be scientifically tested to be true or false.
I feel that science influences atheism, because any belief system creates a bias, and bias influences people's decisions.

lilithu said:

The only people I ever see conflating atheism and science are atheists.
"Atheism is more rational."
"Science is my god."

Click to expand...

I have a different experience. While I see this come up, more often I see theists assume that "science is the atheist's God".

Honestly, the problem here is that people go back and forth on what they mean by "atheism." For some, it is merely a rejection or the absence of theism. In which case, it has no content in and of itself and of course it's not related to things like communism. But other atheists - or perhaps the same atheists in different circumstances - DO ascribe content to atheism. They say atheism is pro-science (implying that theism is not), that atheism believes in separation of church and state (implying that theism does not).

Sorry, but either atheism is the absence of content, in which case it can neither be praised nor criticized. Or it does espouse something, in which case it can be judged like any other belief system.

Click to expand...

This does happen, too, but I think these people do atheism a disservice. They only perpetuate the myth that atheism is anything in and of itself. It is merely the lack of belief in God, which can be a part of one's philosophy on life, but not the defining part. It's kind of like saying "What is there?" and getting the response "Well, there are no apples". It's like "OK, but what is there?" The first response is all well and good, but it doesn't give you any real info. It's the same when you ask "Do you think there's a personal God?" When I say "No", it doesn't really tell you anything about what I do believe.

science_is_my_god said:

According to a double-blind study done by University of Minnesota students, approx. 88% of atheists used some sort of rational, logical, scientific thought to come to their conclusion. "Scientific thought" defined for our purposes was thought that could be scientifically tested to be true or false.
I feel that science influences atheism, because any belief system creates a bias, and bias influences people's decisions.

Click to expand...

Wow, a study done by students. 88%. Some sort of rational thought. Very impressive. :sarcastic

How about a real study?
Study: Emotion rules the brain's decisions - USATODAY.com

Atheism is simply a response to theism. It doesn't make any of it's own claims. It's like someone asking "What does that cloud look like? To me, it looks like a bird." and the response of an atheist would be "I just see a cloud."

lilithu said:

Wow, a study done by students. 88%. Some sort of rational thought. Very impressive. :sarcastic

How about a real study?
Study: Emotion rules the brain's decisions - USATODAY.com

Click to expand...

It's better than dogmatic theistic beliefs that have no rational thought.

And, btw, emotion is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. It is a response to one's surroundings, and those surroundings still follow the rules of science.

mball1297 said:

I have a different experience. While I see this come up, more often I see theists assume that "science is the atheist's God".

Click to expand...

Yeah, I realized afterwards that I have seen that. As I said in my edit, I usually dismiss them as crazy, which shows my bias.

mball1297 said:

This does happen, too, but I think these people do atheism a disservice. They only perpetuate the myth that atheism is anything in and of itself. It is merely the lack of belief in God, which can be a part of one's philosophy on life, but not the defining part.

Click to expand...

I really don't care if we go with your definition (non-theist) or with Jeremiah's definition (anti-theist). Either is valid, tho I tend to agree with you atheism is insufficient to be the defining part of one's world view. My complaint is that the two both get used, and it seems to me that it's often the definition that is most convenient at the time that is employed. However, I recognize that theists of various stripes that do this too.

lilithu said:

My complaint is that the two both get used, and it seems to me that it's often the definition that is most convenient at the time that is employed.

Click to expand...

Btw, there is an example of an atheist playing it both ways in this thread.

lilithu said:

Yeah, I realized afterwards that I have seen that. As I said in my edit, I usually dismiss them as crazy, which shows my bias.


I really don't care if we go with your definition (non-theist) or with Jeremiah's definition (anti-theist). Either is valid, tho I tend to agree with you atheism is insufficient to be the defining part of one's world view. My complaint is that the two both get used, and it seems to me that it's often the definition that is most convenient at the time that is employed. However, I recognize that theists of various stripes that do this too.

Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing, and I know you understand. I was just clarifying, that's all. Some do exactly what you say. I'm just saying that they are bad ambassadors of "atheism" as much as fundamentalist Christians are for "theism".

science_is_my_god said:

It's better than dogmatic theistic beliefs that have no rational thought.

Click to expand...

So according to your student run study, what percentage of theists used some form of rational thought? I would like a link too, please.

science_is_my_god said:

And, btw, emotion is a chemical reaction that occurs in the brain. It is a response to one's surroundings, and those surroundings still follow the rules of science.

Click to expand...

:areyoucra To say that the chemical reactions follow the rules of science and therefore making one's decisions based on those chemical reactions means that one is following the rules of science is logically fallacious. By your "logic" everyone - whether theist or atheist, rational or irrational - follows the rules of science.