Fade i dont think you are getting my point, im not calling evolution a religion! Im saying that if i had to say what an atheists religion was it would be evolution, thats the closest thing to there religion in my opinion -then i mentioned some parallels to show why i would choose evolution as the atheists "religion". All this in keeping with the theme of the thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism...the religion of...science?
- Thread starter hero
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist. If he was anything, Darwin was an agnostic. Darwin was a contemporary and good friend of Huxley, who coined the word agnosticism and a great defender of Darwin's theory.
Secondly, many atheists don't know science, let alone evolution. So I wouldn't call evolution as religion for atheists. Typical stereotyping from a Christian and creationist.
Fade?
I have only been here for a very short time, but all the posts I have read so far from Steve, happened to be over-simplification and stereotyping of atheism. This happens a lot among most Christians, so I am not surprise.
Secondly, many atheists don't know science, let alone evolution. So I wouldn't call evolution as religion for atheists. Typical stereotyping from a Christian and creationist.
Fade?
I have only been here for a very short time, but all the posts I have read so far from Steve, happened to be over-simplification and stereotyping of atheism. This happens a lot among most Christians, so I am not surprise.
gnostic
The Lost One
By all mean, let's stop stereotyping christians and scientists, too.netdoc said:
Well, I didn't stereotype scientists with atheists, netdoc. Nor have I stereotyped scientists with Christians.
BTW, netdoc. I'm an agnostic, not atheist.
Do you always stereotype agnosticism with atheism, netdoc? Or don't you understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism? Bwahahahahaha, indeed!
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
You still sterotyped Christians. Go back and read your post.gnostic said:By all mean, let stop christians and scientists, too.
Well, I didn't stereotype scientists with atheists, netdoc. Nor have I stereotyped scientists with Christians.
Before you belittle my understanding of the differences between Atheism and Agnosticism, please refer to the TITLE of this thread. I do make an effort to keep things as on topic as possible. Bwahahahahaha X2gnostic said:BTW, netdoc. I'm an agnostic, not atheist.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
agnostic= without knowledge (or intellect)
atheist= without God
atheist= without God
gnostic
The Lost One
1st two paragraphs were directed at Steve.
The rest was to you. It wasn't so much a question as querying if you are still here.
I know so many atheists who have never study evolution or even science, so how can it be a religion for the atheism. Many of the atheists I know are into business, not science or evolution or the big bang. It is typical stereotyping, which Christians don't often understand.
I am not against religion, but I won't be fool by them either. I will defend Christianity if I believe one side are wrong, just as I would defend Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism or atheism. If I know someone have wrongfully accuse one side of something, then I will play the Devil's Advocate, even I don't follow their religion or philosophy.
Admittedly, I have soft spot for pagans and heretics, mainly because both mainstream Christians and Muslims have persecuted these people in the past. I'd often support the underdogs, especially one side become too arrogant and domineering.
Of course, this will some tick people off, because I'll switch side when I take on the advocate wrong. So far, I have not defended Satanism, mainly because I really have not come across them, but the problem is that some Christians have the tendency to lump Satanism on all non-Christians, which is typically more Christian prejudices and stereotypings.
The rest was to you. It wasn't so much a question as querying if you are still here.
I know so many atheists who have never study evolution or even science, so how can it be a religion for the atheism. Many of the atheists I know are into business, not science or evolution or the big bang. It is typical stereotyping, which Christians don't often understand.
I am not against religion, but I won't be fool by them either. I will defend Christianity if I believe one side are wrong, just as I would defend Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, paganism or atheism. If I know someone have wrongfully accuse one side of something, then I will play the Devil's Advocate, even I don't follow their religion or philosophy.
Admittedly, I have soft spot for pagans and heretics, mainly because both mainstream Christians and Muslims have persecuted these people in the past. I'd often support the underdogs, especially one side become too arrogant and domineering.
Of course, this will some tick people off, because I'll switch side when I take on the advocate wrong. So far, I have not defended Satanism, mainly because I really have not come across them, but the problem is that some Christians have the tendency to lump Satanism on all non-Christians, which is typically more Christian prejudices and stereotypings.
gnostic
The Lost One
To Fade:
No, agnostic is one who believe that the existence or non-existence of divine being(s) are ultimately unanswerable.
To netdoc:
You don't know me, but I have been member of another forum at islam.com, and I have defended many belief of Christianity from Muslim propaganda. But I won't play fool with Christian propaganda any more than I would with Muslim ones, especially with such people who claim to be "peace warrior" as their religion, netdoc. I have chew on so-called peace-warrior before and spat out their bones.
No, agnostic is one who believe that the existence or non-existence of divine being(s) are ultimately unanswerable.
To netdoc:
See, another over-simplification and stereotyping by christians. And worse, I see that you are showing your ignorance too.
You don't know me, but I have been member of another forum at islam.com, and I have defended many belief of Christianity from Muslim propaganda. But I won't play fool with Christian propaganda any more than I would with Muslim ones, especially with such people who claim to be "peace warrior" as their religion, netdoc. I have chew on so-called peace-warrior before and spat out their bones.
linwood
Well-Known Member
I used to think that until I realised that most people misuse the term "agnostic" as I was doing as well.Fade said:
You can be an agnostic atheist just as you can be an agnostic theist.
It`s just a way of classifying a level of belief.
An agnostic atheist is essentially saying, "I don`t think there is a god but I can`t know for sure."
If someone who calls himself "agnostic" is pressed into real introspection he will have to admit that he does hold a belief in some way somehow.
He just readily admits he can`t "know"
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
I don't believe that "Science" is meant to be a religion, though some treat it as THEIR religion. I don't know that atheism needs a seperate religion apart from atheism: I just don't like to see broad brushes used for any belief.
gnostic
The Lost One
Well, this is something I agree with. Maybe some atheists treat science as their religion, but many more don't. I mainly disagree with people linking atheism with science, because I have met many atheists who don't know much about science at all, let alone evolution or the big bang. A great majority of atheists just want to live their lives, and don't have time for science.
Not all communists are atheists, and that's a common stereotype too. No, it is politicians who make atheism to further their cause for powers, not the atheists themselves.
Not all communists are atheists, and that's a common stereotype too. No, it is politicians who make atheism to further their cause for powers, not the atheists themselves.
gnostic
The Lost One
In term of Creation, Flood, parting the Red Sea, miracles, resurrection/afterlife and the 1st Commandment, then I am an agnostic atheist.
In term of Jesus' teaching of treating people with fairness, compassionate and understanding, and to not persecute people (therefore not discriminating others), then I am closer to agnostic theist.
In term of Jesus' teaching of treating people with fairness, compassionate and understanding, and to not persecute people (therefore not discriminating others), then I am closer to agnostic theist.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Well I hate to kill the debate, but any definition I ever saw of the word religion required unsubstantiated belief in the supernatural, in some form or another. Science by its very nature does not deal with unsubstantiated beleifs, and it does not deal with the supernatural, so, in spite what a lot of true beleivers like to say, science is not anyone's religion.
Oh, and I am with Gnostic in that I don't buy the supernatural/miracle portions of the Bible, but think very highly of the way Jesus conducted himself, and I also think anyone anywhere could do much worse than trying to emulate Jesus. If more people lived like Jesus, the world would be a better place, no doubt about it.
B.
Oh, and I am with Gnostic in that I don't buy the supernatural/miracle portions of the Bible, but think very highly of the way Jesus conducted himself, and I also think anyone anywhere could do much worse than trying to emulate Jesus. If more people lived like Jesus, the world would be a better place, no doubt about it.
B.
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
Guess I missed that verse, tho on second thought, what is wrong with that? I would like to have my enemies killed in front of me. (tongue in cheek)askeptic said:Well, as long as he'll take back Luke 19:27.
27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over thembring them here and kill them in front of me."
B.
spookboy0
Member
This is inordinate stretching to try and concoct a contradiction. Christ desire that his disciples FIRST call on Jews (see Acts 1:8). The apostles message in II John 9-11 (not John 1:9-11) is certainly not motivated by hate. While a Christian must oppose anyone that is fighting against Christianity, one can still be loving.
It also depends on what you mean by "loving."
It also depends on what you mean by "loving."
gnostic
The Lost One
I am not talking about wars, spookboy, but persecution. I believe that people shouldn't persecute people period, if they don't follow your belief or your interpretation of belief. There are no cause for persecutions, regardless if the person accept Christianity or not.
In the pasts, Christians have been persecuted, but when they had the powers, they had persecuted people with even less reason than those who have persecuted them. They had not only persecuted pagans, but also heretics among them. It was never the heretics who persecute orthodox, but the other way around.
I don't recall Jesus ever once told his disciples to persecute, torture or kill false prophets or heretics. A couple of centuries after his death, Christians have either ignored or forgotten his command not to judge or persecute others.
There are still idiot Christians who still favor burning books, for example, the Harry Potter's books. There are idiots like them, taking the works of fiction too seriously - chanting the author and her books as "evil", showed that some Christians have not move out of the Middle Ages. The books have never spoken out against Christianity, but it seemed that some Christians can't help themselves, resorting to violence and intimidation.
Well OK spookyboy if that defense works for you - it really didn't do much for me.
So I guess it's settled then, since no real evidence of science being a religion at all was presented, and since atheism simply means "without theism" literally, the thread's opinion (not a premise since it wasn't presented as a premise - ever) is without merit.
BTW, for those willing to consider non-Christian wisdom, Krishnamurti was a very wise person. He spoke and had dialogues that were later transcribed, until his death in 1986. "Think On These Things" is one such transcription. Some of his dialogues are online - take a look if you haven't before.
So I guess it's settled then, since no real evidence of science being a religion at all was presented, and since atheism simply means "without theism" literally, the thread's opinion (not a premise since it wasn't presented as a premise - ever) is without merit.
BTW, for those willing to consider non-Christian wisdom, Krishnamurti was a very wise person. He spoke and had dialogues that were later transcribed, until his death in 1986. "Think On These Things" is one such transcription. Some of his dialogues are online - take a look if you haven't before.