Atheism...the religion of...science?

[spookboy0]

Christians have either ignored or forgotten his command not to judge or persecute others.

I'm not judging (condemning). I don't judge (condemn). Now some people do judge (condemn), and that is against Christ's statement. However discerning if something is right or wrong and stating that discernment aloud is not judging (condemning).

-------------

I am not talking about wars

Neither am I. I'm talking about non-Christians.

-------------

if they don't follow your belief or your interpretation of belief.

My interpretation? Hmm...interesting. I threw my interpretation out the window when I read 2 Timothy 3:16.

-------------

Yes I do agree that some Christian "extremists" are rather..."extreme" by doing away with Harry Potter and all that, even though it is just Fantasy. And there are those who wildly protest and all that.

But there are still those who follow His commands, like "Love your neighbor as yourself." Still those who live like Christ instead of scream in another's face about Him.

 

[hero]

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.

You have made a very horrid logical mistake. Jesus is either evil or God. Either everything He said was true, or He was the greatest deceiver and blasphemer of all time for what He stood for. You cannot denounce Him as God, and say He was good, or anything He taught was good. You can tell a tree by its fruit. He is Christ, the Son of the living God, or satan personified. Seeing as how you believe in what He stood for, perhaps you should believe in Him too? Again, you judge a tree by its fruits. Not the tone of skin, but content of character...the list of quotes goes on and on and on.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Hero,

You are showing your limited ability to hold independent thoughts in your head simultaneously. I can, and do, beleive in the vast majority of what Jesus taught about peace, loving your neighbor, etc. without having to believe that he was a living God, or, that he even existed at all.

Achilles from Homer's Illiad had some admirable qualities as well, but I don't for one second beleive that, if he ever existed at all, he was the son of a mortal woman and a god, or that he was dipped in a river to keep him from being injured.

B.

 

[linwood]

You have made a very horrid logical mistake. Jesus is either evil or God. Either everything He said was true, or He was the greatest deceiver and blasphemer of all time for what He stood for. You cannot denounce Him as God, and say He was good, or anything He taught was good. You can tell a tree by its fruit. He is Christ, the Son of the living God, or satan personified. Seeing as how you believe in what He stood for, perhaps you should believe in Him too? Again, you judge a tree by its fruits. Not the tone of skin, but content of character...the list of quotes goes on and on and on.

Hero,

With all due respect you really need a course in logic.
It is illogical that there are only 2 distinct diametrically opposed possibilities.
Again your premise is wrong.

 

[hero]

Hero,

With all due respect you really need a course in logic.
It is illogical that there are only 2 distinct diametrically opposed possibilities.
Again your premise is wrong.

It is illogical that their be only one perspective. Perhaps you are thinking of statistics? The possibilities are no more in opposition than saying something is good or bad. To say a problem is right or wrong. Or whether someone lied or told the truth. And with all do respect. C.S. Lewis fully understood the concept of logic. Perhaps you should read "Mere Christianity". That is where the line was from, and the logic.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Any time I have tried to debate with an atheist about religion, all I here is how and why science concludes and proves all that they debate for.

Hero, I think I understand your problem.

Any "debate about religion" between a theist and a non-theist is, (9 times out of 10), going to be a debate about whether the Bible/Torah/Q'ran is true, and whether or not Jesus/Moses/Muhammed were really all they are cracked up to be. This means that the theist will try to prove that what they believe is true, and the non-theist will try to disprove it. In order to attempt to prove what they believe, the theist will often cite tangible evidence, (science!), which is usually then refuted by more evidence provided by the non-theist.

I don't know if any of this sounds familiar to you, but the point here is that science is not the "belief system" for atheists. It is merely a tool that is often utilized, especially in threads where it is particularly appropriate.

 

[linwood]

It is illogical that their be only one perspective. Perhaps you are thinking of statistics? The possibilities are no more in opposition than saying something is good or bad. To say a problem is right or wrong. Or whether someone lied or told the truth. And with all do respect. C.S. Lewis fully understood the concept of logic. Perhaps you should read "Mere Christianity". That is where the line was from, and the logic.

I have read Mere Christianity and the logic of Lewis escapes me as well.
If you`d like to see logic and rationality at work I would recommend Bertrand Russels "Why I`m not a Christian".

Your premise is wrong because you "only" allow two possibilities.

1;Believe Jesus existed and was God himself.
2;Believe Jesus existed and was Satan/Evil.

These are the only two premises you`ve entertained when so many more are available and probable as well.
Quite honestly, rationally thinking the two premises you`ve used are the least likely I can think of.

3;Jesus didn`t exist yet the myths written about him still hold knowledge.
4;Jesus did exist and was simply a man a mortal teacher.

Your logic is indeed logical .
When one sees the premises are irrational and not isolated your logic is however weak and ultimately wrong.

 

[hero]

I have read Mere Christianity and the logic of Lewis escapes me as well.
If you`d like to see logic and rationality at work I would recommend Bertrand Russels "Why I`m not a Christian".

Your premise is wrong because you "only" allow two possibilities.

1;Believe Jesus existed and was God himself.
2;Believe Jesus existed and was Satan/Evil.

These are the only two premises you`ve entertained when so many more are available and probable as well.
Quite honestly, rationally thinking the two premises you`ve used are the least likely I can think of.

3;Jesus didn`t exist yet the myths written about him still hold knowledge.
4;Jesus did exist and was simply a man a mortal teacher.

Your logic is indeed logical .
When one sees the premises are irrational and not isolated your logic is however weak and ultimately wrong.

The problem with your not understanding my statement is you are assuming or by some unknown reason not looking at the meaning of the words, or pehapst looking too far in some instances. C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" was cut and dry simple. More for me than you because I have a different perspective than you, and have a previous understanding of what he is talking about. Perspective is key to understanding. In your attempt to keep an open mind to different perspectives, you have handicapped your ability to understand one. Try and look at what I am talking about. You seem to think that one statement is supposed to be true in every scenario relevant or irrelavent. Try and use logic, reason, within the argument. Anything else is irrelevant too it the concept.

 

[linwood]

The problem with your not understanding my statement is you are assuming or by some unknown reason not looking at the meaning of the words, or pehapst looking too far in some instances.

I am looking at the words you`ve written and comprehending them in a literal manner.
You have stated that Jesus was either God or evil.
You allow no other possibilities when I and others have shown you there are many other possibilities that are even more probable than yours.

C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" was cut and dry simple.

Mere Christianity was a 400 page appeal to emotion and metaphysics.

More for me than you because I have a different perspective than you, and have a previous understanding of what he is talking about. Perspective is key to understanding. In your attempt to keep an open mind to different perspectives, you have handicapped your ability to understand one.

I have no open mind to different perspectives when speaking of logic.
Logic is logic because it follows it`s premises.
Logic is only correct when it`s premises are correct.
There is no other perspective for logical thought.

Try and look at what I am talking about. You seem to think that one statement is supposed to be true in every scenario relevant or irrelavent. Try and use logic, reason, within the argument. Anything else is irrelevant too it the concept.

I`d say I had been using logic and reason and I think I`d find some agreement here.
The difference is that I am using logic correctly and in an unbiased manner which is what logic is.
You are using logic and confining it`s premises to previously held beliefs.
That in itself is illogical and most definately unreasonable.

 

[herospirit]

The problem with your not understanding my statement is you are assuming or by some unknown reason not looking at the meaning of the words, or pehapst looking too far in some instances. C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" was cut and dry simple. More for me than you because I have a different perspective than you, and have a previous understanding of what he is talking about. Perspective is key to understanding. In your attempt to keep an open mind to different perspectives, you have handicapped your ability to understand one. Try and look at what I am talking about. You seem to think that one statement is supposed to be true in every scenario relevant or irrelavent. Try and use logic, reason, within the argument. Anything else is irrelevant too it the concept.

I can kind of see what your saying but... If Mere Christianity was simple, I'm a teapot.
I think that science is a religion to some atheists. It is the system of beliefs that they use to determine what they do and dont hold true. It doesn't worship anything though. Some forms of worship are nothing more than praise, but science does not have a leader or god. Religion is often associated with god or gods. That is stereotyping though. Dualism, if I am correct in what I read, does not have a deity or idol of worship, but believes that their is a balance of good and evil, constantly waging war. Earlier you said that you classified atheist into 2 catagories,

1 Intimately believing in a "God", but never acknowledging
2 Having science as their religion

I believe that these are both acceptable theories, but they obviously do not apply to all atheists. With this said, I think this is a dead debate.

 

[linwood]

Earlier you said that you classified atheist into 2 catagories,

1 Intimately believing in a "God", but never acknowledging
2 Having science as their religion

Niether category is correct.

If a person believes in god intimately or in any fashion they are not an atheist by the very definition of atheism.

The scores of atheists who have no knowledge of even the most basic of scientific method is evidence for the falsity of the second category.

 

[herospirit]

Mere Christianity was a 400 page appeal to emotion and metaphysics.

:clap Thank you. I was getting bored being a teapot.

 

[herospirit]

Niether category is correct.

If a person believes in god intimately or in any fashion they are not an atheist by the very definition of atheism.

The scores of atheists who have no knowledge of even the most basic of scientific method is evidence for the falsity of the second category.

I get ya, but that is why I use dualism as an example. It doesn't believe in any deity. Yet it is still classified as religion, a system of beliefs. Science in this light can be viewed as a religion by how some atheists shine it. My point was that not all atheist shine the same light. I dont know if you read it correctly, but the what you quoted is what hero, the guy/girl who stole my favorite screen name, said.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually Lewis presented three options:

1) Jesus is who He says He is -- the Son of God
2) Jesus is a lunatic (equivilant to someone claiming themselves a poached egg)
3) Jesus is evil

The context of this was an answer to the claim that Jesus was simply a good moral teacher, so there was no reason to include an option that Jesus did not exist (the premise assumed He did).

Lewis's reasoning that Jesus could not have been just a good moral teacher was that no "good" person would make such absurd claims about themselves.

 

[gnostic]

This is silly. There can a good god, and there can an evil god.

You are making distinction of god can't be evil. Gods are not necessarily good. I supposed with monotheism they would Satan as a god for evil, but other people don't make distinction between gods and angels or demons. Since angels and demons are immortal, then classification of god and angels/demons become blurry.

If you look in other religions, there are good gods and evil ones. eg, in Egypt, there's Osiris and Horus as good gods, and Seth as evil. The Olympians and the Titas in Greek religion/myth.

 

[rynych]

allo?

 

[rynych]

Humans kill humans over religion more than anything else

 

[Ceridwen018]

Lewis's reasoning that Jesus could not have been just a good moral teacher was that no "good" person would make such absurd claims about themselves.

What if Jesus never made such claims about himself? What if the whole "son of God" thing was created by his followers after his death, for whatever reason.

That said, I disagree with the options given by CS Lewis. I don't think its necessary for Jesus to have been completely insane, (equivalent to thinking himself a poached egg.) Jesus lived in a time where his people desperately hoped their Messiah would be coming soon. Jesus could have been a very holy man with a solid message, and if the people around him started thinking of him as the messiah, Jesus might start thinking, "Whoa, maybe I am the Messiah...Well then, I certainly need to make sure that I do my job well!" Jesus would not have been reacting based on some sort of mental illness, he would be responding to the popular strains of theought and opinions of that time. If Jesus was insane for thinking himself the Messiah even when he wasn't, then everyone else was also insane for believing in him/believing in the concept of a Messiah in the first place.

 

[linwood]

Lewis's reasoning that Jesus could not have been just a good moral teacher was that no "good" person would make such absurd claims about themselves.

Yes but Lewis`s premises are just as biased as Heros.

They are filtered through the lens of religion and are not correct as there are many other options.

They are an appeal to emotion.

 

[linwood]

I get ya, but that is why I use dualism as an example. It doesn't believe in any deity. Yet it is still classified as religion, a system of beliefs. Science in this light can be viewed as a religion by how some atheists shine it. My point was that not all atheist shine the same light. I dont know if you read it correctly, but the what you quoted is what hero, the guy/girl who stole my favorite screen name, said.

I agree with you to an extent.
science can of course be followed as rigorously as any religion however concerning the OP of this thread it is not necessarily the religion of Atheism.

There are indeed atheistic religions but atheism needs no religion to exist and prosper.