Is atheism a religion?

[Valjean]

My sister died from experimental medications. And i have been on three different medications that reaped havoc on my body. It took trial and error to finally find a medication that worked.

If at all possible i would research those things.

Do they NOT have a performance record? They should!

And they do. Apparently your research wasn't up to snuff.

Science would benefit from making their work known to laypeople. Consensus is a good thing, but it could also be negative peer pressure to conform for credibility's sake.

But it does. Scientific findings are in magazines and papers every day -- if only in a simplified form.
Then there are Popular magazines like Discover, which compile recent research in a format anyone can understand.
Science, Science News, and Scientific American can be understood by anyone with a High School education.
Then there are hundreds of specialized, technical magazines, or general overviews like Nature -- which may be too technical for general readership, but which are still available in bookshops and libraries.

As for "negative peer pressure," that's why the scientific method includes testing, predictiveness, reproducibility and peer review; to rule out bias and peer pressure as much as possible.

Telling people what to think, and believe and how to run their lives, and what morality they should subscribe to is outside of the realm of science.

Of course! Are you implying anyone actually thinks this?

 

[osgart]

People have agendas to do such things as run your life, based on purely scientific grounds. Yes!

 

[Valjean]

I rely on religion because it gives me a sense of meaning in my life. Science does not. Science just cleans my toilet. Flush toilets are amazing!

Exactly!
Science is not intended to give you meaning or purpose. It's purpose is to give facts and understanding of reality. What you do with them is entirely up to you.
If you want truth, look to science. If you want comfort or meaning, look to religion.
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

Flush toilets? Credit engineering.

 

[Valjean]

For the most part atheists, at least me, do not think many things theists say may sound completely insane. I think most atheists understand the word insane and do not use it lightly.

However, I do think that most theism comes from indoctrination. Since theistic beliefs stem from indoctrination they should not be considered "insane".

Perhaps just "irrational."

 

[Valjean]

People have agendas to do such things as run your life, based on purely scientific grounds. Yes!

People may cite scientific findings to justify their various agendas, but that has nothing to do with the science or the facts themselves.

 

[Trailblazer]

Believers accept prescribed sets of beliefs on faith, no thinking required.

That is a gross over-generalization and it is not true.
Some believers do a lot of research and think about what they will be willing believe before deciding to believe it.

 

[Valjean]

That is a gross over-generalization and it is not true.
Some believers do a lot of research and think about what they will be willing believe before deciding to believe it.

And if their conclusions were reasonable there would be general agreement, as there is concerning the germ theory or relativity.
But there is not.

 

[Trailblazer]

But it is. What do you think "faith" implies?
Faith is untested and not predictive. It's belief without rational justification.

Religion is not science so it cannot be tested or predictive in a scientific way.
There is a rational justification for faith because without faith one could not believe in God since God does not provide proof of His existence.

The fact that God does not provide proof of His existence does not mean God does not exist. There is no reason to think that God would provide proof, especially if God wants our faith.

God does provide evidence of His existence by way of the Messengers He sends who reveal scriptures. There is no proof that God spoke to these Messengers but there is evidence that indicates they did.

It requires some faith to believe in the Messengers since we cannot ever prove they got a message from God. However, that faith can be a reason-based faith, not a blind faith, if it is based upon proper investigation.

No. Faith isn't an interpretation. It's an acceptance of a fact or explanation without sufficient evidence. It's only when the faithful are challenged that they begin justifying and interpreting.

Sometimes faith is based upon sufficient evidence, sometimes not, it depends upon the religion.

However, there will never be proof that God exists because that's just the way God wants it to be. Logically speaking, an Omnipotent God could provide proof if He wanted to, so the logical inference is that God does not want to provide proof. That has not been a problem for the 93% of people in the world who believe in God absent proof. It is only a problem for atheists. However, since God does not need anyone's belief, God does not care if 7% of people remain atheists.

Science is testable, predictive, and peer reviewed. Before a scientific explanation is accepted as theory, the process requires attempts to disprove it.
Faith requires no such criticism, in fact, it discourages it.

That is not true of all religions. My religion invites careful scrutiny.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62

 

[Trailblazer]

And if their conclusions were reasonable there would be general agreement, as there is concerning the germ theory or relativity.
But there is not.

I guess you never studied psychology.

Psychology is my other hat, a hat I wore a lot longer than my religion hat. I have an MA in Psychology and many years as a client in analysis.

But I do not even need a degree in psychology to understand why everyone would never agree on one religion, all I need is years of experience on forums observing religious people and a logical mind.

For starters, the germ theory and relativity are provable and religion isn't, so people can always argue that "their religion" is the true one, and nobody can disprove that. It is all about how people think and what they want in a religion and what they are willing to believe. I find some things that people believe to be astounding but they think they are perfectly reasonable.

I could never believe in a religion that has beliefs that contradict what is scientifically possible, such as the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Do you know that only 19% of people in the United States say they are sure Jesus did not rise from the grave, and some are not even Christians? I find that astounding but it goes to show what a powerful force religious tradition can be. Religious tradition is the primary reason new religions are not accepted by those of the older religions.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is not science so it cannot be tested or predictive in a scientific way.
There is a rational justification for faith because without faith one could not believe in God since God does not provide proof of His existence.

Sounds suspiciously circular...
This presupposes the existence of a God and the necessity of a mechanism to believe in Him.
All you're saying is that without faith (belief-without-evidence) you could not believe in God, therefore, faith must be reasonable. Therefore, God must exist.

The fact that God does not provide proof of His existence does not mean God does not exist. There is no reason to think that God would provide proof, especially if God wants our faith.

So God prefers faith to knowledge?
He could easily reveal Himself, but He wants to separate the rational from the irrational -- and prefers the latter?

God does provide evidence of His existence by way of the Messengers He sends who reveal scriptures. There is no proof that God spoke to these Messengers but there is evidence that indicates they did.

Messengers of God are a dime a dozen. Look in any mental hospital. Religious delusions are as common as grass. I see no reason to believe the religious mythology of the Christians any more than that of the Norsemen, Greeks, Aztecs or Muslims.
How does one reliably establish the veracity of a persons claim to divine revelation?

It requires some faith to believe in the Messengers since we cannot ever prove they got a message from God. However, that faith can be a reason-based faith, not a blind faith, if it is based upon proper investigation.

Investigation into what? What testable, falsifiable, peer-reviewed discoveries do you hope to uncover, that no-ones discovered before?

Sometimes faith is based upon sufficient evidence, sometimes not, it depends upon the religion.

If there were reliably evidenced 'faith', wouldn't it be generally accepted, like relativity? Why is there still religious diversity in the world?

However, there will never be proof that God exists because that's just the way God wants it to be. Logically speaking, an Omnipotent God could provide proof if He wanted to, so the logical inference is that God does not want to provide proof.

But this is just a facile rationalization, and describes a situation that would be identical if there were no God at all.
Why does God want to separate the reasonable from the unreasonable? Why does He prefer the unreasonable? Why does he give us brains at all? He could have made us any way He wanted.

That has not been a problem for the 93% of people in the world who believe in God absent proof. It is only a problem for atheists. However, since God does not need anyone's belief, God does not care if 7% of people remain atheists.

But that has been a problem, and has caused or excused untold death and destruction over millennia.
What does this indifferent God think of all this carnage and misery? He does nothing to avert it. What does that say of His character?

 

[Valjean]

...But I do not even need a degree in psychology to understand why everyone would never agree on one religion, all I need is years of experience on forums observing religious people and a logical mind.

For starters, the germ theory and relativity are provable and religion isn't, so people can always argue that "their religion" is the true one, and nobody can disprove that.

No, germ theory and relativity are not proven. Nor is a round Earth. These are all "only theories."
Science doesn't prove anything. It just amasses evidence. Germ theory is generally accepted because it's massively evidenced. Religion is not.

It is all about how people think and what they want in a religion and what they are willing to believe.

What do either of these have to do with rational belief?
What one wants to be true or what one's willing to believe, have nothing to do with actual truth.

Reality is what it is, whether you like it or not, whether it's comfortable or not, whether its incredible or not.

I find some things that people believe to be astounding but they think they are perfectly reasonable.

No, they feel they are perfectly reasonable. The math still doesn't add up.

I could never believe in a religion that has beliefs that contradict what is scientifically possible, such as the bodily resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Do you know that only 19% of people in the United States say they are sure Jesus did not rise from the grave, and some are not even Christians? I find that astounding but it goes to show what a powerful force religious tradition can be. Religious tradition is the primary reason new religions are not accepted by those of the older religions.

Excellent points. We're in agreement, then.
Facts have nothing to do with religious belief. Religious belief is irrational.

 

[osgart]

Many subjective experiences lead to religion.

Many things also appear evident that lead to religion. I accept evolution, but not the naturalist story behind it! I see that common descent, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are at work. But i see the body is built with purposes in it. So i deduct that a creative force is at work. To me its obvious, the source is unknown, and i leave it that!

 

[Valjean]

Many subjective experiences lead to religion.

Many things also appear evident that lead to religion. I accept evolution, but not the naturalist story behind it! I see that common descent, adaptation, speciation, natural selection are at work. But i see the body is built with purposes in it. So i deduct that a creative force is at work. To me its obvious the source is unknown, and i leave it that!

I don't understand.
Isn't functionality is an expected result of natural selection? and isn't the "source" part of the theory?

 

[osgart]

I don't understand.
Isn't functionality is an expected result of natural selection? and isn't the "source" part of the theory?

I don't understand.
Isn't functionality is an expected result of natural selection? and isn't the "source" part of the theory?

As i understand it natural selection is morphology due to the environment, and also phenotype and genotype that determine the characteristics of the organism. I add intelligent guidance to that; not design, not god, just something intelligent enough to adapt the mechanics to the environment, and put limbs and features in the right places.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, not following.
Ordinary biology explains both the complexity and apparent design. Why would there be a need to add magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, not following.
Ordinary biology explains both the complexity and apparent design. Why would there be a need to add magic?

Because of its vastly superior explanatory power?

It also saves quite a bit on research. "How did that pig get there? Magic!!"

No muss, no fuss, no expensive research and debate.

 

[osgart]

Sorry, not following.
Ordinary biology explains both the complexity and apparent design. Why would there be a need to add magic?

You say apparent design. And i say there must be an intelligent reason for that apparent design. Ordinary biology leaves me hanging.

I would not call a creative force magic. Why call it magic? A lot of things appear magical til someone uncovers the phenomena. Non locality for instance. There is no logical reason why non locality should actually happen, and it does.

Non physicality just means that something currently undetectable, and not observable to the senses exists. A phenomena that is not normal matter. Perhaps an underlying reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say apparent design. And i say there must be an intelligent reason for that apparent design. Ordinary biology leaves me hanging.

I would not call a creative force magic. Why call it magic? A lot of things appear magical til someone uncovers the phenomena. Non locality for instance. There is no logical reason why non locality should actually happen, and it does.

Non physicality just means that something currently undetectable, and not observable to the senses exists. A phenomena that is not normal matter. Perhaps an underlying reality.

That is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. The time to believe in an intelligence is when one finds evidence for it.

 

[osgart]

Willing and unable then. Human logic isnt foolproof.

I consider many people unable as well.

 

[Valjean]

You say apparent design. And i say there must be an intelligent reason for that apparent design. Ordinary biology leaves me hanging.

Apparently it leaves a lot of people hanging, mostly those who don't understand the mechanisms of evolution.
Why must there be an "intelligent" reason?
The mechanisms described by the ToE explain the automatic mechanisms driving evolution. There is no need to invoke any sort of magical intervention. It is extraneous.

I would not call a creative force magic. Why call it magic? A lot of things appear magical til someone uncovers the phenomena. Non locality for instance. There is no logical reason why non locality should actually happen, and it does.

It's magic because it operates without mechanism. It's also said to alter the natural laws of chemistry and physics in an intentional effort to achieve a predetermined end.
No such capriciousness has been observed.

Usually the appeal to magic ends when science discovers the mechanism of a phenomenon, however, this has not been the case with evolution.

Quantum non locality doesn't threaten anyone's ego-identity by threatening their personal mythology -- perhaps mostly because most people aren't even aware of it.

It's understandable why someone would balk at quantum mechanics or relativity. They fly in the face of experience and commonsense. But the ToE is perfectly understandable, without any appeal to the bizarre or counter intuitive.

Both relativity and quantum mechanics are far more bizarre and counter intuitive than the ToE, yet it's the perfectly explicable ToE that people bristle at.