Atheists officially outnumber Christians for the 1st time

[otolith]

Science isn't a belief, it's a process.

[///ajd]

"off is a tv channel"

very good

[Eric Mc]

Scootersp said:

Some people have always followed/believed what they've been told without too much question so I agree with you to a point, however with science what they are being told can be verified by others and is the truth to the best of our human minds knowledge at the time. Science is always open to new ideas it's progressive. The effect science has had on our everyday lives over the last 150 years compared to religion is huge, people of whatever intellect can see and touch its effects, they go on holiday cheaply because of it, they can communicate with their families when they are there because of it, it's tangible.

And a lot of people who hold religious beliefs will also say they get tangible benefits from that belief. You may think that's silly - you may even be right - but that is not the issue. It's how people FEEL about such things that makes something important or real, to them.

[lionelf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[lionelf]

///ajd said:

"off is a tv channel"

very good

The best one I ever heard was "and not smoking is a habit".

[ATG]

lionelf said:

So which bit of "evidence based truth" does he, or any of us, not understand then? How do you equate a belief in it to the way some religious people "go about their business". The two are chalk and cheese/night and day etc. And you say you are not trying to discredit Atheism but by equating Religion with Science in any way at all you do just that, you demean science. If science were built upon the same fundamentals as Religion (belief only) we'd still all be living in caves and eating berries.

Edited by lionelf on Wednesday 25th May 09:29

Read what Efbe said above. We are all saying that "science as a religion" is not real science. No one is saying real science is like religion.

[vanordinaire]

ATG said:

lionelf said:

So which bit of "evidence based truth" does he, or any of us, not understand then? How do you equate a belief in it to the way some religious people "go about their business". The two are chalk and cheese/night and day etc. And you say you are not trying to discredit Atheism but by equating Religion with Science in any way at all you do just that, you demean science. If science were built upon the same fundamentals as Religion (belief only) we'd still all be living in caves and eating berries.

Edited by lionelf on Wednesday 25th May 09:29

Read what Efbe said above. We are all saying that "science as a religion" is not real science. No one is saying real science is like religion.

All the Abrahamic religions state that we should not eat certain foods (pork, shellfish etc) and that the food that we do eat should be prepared in a certain way. I'm sure that originally this was based on 'scientific' knowledge at the time that in the hot middle east with no refrigeration, these 'forbidden' foods could be dangerous. Time and human nature has changed this advice into irrelevant nonsensical rules and a simple warning such as 'it'll make you sick' has been re-translated in to a rule 'thou shalt not or God will strike you down'

If I understand correctly, what Efbe is saying is that people's attitude to currently held 'scientific' knowledge is already re-translating it into 'gospel'and that in a few hundred years it may be written down and adhered to by the 'faithful' as the 'word of God' whether it is relevant or has been disproven by 'proper' science.

[XJ40]

ATG said:

lionelf said:

So which bit of "evidence based truth" does he, or any of us, not understand then? How do you equate a belief in it to the way some religious people "go about their business". The two are chalk and cheese/night and day etc. And you say you are not trying to discredit Atheism but by equating Religion with Science in any way at all you do just that, you demean science. If science were built upon the same fundamentals as Religion (belief only) we'd still all be living in caves and eating berries.

Edited by lionelf on Wednesday 25th May 09:29

Read what Efbe said above. We are all saying that "science as a religion" is not real science. No one is saying real science is like religion.

I've often seen people adhere to scientific theories with quite deep belief/faith often reserved for religion, even if they can't see it themselves.

A nice example is the whole man made climate change issue. There's a good number of intelligent, scientifically minded guys on here posting in the relevant threads their climate change denial views. Personally I "believe" in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific consensus that man made climate change is a real phenonmenon, mainly because it's the view of all the major science authorities and publications, an appeal to a trusted authority I guess. Some of course claim there is scientific evidence to the contary.

What is clear is that there is an ideological, somewhat left/right political motivation from both sides of the arguement despite the apparent scientific evidence that exists. People want to believe in the position that supports their world view.

[esxste]

Efbe said:

ok guys, I think you may not be getting quite what I am saying...

It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.

But people use science as a religion. Very different.

Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?

It's intriguing. You make the assertion that people use science as a religion, as if you have evidence that proves it beyond all doubt. Then the very next sentence you merely ask for acceptance of the possibility and that it "potentially happens".

Perhaps you could give us an example of someone who uses science as a religion?

[lionelf]

esxste said:

Efbe said:

ok guys, I think you may not be getting quite what I am saying...

It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.

But people use science as a religion. Very different.

Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?

It's intriguing. You make the assertion that people use science as a religion, as if you have evidence that proves it beyond all doubt. Then the very next sentence you merely ask for acceptance of the possibility and that it "potentially happens".

Perhaps you could give us an example of someone who uses science as a religion?

That's what I asked for, an example. Nothing yet.

[vanordinaire]

lionelf said:

esxste said:

Efbe said:

ok guys, I think you may not be getting quite what I am saying...

It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.

But people use science as a religion. Very different.

Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?

It's intriguing. You make the assertion that people use science as a religion, as if you have evidence that proves it beyond all doubt. Then the very next sentence you merely ask for acceptance of the possibility and that it "potentially happens".

Perhaps you could give us an example of someone who uses science as a religion?

That's what I asked for, an example. Nothing yet.

I think that my post 4 back gives you this (albeit very old science)

[lionelf]

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

esxste said:

Efbe said:

ok guys, I think you may not be getting quite what I am saying...

It is not that science is a religion. obviously it is not.

But people use science as a religion. Very different.

Can we agree if that is possible, and potentially happens?

It's intriguing. You make the assertion that people use science as a religion, as if you have evidence that proves it beyond all doubt. Then the very next sentence you merely ask for acceptance of the possibility and that it "potentially happens".

Perhaps you could give us an example of someone who uses science as a religion?

That's what I asked for, an example. Nothing yet.

I think that my post 4 back gives you this (albeit very old science)

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

[vanordinaire]

lionelf said:

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

Scientific fact from 2000bc or whenever the old testament was written said that eating pork or shellfish or meat that hadn't been properly bled was a very bad thing in a middle eastern country with no refrigeration(scientists today would concur).
Now accepted as a one of God's laws by Judaism, Islam and Christianity with punishment from God for breaking the rules no matter that you live in 21st Century Britain, own a Smeg fridge and buy your food from the local supermarket.

[FredClogs]

Religion contains dogma and rhetoric which allows people to gain an understanding of the world around them, humanity's relationship to the world and each other and organise for the greater good of humanity - some people will argue against the effectiveness of the latter but we're not in a position to judge how human culture would have evolved without religion as every successful culture had at it's core a religious element, that in itself should really answer the question.

It's true that religious dogma and rhetoric can be quite unchanging from one moment to the next but it's also true that as culture evolved some religions opinion failed and some other became dominant, there is competition with religions and whilst the concensus opinion within religions is slow to change it does change with time, old knowledge and practices do die and new ones, improved ones, come to the fore.


Now read that again and replace the word religion with the word science.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

vanordinaire said:

If I understand correctly, what Efbe is saying is that people's attitude to currently held 'scientific' knowledge is already re-translating it into 'gospel'and that in a few hundred years it may be written down and adhered to by the 'faithful' as the 'word of God' whether it is relevant or has been disproven by 'proper' science.

And he's completely wrong. When I was a boy, science was of the opinion that the moon was much older than the Earth. We now think that isn't so, and the moon was formed by debris after another planet collided with the Earth. I change my mind all the time based on new scientific discovery. I think that's a good thing.

[lionelf]

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

Scientific fact from 2000bc or whenever the old testament was written said that eating pork or shellfish or meat that hadn't been properly bled was a very bad thing in a middle eastern country with no refrigeration(scientists today would concur).

Now accepted as a one of God's laws by Judaism, Islam and Christianity with punishment from God for breaking the rules no matter that you live in 21st Century Britain, own a Smeg fridge and buy your food from the local supermarket.

I'm not seeing how that is a demonstration of an atheist using science as a religion today.

[vanordinaire]

lionelf said:

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

Scientific fact from 2000bc or whenever the old testament was written said that eating pork or shellfish or meat that hadn't been properly bled was a very bad thing in a middle eastern country with no refrigeration(scientists today would concur).

Now accepted as a one of God's laws by Judaism, Islam and Christianity with punishment from God for breaking the rules no matter that you live in 21st Century Britain, own a Smeg fridge and buy your food from the local supermarket.

I'm not seeing how that is a demonstration of an atheist using science as a religion today.

The atheist bit is irrelevant.
What I'm saying is that a piece of 'science or fact' one day , gets slowly turned and twisted into religious doctrine over the years till it is wrong and/or irrelevant but it is still spouted as 'gospel' by it's proponents. It's not right, it just happens though.
My example was a demonstration of this from the past, but still relevant today.

[Efbe]

lionelf said:

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

Scientific fact from 2000bc or whenever the old testament was written said that eating pork or shellfish or meat that hadn't been properly bled was a very bad thing in a middle eastern country with no refrigeration(scientists today would concur).

Now accepted as a one of God's laws by Judaism, Islam and Christianity with punishment from God for breaking the rules no matter that you live in 21st Century Britain, own a Smeg fridge and buy your food from the local supermarket.

I'm not seeing how that is a demonstration of an atheist using science as a religion today.

sorry guys, have a day job as well

ok so more clarity.

religion fills a void in many people's life. It gives them a set of rules they can follow and an explanation of why everything is like it is. You do not have to pray to be religious, maybe it does help though. This is believing that there is a god, who is the reason everything you see is like it is.

Possibly, religion is a snapshot of science from way back. People could prove it by praying and getting what they wanted, or those that were not religious dying or getting the clap. It was basic science, a cause which was proven by effect, albeit something we would laugh at now.

So science differs as we know it by constantly updating. (Religion does to an extent, just not very much) I say us, but I only vaguely keep up to date, many of you will have much more knowledge than me. Can I explain the end to end process of a computerchip to playing Wolfenstein 3D? - no. But I do believe it works. My evidence is that I can play it, yet I do not know for certain the story I have been told of little switches goin 0 to 1 is real.
I still believe in the big bang. but I have seen scientific proof against this. I have not updated - tbh I forgot what I read on it. My belief is in something erroneous and unprovable now.
If I have not been given the latest updates to science then I am wrong. If I was 400 years out of date it would just be religion.

[esxste]

Efbe said:

religion fills a void in many people's life. It gives them a set of rules they can follow and an explanation of why everything is like it is. You do not have to pray to be religious, maybe it does help though. This is believing that there is a god, who is the reason everything you see is like it is.

Religion neatly fills the lack of knowledge by using the answer "god wills it/god did it". People in general are uncomfortable with "don't know". And sometimes people just don't like what science shows to be the answer to some questions, so look for alternatives to cling to.

Efbe said:

Possibly, religion is a snapshot of science from way back. People could prove it by praying and getting what they wanted, or those that were not religious dying or getting the clap. It was basic science, a cause which was proven by effect, albeit something we would laugh at now.

Laugh yes. However religion, and other charlatans like mediums and spiritualists continue to exploit confirmation bias.

Efbe said:

So science differs as we know it by constantly updating. (Religion does to an extent, just not very much) I say us, but I only vaguely keep up to date, many of you will have much more knowledge than me. Can I explain the end to end process of a computerchip to playing Wolfenstein 3D? - no. But I do believe it works. My evidence is that I can play it, yet I do not know for certain the story I have been told of little switches goin 0 to 1 is real.
I still believe in the big bang. but I have seen scientific proof against this. I have not updated - tbh I forgot what I read on it. My belief is in something erroneous and unprovable now.
If I have not been given the latest updates to science then I am wrong. If I was 400 years out of date it would just be religion.

Don't "believe" in the big bang. There is no need. Just accept that it is the leading Theory to explain the very first moments after the start of spacetime. It may change or be disproved as new evidence is found.

Similarly, you don't need to simply "believe the story" that your computer works on transistors switching between off and on. You've made a decision whether or not believe the story based on other evidence; such as its logical consistency, lack of other explanations, and lack of contradictory evidence. You also know that you can educate yourself to understand the "end to end process" of how your computer can execute the code for you to play games. You know that you could devise experiments to disprove the story you've been told.

However religion is more than just old or bad science. Religion lays claim to morality too.

[lionelf]

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

vanordinaire said:

lionelf said:

You're post 4 back gives no actual examples. Please demonstrate.

Scientific fact from 2000bc or whenever the old testament was written said that eating pork or shellfish or meat that hadn't been properly bled was a very bad thing in a middle eastern country with no refrigeration(scientists today would concur).

Now accepted as a one of God's laws by Judaism, Islam and Christianity with punishment from God for breaking the rules no matter that you live in 21st Century Britain, own a Smeg fridge and buy your food from the local supermarket.

I'm not seeing how that is a demonstration of an atheist using science as a religion today.

The atheist bit is irrelevant.
What I'm saying is that a piece of 'science or fact' one day , gets slowly turned and twisted into religious doctrine over the years till it is wrong and/or irrelevant but it is still spouted as 'gospel' by it's proponents. It's not right, it just happens though.
My example was a demonstration of this from the past, but still relevant today.

That may have happened millennia ago but nowadays? I don't think so. And don't forget, what you are saying was Science 2,000 odd years ago actually wasn't, it was merely a perceived wisdom. The scientific method wasn't established until about 1200 AD.

If you can demonstrate that happening today then I'll accept your point.