Why do NeoAtheists deny the practice of atheism is a religion?<<MOD WARNING>>

Thinking human activity is going to trigger a warming catastrophe that will obliterate the planet and end human life as we know it--not to mention the stopping of the coming Ice Age, which has always been a part of Earth's climate cycle--is pure HG Wells and Jules Verne fantasy and is on the same intellectual level of primitives firing arrows into the sky to relight the sun--at least they had the excuse of ignorance.

As for DDT: "Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have suffered from this debilitating disease. "--http://21sci-tech.com/articles/summ02/DDT.html

DDT, noble science prize winner, saved millions of lives during WW II--banned because of some birdbrain bumblebee nonsense called "Silent Spring", which is not a scientific treatise, but the meanderings of nincompoop worried that saving human lives meant she wouldn't to be able to hear the Warblers warble. That's even a greater fantasy than "Climate Change"--at least the climate does change.

 

That is not even SLIGHTLY what people concerned about climate change are stating - let alone what science is stating.

Putting words in their mouths and then suggesting they are insane is a DISGUSTING form of argument, as it is based on bald faced lies.

You point to Africa. But, the issue here is whether we do broadcast spraying of DDT in places like Florida.

There are reasons we don't do that.

 

Really? There are 60 million dead; explain it to them. And if Al Gore and AOC aren't preaching the end of the world, then what the fk are they panicking about? Give up air travel? Not fantasy? Come on, there are still some rational minds left on the planet. How the hell do you pseudo-intellectuals and scientists expect to get away with this nonsense? Never mind. I know. Public Education--you'll teach them what to think...and don't worry you'll make sure to weed out the "tall poppies".

There are many liars in the debate of Climate Change, but its the Left, and the Progressives, and the Environmentalists that are doing most of it.

I don't want a world safe for the wilds of nature, I want it a paradise for the enjoyment of Man, more to the point, me.

Here's and very "inconvenient truth", but unlike Al Gore's, its real, not lunacy.

http://www.accesstoenergy.com/2012/01/29/ddt-and-malaria/

 

Spraying a population with ddt and ignoring climate change will not augment your comfort.

 

The plethora of religious just demonstrates that religion tends not to have a methodology for nailing down what's actually going on in the supernatural world they believe exists through faith.

There is NO stretch by which atheism belongs in your list of religions, because it is VERY CLEARLY NOT a religion.

Beyond that, you should have more respect for religion. Your argument style here is to attempt to downgrade religion to the point where it is essentially meaningless. Religion isn't that meaningless.

 

NO.

What Scientology accepts is up to Scientology alone. They can draw their own concluions, but those conclusions do NOT alter science in any way.

 

religion is a result not a catalyst

idk how you can come uip with clearly, if there is anything its not is simple. I explained several times what religion is, and anyone capable of acting on their conclusions has a religion in the mix somewhere

that doesnt make sense

 

Which is why your definition(s) (some of which you've provided that contradict your claims) are too broad to be meaningful. You are back to a definition so broad that baseball fandom is a religion. In trying to encompass atheism, you've stretched the definition to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Yes, it is. There is no "nature" that MUST be answered by science. Science only addresses that which is falsifiable. If the null hypotheses of a theory is not accessible, practical, specific, nor producing a specific result, then the theory is unfalsifiable, thus unable to be addressed by science.

Yes, it does. It means that science cannot address it at the moment; it means that religion is the only way to address it at this moment.

Yes, it IS a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. The Theory of Abiogenesis is an argument explaining how life came to be. A competing theory is the Theory of Creation, which argues that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence (an "intelligent mind", if you will). They are both religious theories, as they are both unfalsifiable.

Correct.

Correct.

It has NO ability to observe what happened, whether before OR after. Nobody was there at the time it happened. This is also leaving out the truth that observations are subject to the problems of Phenomenology. --- The null hypothesis of the BBT is not accessible, as we have no functioning time machine to make use of to see what actually happened at the time... It's as simple as that. The BBT remains a religion; there is no science involved with it.

I don't care what the name is... The issue is that the term "climate change" is circularly defined. It does not make reference to anything outside of itself. That yields void arguments... That does not follow Logic...

 

The 2nd one is sort of true.

All theories of science BEGIN as religious theories (circular reasoning). It is falsifiability testing which moves that theory beyond circular reasoning and into a theory of science.

You're misstating my argument here. I have NEVER said that religion fundamentally assumes a god (supernatural, w/e word you wanna use) exists. That is what THEISM does. THEISM is what fundamentally assumes a god. Other religions then stem from Theism, all of which fundamentally assume particular god(s).

Religion is NOT Theism. They are NOT synonymous terms. Theism is simply one of MANY religions. It is one of MANY fundamental assumptions. The whole collection of those fundamental assumptions is what religion as a whole consists of.

As I've said, religion is an initial circular argument [ie, a fundamental assumption] with other arguments stemming from it. [ie, this additional argumentation is fully dependent upon the truth of the fundamental assumption].

Correct. But remember that what makes a theory into a theory of science is the ability for a theory to be falsified in an accessible, practical, and specific way.

Yes, they are different realms. One deals with the falsifiable, the other deals with the unfalsifiable.

 

If one defines "climate change" as a 'change in climate', then that is a circular definition. The definition makes no reference to anything outside of itself. It is utterly meaningless.

Climatology is a bunch of malarkey. Climate "scientists" are anything BUT...

 

If there is no way for science to address something (ie, something is not falsifiable), then religion takes over.

 

Because we weren't there to observe how the universe actually came to be, IF it ever "came to be"...

No, it wasn't.

The BBT has no accessible, practical, specific null hypothesis test.

Because we can't go back in time to see how life actually began on Earth. --- Abiogenesis was never proven wrong.

 

Precisely this. I feel like this has been the toughest (or one of the toughest) battle(s) within this thread. I've lost track of the amount of times that I have had to make clear that religion and theism are not synonymous terms...

 

This is wrong. There are many religions which do not focus at all on salvation or the afterlife. The Theory of Creation is one such religion. It, instead, focuses on how life began. It says nothing of salvation nor the afterlife.

It is indeed a religion. Atheism is the belief that god(s) do not exist. It is the opposite of Theism, which is the belief that god(s) do exist. Both Theism and Atheism have numerous branches stemming from them, expanding upon those general existence claims.

Both Theism and Atheism are even branches themselves, stemming down from one particular topic being addressed, as those two branches are only addressing the topic of the existence of god(s). Other such topics may include things like "how life on Earth began", "how the universe began", and etc...

No, it is not falsifiable. There is no way to falsify the existence or the non-existence of god(s). The test must be available, it must be accessible, it must be practical, it must be specific, and it must produce a specific result. There is no such test with regard to the existence of god(s).

 

You are doomed to fail.

 

That's not an argument.

 

Correct. It's a logical conclusion based on the principle of Reductio ad Absurdum.

 

You still haven't come up with any reason to suggest that atheism is a religion.

I don't know exactly what you mean by religion being a catalyst. But, remember that there are many catalysts. Not everybody subscribes to all the possible catalysts.

 

The fact that science says "I don't know" does not mean that religion is the appropriate tool. For example, science can not currently detect the strings of "string theory". That does not ean that religion takes over. Also, science currently has no unification of all physics. That doesn't mean religion gets to take over.

You seem to want to believe that religion answers everything for which humans haven't derived an answer. And, then religion shrinks as science grows. That just makes no sense. Plus, it leaves religion in a position of constantly shrinking as it gets answers wrong!

That is not a satisfactory divide between the realm of religion and the realm of science.

Yes, there is no theory of abiogenesis in science. And, there ABSOLUTELY is no theory of creation in science, as science has no ability to adress the supernatural.

Abiogenesis is a field of study that has a number of ideas, but doesn't have enough evidence at present. At some point, science could figure out abiognesis.

Creation is a relilgious term. Science isn't every going to use that terminology. For example, the "big bang" theory describes what happene from the point where stupendously rapid expansion occurred. That is part of what you would probably call creation. Science also has the theory of evolution, which describes how life forms progress to greater diversity. That is probably part of what you think of as "creation".

Physicists can look back in time. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, takes time to get here. We can see the Andromeda galexy by naked eye, and that light started coming here 16,000 years ago. With telescopes of various kinds we can look WAY farther back in time. With radio telescopes physicists can see the cosmic background radiation of first light - the time when the universe expanded to the point where density was low enough for light to come to life. Anyone can pick up this radiation with a radio - which is how it was first discovered. The result is that there is evidence of several kinds that shows how this universe progressed from an object a small fraction of the size of Earth to what we see today. There is all sorts of opportunity for falsification.

No climate change is NOT circularly defined. And, there is confirming evidence from numerous sources.

 

This "circular reasoning" claim needs to be defined. I see absolutely nothing circular going on here. Science has one main fundamental assumption - that our universe may be meaningfully observed.

The issue is the supernatural. It doesn't matter whether there is a god involved.

There is nothing wrong with defining specific fundamental assumptions for your system. And, that's not what "circular" is intended to mean. A circular argument starts with what it is intened to end with.

I would argue that the ability to meaningfully observe our universe is a legitimate foundation. Systems that deny this fundamental have a very hard time relating to how our universe works in a meaningful way.

 

Every term has a definition. Calling all terms to be "circular" because they have a definition is absolutely absurd.

Then, you suggest a whole branch of science that involves every field of science and every method of detection and that involves scientists from around the world is "a bunch of malarkey"!!!

Come on. Let's try to be serious. The fact that there is such broad agreement from all the contributing sciences and the various detection technologies is something that is FAR to significant to claim to be a conspiracy. A conspiracy of that magnitude, depth and breadth is simply impossible.

 

what does that have to do with "religion being the result of a catalyst?"

Probly because thats not what i said.

Sure I have and I posted numerous times, but jfthoi lets start with world view, morals, etc

if you define a term using its own word

mit lied about cold fusion for the money.

 

Science doesn't say "I don't know"... Either a theory is falsifiable or it isn't. If it is, then science addresses it. If it isn't, then science can't address it. At that point, only religion can address it.

It quite literally does. String Theory, at this point, is a religious theory. Once it can be falsified, and withstands that testing, then it can become a theory of science. Until then, it remains a religious theory.

Religion takes over wherever Science leaves off. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. It only deals with the falsifiable.

It DOES, though. It doesn't mean that the answer is true/correct/etc., but it's the only way to address that which is not falsifiable.

Yes, religion shrinks as science grows. As more things become falsifiable, less things become unfalsifiable. However, there are many theories which will always remain unfalsifiable. Religion will always exist and will always be a prominent part of reasoning, as we are inherently religious.

The divide is simple... The ability for a theory to be falsified in an accessible, available, practical, and specific way IS the dividing point. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all that science is. That's all that science entails.

Correct. Neither theories are theories of science. They are religious theories. They are unfalsifiable.

A theory does NOT become a theory of science due to "enough evidence". Science does not make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence. RELIGION is what makes use of supporting evidence.

Not unless we invent a time machine in order to give ourselves access to the null hypothesis of Abiogenesis... We would need to go back in time to see what actually happened. Otherwise, we have no clue what actually happened.

No, it isn't a religious term.

Yup, that is the BBT. It is a religion. We weren't there to know what actually happened back then. The BBT is not science; it is not falsifiable.

The Theory of Evolution is religion; it is NOT science. It is not falsifiable. We don't know what actually happened back then.

The Theory of Evolution states that current life is the result of more primitive life mutating over time. --- There is no way to falsify this theory, since we don't know what actually happened all those years ago. We weren't there.

The Theory of Creation states that life arrived on Earth through the action of an intelligence. Christians, for example, tend to believe that this intelligence being referred to is their God. That intelligence need not be the Christian God, however...

And all of this relies upon various assumptions... We weren't there at the time it happened, plain and simple.

Yes, there is loads of evidence. I agree with you there. But evidence is NOT proof, and the theory itself is not falsifiable.

No, there isn't. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened.

Yes, it is. If you wish to provide me a definition of the term which is not circular, then go for it...

No there isn't. There are a bunch of pretty charts based on random numbers; that's it. There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such a statistical analysis. But that discussion would be for another thread.

 

Sure, but some definitions are meaningful while others are not.

Not all of them are. Climate Change is, though. So is Global Warming.

Only terms which don't make reference to anything outside of themselves are defined circularly. "Climate Change is a change in climate" is an example of a circular definition. "Global Warming is warming of the globe" is another example. Nothing outside of themselves are being referenced...

Car, for example, is a word which is meaningfully defined. The definition of a car typically makes reference to the material it is built out of, the wheels and internal combustion engine that it makes use of, etc... It makes reference to things outside of itself. See the difference?

It is. Climate "scientists", in speaking about Global Warming, outright reject the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. They are not "scientists" if they reject science.

I'm being VERY serious.

Climate Change is not science. It is not even a meaningfully defined term, denying logic. It denies the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law (ie, science). It also denies statistical mathematics. I'm not going to believe in a religion which outright denies logic, science, and mathematics.