Science is inherently atheistic

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You're losing your grip bud, lol.

Be nice. Your leaders are saying to embrace the atheist church.  Even if you disagree with other atheists on it, you must follow what the leaders have set before you.  It's fine though.  It's an observation of modern day evolutionary change.  Yesterday, no church, today church.  Yesterday, no hymns, today atheist hymns.  Yesterday, no offering plate.  Today, atheist offering plate with tax deductions.  Yesterday, eat at home alone.  Today, atheist potluck.

Hey, if you invite me to one of your potlucks, it's a "yes" in advance, and we don't even have to argue, or talk about anything as far as that goes.

Anyway, "Secular Talk" says it's okay to copy all this.  So don't be mad at me.  I'm agreeing with him on it.

[The Grand Nudger]

lelz.

[Minimalist]

BTW, what is your favorite hymn?

This always works.  Good for a laugh, anyway.

[Belacqua]

Your leaders are saying to embrace the atheist church.  

I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to say that atheism per se is a religion. It's true what we atheists often point out: that in the strict sense atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. 

Nonetheless, we atheists would be disingenuous if we used this strict definition to avoid admitting that each of us has some intellectual commitments by which we judge things, and even some metaphysical principles. And that by and large, the atheists posting here share nearly all of those commitments and principles.


For example, an atheist could be a sort of Neitzschean fundamentalist who holds that the universe is in fact pure chaos, and any order we think we perceive is an illusion created by the mind. That would be compatible with atheism, and there may even be some such atheists out there. 


As far as I can tell, though, every atheist posting on this site (and any other atheist site I have visited) is not such an atheist. We all share the commitment that the facts science tells us are a more or less accurate representation of the way the world is (this is a metaphysical view). 



We hold that the types of evidence given for religious belief (e.g. natural theology, revelation, etc.) do not constitute persuasive evidence, based on our principles concerning what constitutes good evidence. When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God because there is a complete lack of evidence, what he is saying is that he has certain views on what evidence must be, he has evaluated religion's claims based on these views, and he has formed a judgment. 



So the repetition of certain slogans, like bald not being a hair color, shouldn't let us atheists ignore the fact that we do have beliefs (where the term "belief" simply means "I hold it to be true.") And every atheist arguing with you here is a member of a group which shares nearly all of these beliefs in common. 

Which doesn't mean that atheism per se is a religion. But it does mean that your interlocutors here share a system of beliefs. 

[The Grand Nudger]

We only have one thing in common, as atheists, Bel.  If you poke around long enough you'll find that there are a great many beliefs that we don't have in common. If you counted on atheism, a lack of belief, to entail that we shared some other actual belief, you would be massively disappointed.

[Belacqua]

We only have one thing in common, as atheists, Bel.  If you poke around long enough you'll find that there are a great many beliefs that we don't have in common.  If you counted on atheism, a lack of belief, to entail that we shared some other belief, you would be massively disappointed.

Is science the best method we have of learning the truth about the physical universe?

[The Grand Nudger]

Science isn't even in the truth business.

See what I mean?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Your leaders are saying to embrace the atheist church.  

I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to say that atheism per se is a religion. It's true what we atheists often point out: that in the strict sense atheism is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods. 

Nonetheless, we atheists would be disingenuous if we used this strict definition to avoid admitting that each of us has some intellectual commitments by which we judge things, and even some metaphysical principles. And that by and large, the atheists posting here share nearly all of those commitments and principles.


For example, an atheist could be a sort of Neitzschean fundamentalist who holds that the universe is in fact pure chaos, and any order we think we perceive is an illusion created by the mind. That would be compatible with atheism, and there may even be some such atheists out there. 


As far as I can tell, though, every atheist posting on this site (and any other atheist site I have visited) is not such an atheist. We all share the commitment that the facts science tells us are a more or less accurate representation of the way the world is (this is a metaphysical view). 



We hold that the types of evidence given for religious belief (e.g. natural theology, revelation, etc.) do not constitute persuasive evidence, based on our principles concerning what constitutes good evidence. When an atheist says he doesn't believe in God because there is a complete lack of evidence, what he is saying is that he has certain views on what evidence must be, he has evaluated religion's claims based on these views, and he has formed a judgment. 



So the repetition of certain slogans, like bald not being a hair color, shouldn't let us atheists ignore the fact that we do have beliefs (where the term "belief" simply means "I hold it to be true.") And every atheist arguing with you here is a member of a group which shares nearly all of these beliefs in common. 

Which doesn't mean that atheism per se is a religion. But it does mean that your interlocutors here share a system of beliefs. 

I don't necessarily disagree with any of your statements.  I like you stated your beliefs (if you will) well, even if that entails certain "disbelief" in certain things.  Many people say they aren't religious, and I don't think anybody is necessarily wrong.  It's about how we choose to define something.  People don't want to get grouped into something that they don't feel defines them.

What I take exception to are people who go around telling everybody else their beliefs are wrong, stupid, incorrect, or the like because it doesn't match their own.  We all believe what we believe for a reason.  Sometimes we get things right, and sometimes we get things wrong, but at least we're trying to figure it out.  That's more than some people do.  When people care, but at the same time respect others, then I respect them.

[Belacqua]

We all believe what we believe for a reason. 

Yes, this is important. 

Sometimes we get things right, and sometimes we get things wrong, but at least we're trying to figure it out.  That's more than some people do.  When people care, but at the same time respect others, then I respect them.

I've discovered that people go about these things differently. To me, the mockery and insults show a lack of humility. We'd all be better off criticizing ourselves, probably.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know that anyone has enough time in their lives to hear me lay out my many..many faults, lol.