Atheism is a religion

[Doubting Thomas]

The point is that we have gaps of hundreds of millions of years. We have multiple fossils of most fossilized organisms, but none of the vital others. For instance, there are hundreds of discovered trilobite fossils. Yet not one is varied from the rest. There should be another hundred with one mutation difference, another hundred with an additional one, and so on. If evolution really happened gradually, the number of varied trilobites should greatly outnumber the originals, all the way down to the horshoe crab. Thousands of generations aren't in the fossil record at all.

You seem to not be understanding how lucky we are to have the fossils we have. We're lucky to know about trilobites because of the few fossils which were left behind. Of course there are gaps, because fossilization doesn't happen every time a plant or animal dies. The answer is that we don't know how many different types of trilobites there were, since we only have fossils of a few. But when you look at the similarities in different kinds of animals, you can usually make the logical connection.

[Whateverist]

Doesn't understand, doesn't care, meh. Who cares what this brain eating zombie thinks? I don't detect any desire to understand evolution but it sure is nice of you guys to try to educate him anyway. I think he just wants to sling words dressed up as 'arguments' around in the hopes of finding someone to 'save'. By 'save' of course I mean convert to a zombie for Christ, one of the undead who expect to spend forever at their Lord's feet. These guys are willing to accept a twilight existence in this world in order to spend eternity on god's team.

[Doubting Thomas]

I half expected him to claim that since there weren't any half-trilobite, half-dinosaur fossils, it's evidence that evolution isn't real.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yes, that is not dictionary.com's definition of science, but I'm using it in the sense of objective vs. subjective. Anything that has been observed, tested or demonstrated is, in that part, objective. If it has been none of the three (and I mean the driving forces of evolution), it is subjective. Evolution is subjective. Hypothesizing how life *could* have come to be is not the same as observing, testing or demonstrating how it really did.

Evolution doesn't hypothosize how life began - that's a different thing than what evolution does.
I tell you what, if you manage to come up with and explain even a very basic understanding of what evolution is and how it works, I and others here might give better credance to what you say.

In the meantime, all I can say to the above statement is that I can summerize your words thusly:
"I won't use the standard definisition of science, so I'll use my own and make sure that evolution doesn't fit that definition."
Even by setting up that strawman (that IS a strawman, given the definition I provided in my previous post from Wikipedia) you still couldn't even set up a good arguement against evolution being a science since you neither understand it nor haev you set up a plausible arguement against that bad definition. Geez.

The point is that we have gaps of hundreds of millions of years. We have multiple fossils of most fossilized organisms, but none of the vital others. For instance, there are hundreds of discovered trilobite fossils. Yet not one is varied from the rest. There should be another hundred with one mutation difference, another hundred with an additional one, and so on. If evolution really happened gradually, the number of varied trilobites should greatly outnumber the originals, all the way down to the horshoe crab. Thousands of generations aren't in the fossil record at all. If K-Ar dating is accurate, plenty of natural disasters happened that could have carried this out. Yet early trilobites are no different from later trilobites. They appear, then they vanish. It isn't that the fossil record is full of holes. The fossil record is nothing but isolated species with imagined links between them.

The fossil record, despite being only a small percentage of the total numbe of living things that have existed on the planet, is far more complete than you give it credit for. The human species and our evolutionary predecessors actually at this point have more examples than is strictly necessary to link us all - let alone the links to and from the other species we have fossils of.
Given your complete lack of scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth, you've also failed to understand that the fossils aren't the only thing that point to an evolutionary history of life on the planet.
You can thank our new and keen understanding of genetics for that.

I failed to find evidence beyond the wikipedia post for dinosaurs with feathers. All I found were quotes "with feathers" and a picture of the already determined Archaeopteryx hoax (true bird).
Some takes against thw wikipedia examples:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_..._2_09.html
http://www.icr.org/article/feathers-miss...-dinosaur/
That scientists feel they need to purposely mispresent evidence doesn't sit well. If you could provide a real source that would be great.

That's because you refuse to look beyond your retarded creationist websites for information. Secondly, given your statement regarding the so-called "archeoptrix hoax" is further proof of your complete lack of understanding of evolutionary history of life on this planet.

I recommend that you brush up more on your google-fu and expand you search to websites who don't edit their evidence due to a pre-existing agenda of "if it doesn't prove the bible, I'm going to ignore it."

The fact remains, if the driving force of evolution is inferences, it is subjective and therefore not true science. And they have reasons for not wanting a God to exist, making their inferences less trustworthy.

You really think there's a motivation within the scientific field to avoid positing evidence that's been truely found on the field FOR god?
You don't think that such a discovery would immediately and irrevocably make such a scientist the wealthiest and most famous individual on the planet if someone could actually prove the existence of god?
Is "it's clearly a conspiracy" the only explaination you have?
What reasons, precisely, does the scientific community have for doing what you say other than challenging people's faith in a divine creator?

Someone's been drinking some serious church kool-aid.

You mean microevolution, or variance, which is not true evolution. It involves the dying off of unsuitable genes and therefore does not increase information in the genetic code. You need mutations to do that, and progression via mutations has not been demonstrated.

Again - you only prove that you have NO idea how evolution actually works. You're proving that a discussion with you is absolutely pointless because you don't understand the science, you only understand the arguemetns of ignorant and occasionally stupid people who have made the same retarded arguemetns before you.
How about you read a textbook or two on evolutionary science 101, come back, and then we can have an actual discussion on the topic because you're speaking utter nonsense.

That's because prebiotic conditions were contrived by men who thought, "Hmm.. what perfect conditions would I need to start life?" There is no evidence that the prebiotic soup existed, apart from its necessity to evolution.

Actually the prebiotic conditions on earth were based on years of research in geology, chemistry, astronomy, and numerous other sciences that predicted the early conditions on earth. When recreated in a laboratory, the early earth conditions were capable of producing the chemicals of life that persist in nearly every living thing to this day, billions of years later.
But again... I'm guessing you either skipped a few necessary high school classes or drank some serious answersingenesis.com koolaid. You clearly know precisely two things about evolutionary history, abiogeneiss, or everything else that would allow you to know any of this.

Then you agree that the catalyst of matter and energy was supernatural. If its outside of the universe, it is not natural, and is then by definition, supernatural.

False Dichonomy Fallacy.
"The universe has a net positive amount of energy" doesn't mean "God did it." It means "The universe has a net positive amount of energy. Period."
Your conclusion is not based off of evidence. You're making up answers with no supporting evidence to which the conclusion you have can be made.

The presumption is that God doesn't exist.

That's not a presumption scientists make. Indeed any presumption precludes doing any science at all. That's why creation science isn't. That's why intelligent design isn't science.
That's why evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, IS science.
They don't make presumptions.

Oh, the irony. I've read books by widely acclaimed creation-scientists who explained how no evolution journal would let them publish. Can you imagine?

Science journals tend to not let quacks publish articles.

[KichigaiNeko]

Poor fellow should change his name to "Totally Deceived"

[jared]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong). I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives. In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here. My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view. And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion. Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions. I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

Please pick apart my thinking. I am sure there are some holes in my argument, but I think it is rather compelling. I would truly enjoy a discussion regarding belief formation and the similarities and differences between atheism and Christianity.


Thanks for reading.

[KichigaiNeko]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong). I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives. In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here. My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view. And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion. Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions. I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

Please pick apart my thinking. I am sure there are some holes in my argument, but I think it is rather compelling. I would truly enjoy a discussion regarding belief formation and the similarities and differences between atheism and Christianity.


Thanks for reading.

You are an ignorant fool who does not read the rules... First half of your our story should be in the Introduction thread, The rest?? Meh

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

It irritates me as much as it would likely irritate a christian to be told that he or she isn't a "true christian" for whatever reason.

This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity.

There's neither rational nor evidence-based reasons to hold such beliefs so yeah, I think you're deluding yourself if you think that holding such beliefs is either logical or rational.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

What on earth are you talking about?
It seems like I'm looking at half of two disparate ideas but not one whole idea. The scientific method is the only method available to test and prove results as a method of discovering and knowing about reality.

Nothing else that we do can make the same claim.

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here. My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view. And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion.

I think we can throw out irrational beliefs out quite easily without disrupting the human progress of knowledge and discovery.
But no, many atheists, or at least I myself rely on science precisely because it doesn't require belief of any kind. I can prove or disprove a scientific hypothosis given the proper research, tools, and knowledge.

That is not possible with religious faith or even 'faith' of any similar kind. The very act requires that you accept something without knowing whether or not it's true. Science is the process of discovering truth, not deciding it beforehand.

Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions. I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

False equivelency fallacy.
Plus, atheists don't necessarily always use science as I do. Many do, I suspect, but atheists are an incredibnly diverse bunch who only happen to agree that religion is a waste of time and energy. That agreement is just about the only thing we all have in common.

That said, I'm going to assume you mean "atheists who are scientifically literate and are fans" in the above. With that assumption, you're committing the false equivelency fallacy by stating that the two are equivelent in how they go about finding the truth. Science and religion are as different as night and day in this respect.

[Whateverist]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong). I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives. In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Now, I'm a big fan of the scientific method, and I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water here. My point is that it takes a certain level of faith in its most essential premise to adhere to a naturalistic world view. And that is why I think some Christians might claim that atheism is a religion. Both Christians and atheists start with an incomplete set of data, make inferences, search for answers that are intellectually credible and existentially satisfying, and draw conclusions. I surmise that that my world view is superior, and so does everyone else. That is why we chose our particular world view. Not because we are certain, but because the hypothesis we came to fits that data better than anything else.

Please pick apart my thinking. I am sure there are some holes in my argument, but I think it is rather compelling. I would truly enjoy a discussion regarding belief formation and the similarities and differences between atheism and Christianity.


Thanks for reading.

Don't mind Kicki. You must have caught her on a bad day.

You sound like a very reasonable theist (Christian?) to me. I am an agnostic atheist so I don't think there are any requirements that all beliefs must receive a seal of approval from science. We all have beliefs which science can't vouchsafe (ranging from our preference in music to the existential) as well as beliefs which inform our actions of which we need not even be conscious. When it comes to empirical facts however, you can't beat science. Anyone who wants to argue that what the bible says trumps science about the physical world knows not of what they speak.

Do I get annoyed by people who want to say that atheism is a religion? Yes but I accept that it is usually innocent ignorance. If someone shows any openness, thoughtfulness or genuine interest in understanding I don't mind setting them straight. You are absolutely right that atheism is an significant aspect of ones worldview. That much is undeniable. Beyond that, atheism has no positive positions about anything whatsoever. For agnostic atheists such as myself and many others here, it doesn't even assert that god does not or cannot exist. I have no belief in gods, not even in the assertion that they don't exist. I just don't know and nor do I much care.

So let me ask you a few questions. Are you a gnostic theist? (Lose 3 esteem points.) Do you see that your embrace of science (evolution, big bangs and all) need not contradict your faith? (Gain 3 esteem points.) If you are a Christian, in what regard do you hold the bible? Is it one special book among many? (Gain 10 esteem points). Is it the only source of gods plan for man on earth? (Lose 5 esteem points.) Do you believe in a personal, forever afterlife - in either the 'good' or the 'bad' place? (Lose 2 esteem points.)

[genkaus]

Does it irritates you when religious people say Atheism is a religion?

Yes, people saying stupid things always irritates me.

Hi, I'm a Christian looking for a good conversation. I have a comment, and I hope you reply so I can understand your thinking more clearly. It seems that Christians have told you that you have a religion, and this seems absurd because you don't believe in the supernatural (I'm assuming this; please correct if I am wrong). I think it makes more sense for a Christian to say that you have a world view because everyone has a world view. A world view is a construct that we use to answer important questions, make sense of the world around us, and live our day to day lives. In my world view, I acknowledge the supernatural along with natural world. This may sound like blind (read dumb) faith, but I actually think that coming to the conclusion that a supernatural world exists is a very rational and logic activity. You, I assume, would disagree with that last statement, but that is a conversation for another post.

You are correct as far as atheism being a worldview is concerned, but I do not think there is any rational and logical way to conclude that the supernatural world exists.

In my understanding of a naturalist/atheist world view, something can only be trusted/known/believed in/etc... if it can be scientifically proven (scientific method/repeatable tests and outcomes). I'm wondering if this claim for the basis of knowledge (that I hope I got right) can be scientifically proven. I take that back. I have reasoned that the claim is logically invalid and therefore does not hold up under the weight of its own requirements.

Not necessarily. The actual basis is the inescapable premise without which no statement of knowledge is possible - "that what exists exists independently from any consciousness and our senses and reason are the only means of knowledge".