Science is inherently atheistic

[Minimalist]

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.

Wait until you have been listening to them throw out the same bullshit for 9 years and then show me how tolerant you are.

I'm too old to tolerate fools gladly.

[Belacqua]

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.

Wait until you have been listening to them throw out the same bullshit for 9 years and then show me how tolerant you are.

I'm too old to tolerate fools gladly.

I've been posting on forums like this for at least that long. 

When I started, I was repeating the usual atheist shibboleths. After an enormous amount of effort and study, I have learned about wonderfully valuable and beautiful things that come to us through the religious traditions of the world. If I had continued to mock, I would have missed out on a great deal. 

I am glad that all the simple-minded bullshit I posted at the beginning has been deleted. 

In Japanese, the same character is used for "divide" and "understand." 分ける means divide and 分かる means understand. Understanding comes in large part through learning to divide. Separating the dumb from the great, understanding why the former should be ignored, and the latter admired.

[Deesse23]

When I started, I was repeating the usual atheist shibboleths. After an enormous amount of effort and study, I have learned about wonderfully valuable and beautiful things that come to us through the religious traditions of the world.

Who claims that nothing good comes our of religion? You are strawmanning lots of atheism, just like you did with your post before that.
Its also an non-answer with regards to the OP telling he is intolerant to shitty claims.

Sceptics arrive at atheism, that doesnt mean all atheists are sceptics. Hence you will find a lot of atheists that cling to atheism like a religion. That doesnt make atheism a religion. The definition is what it is.

[Belacqua]

Who claims that nothing good comes our of religion? 

I'm looking forward to hearing from Minimalist what he admires about Christianity.

[Amarok]

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. 

1. Intellectual commencements that have nothing to do with atheism 

2. Weather an atheist is Neitzschean fundamentalist has nothing to do with atheism 

3. Accepting Science  is not  a metaphysical view

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a view 

5. A belief any atheist my personnelly hold is just that 

6.Nope it's not a shared system of beliefs

You are imposing things on Atheism that aren't there .

---

It does? Indeed I am not from that place, but the majority of the users here are from there and I never heard them say atheism its a religion implied by law O.O.

And its not belief. Its not believing  if you can't tell the difference between believing and not believing, I am afraid you don't have much grasp on simple logic.

In Dec 2016 President Obama signed an update to the U.S. Religious Freedom Act to make it inclusive of atheists.

Here is the first paragraph from NBC News and their report on it.  Feel free to read the rest, but I'm not posting the whole thing.

"When President Barack Obama signed an update to U.S. law protecting religious freedom late last week, one provision drew special attention: U.S. law now recognizes non-believers as, in essence, a religious group."

You still get to believe what you like, so no reason to be offended.  You also get religious protection from matters involving the USA.  So congratulations on your win.

You also have your own mega churches and sing hymns.  Mostly on Sunday.  They even pass around an offering plate that looks like a red and white striped Dr. Seuss hat from Cat in the Hat.  That's pretty cool.

1. Giving people the same rights as a religion does not make it a religion 

2. The atheist church are a cult

---

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.

Atheism does not have any leaders so this statement is nonsense and as i said the Atheist church is a cult .

[Belacqua]

1. Intellectual commencements that have nothing to do with atheism 

*commitments

Yes, they certainly do.

Have you heard claims made by religious people? Have you rejected these claims? 

When you rejected them, did you do so based on reasons, or based on no reasons? If you had reasons to reject the claims made by religious people, then it means you did so according to certain standards. I don't know what they are in your case, but typically such standards include "revelation is not a reliable source of information," or "only repeatable empirical evidence tells us about the world." These are intellectual commitments.

They may very well be good intellectual commitments, but they are nonetheless commitments. 

2. Weather an atheist is Neitzschean fundamentalist has nothing to do with atheism 

I try not to leave my atheists out in the weather. Their colors fade. 

A Nietzschean fundamentalist of the type I describe would be an atheist. However, I have never encountered such an atheist on any Internet forum. Have you? 

3. Accepting Science  is not  a metaphysical view

The belief that scientific and math statements have a meaningful connection to the physical world is a metaphysical view. See The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science 

by E. A. Burtt.

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a view 

So you reject religious claims based on what? A whim? 

5. A belief any atheist my personnelly hold is just that 

not an English sentence

6.Nope it's not a shared system of beliefs

Atheism per se is not a shared system of beliefs. All the atheists with whom I have spoken on web sites like this one hold a number of beliefs in common. 

You are imposing things on Atheism that aren't there .

As atheism is not a religion, it doesn't need to be capitalized.

[Amarok]

*commitments

Yes, they certainly do.

Have you heard claims made by religious people? Have you rejected these claims? 

When you rejected them, did you do so based on reasons, or based on no reasons? If you had reasons to reject the claims made by religious people, then it means you did so according to certain standards. I don't know what they are in your case, but typically such standards include "revelation is not a reliable source of information," or "only repeatable empirical evidence tells us about the world." These are intellectual commitments.

They may very well be good intellectual commitments, but they are nonetheless commitments. 

Not accepting that which is asserted with nothing can be rejected with nothing . So no it not a commitment 

I try not to leave my atheists out in the weather. Their colors fade. 

A Nietzschean fundamentalist of the type I describe would be an atheist. However, I have never encountered such an atheist on any Internet forum. Have you? 

Said person may be an atheist but again their Nietzschean fundamentalism isn't atheism . 

The belief that scientific and math statements have a meaningful connection to the physical world is a metaphysical view. See The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science 

by E. A. Burtt.

Once again that's not atheism 

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a vie

The inability of the theist to justify his beliefs 

Atheism per se is not a shared system of beliefs. All the atheists with whom I have spoken on web sites like this one hold a number of beliefs in common. 

Which simply makes them personnel not atheism  

[Belacqua]

Not accepting that which is asserted with nothing can be rejected with nothing . So no it not a commitment 

Normally people say, "that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." 

This is a standard of evaluation which you hold to be true. It also shows that you have determined religious claims to be without evidence -- something which also requires standards of evaluation.  

Said person may be an atheist but again their Nietzschean fundamentalism isn't atheism . 

Since their Nietzschean fundamentalism lacks a belief in any god or gods, it is a type of atheism. 

The belief that scientific and math statements have a meaningful connection to the physical world is a metaphysical view. See The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science 

by E. A. Burtt.

Once again that's not atheism 

That's right, the belief I named is not atheism per se. However, the belief that science and math give us real knowledge about the real world is a metaphysical stance. Do you hold this stance, also? 

4. Not accepting Religious claims is not using a vie

The inability of the theist to justify his beliefs 

unintelligible

Atheism per se is not a shared system of beliefs. All the atheists with whom I have spoken on web sites like this one hold a number of beliefs in common. 

Which simply makes them personnel not atheism  

(I have hired the personnel to staff my atheism.)

The shared beliefs do not define atheism. Still, they are commonly held beliefs among 21st century anglophone atheists.

[Amarok]

Normally people say, "that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." 

This is a standard of evaluation which you hold to be true. It also shows that you have determined religious claims to be without evidence -- something which also requires standards of evaluation.  

Nope all it requires is that the asserted fail to give any reason for their assertion .And no that's a standard of truth nor a standard of evidence . Merely a non acceptance of the theists.

Since their Nietzschean fundamentalism lacks a belief in any god or gods, it is a type of atheism. 

Yes but my point remains it's not atheism . Nietzschean fundamentalism my be a form of atheism but atheism is not Nietzschean fundamentalism .

That's right, the belief I named is not atheism per se. However, the belief that science and math give us real knowledge about the real world is a metaphysical stance. Do you hold this stance, also?

Yes but it has about as much to do with my atheism as my love of chocolate chip cookies 

unintelligible

How so if the theist can't give reason for their belief i can most definitely  reject it 

The shared beliefs do not define atheism. Still, they are commonly held beliefs among 21st century anglophone atheists.

Which is  irrelevant

[polymath257]

I'm not clear why ghosts would be any more difficult to study than any other living thing. The biologist Medawar said that given the most stringent control of environment, the organism will do as it damn well pleases. And that's for standard biology. But we can do science nonetheless.

If we can detect ghosts, we can learn their properties and behaviors. That would then open up new physics (potentially) and even more science.

So science doesn't *require* a commitment to 'physical' things: just to testability of ideas and analysis of data.

But, of course, the actual observations DON'T lead us to believe in ghosts or any new physics associated with them, nor anything typically terms 'supernatural'.

You're pretty much on point. The simple answer is they are not bound by natural law.  Ghosts may not have been the best example, but I didn't want to pull anybody's strong personal beliefs into it so they didn't feel like I was picking on them.  If you could establish natural laws, then you could study them based on those laws, assuming you could set parameters that they couldn't violate.

But, as always, you can start out with observed behavior and *hypothesize* the laws they operate under, test those laws, etc.

There is simply no reason the scientific method could not be applied to ghosts, goblins, or gods, in theory.

In practice, of course, it fails to study them because of the utter non-existence of them all.