Athiests: Do you hope for a world with no religion?

Both Athiests and Christians are wrong, there is a "god" indeed, but this "god" does not need to be worshipped and praying won't do any good. LOL, if our god really needed to be worshipped in churches, temples, etc then that would be a pathetic god, a selfish god that I would have no interest in worshipping.Dark-Sithious

Its not "needed", but deserved.

No, not really.

I don't see how it would be beneficial for such a thing to happen.

Religion or not, people are still going to be killing each other.

Hey, I cant find our last exchange. Was it removed? The one about agnostic athiests. Its not showing for me.

Trashface

I don't see it either.

EDIT: Ah, it was in a different topic.

No, not really.

I don't see how it would be beneficial for such a thing to happen.

Religion or not, people are still going to be killing each other.

MetalGear_Ninty

Something of an oversimplification, don't you think? Yes, people will still kill each other, but the number of people killing each other would no doubt change.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

I think such an idea is silly beyond measure. Even if religion is naturalistic, our minds are hardwired to believe in God and societies have been "thinking up" religions for all of humanity's existence. It won't stop just because a bunch of atheists don't like it.

If all religion is forcibly destroyed, then science will become the main religion (scientism) and nobody will even notice.

Theokhoth

I agree with the first paragraph but man what is up with you and this 'scientism' stuff?

Because a lot of people put their faith in scientism and yet don't even realise it. Even in this very topic people elevate science to be the authority of all, and then go "but religion can never be apart of it," without realising that they have made science their religion, the antithesis of their goal in the first place.

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

No, not really.

I don't see how it would be beneficial for such a thing to happen.

Religion or not, people are still going to be killing each other.

Funky_Llama

Something of an oversimplification, don't you think? Yes, people will still kill each other, but the number of people killing each other would no doubt change.

It would be conjecture either way, to say whether it would go up or down.

As there are knows that kill because of their religious beliefs, there are those who refrain from murdering because of their religious beliefs.

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

MetalGear_Ninty

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

Theokhoth

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe, nor does it dictate a set rules or rituals.

The foundation of civilization is religion. People were taught how to be intellectual, loving, virtuous people through the messages of the prophets of God, and they have taught these messages to their children, and they taught it to their children, and so on. So basically, you have been raised to be a civilized and virtuous person because the messengers of God taught us this. This message has been passed down from our ancestors and now onto you, and being a civilized person is part of our daily lives now. Even if you don't believe in God, you are using the principles of religion such as love, respect, etc. in your daily life. It's like how most clothes come from sheep fur. The sheep fur is turned into clothes, and people wear these clothes regardless of if they believe that these clothes came from sheep fur. It's the same as how we use religion's principles even if we do not believe they came from God.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

MetalGear_Ninty

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe, nor does it dictate set rules or rituals.

I agree. To call scientism (speaking of which, how would you identify someone who believes scientism? :?) a religion is to dilute the meaning of 'religion' to the point of meaninglessness.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

MetalGear_Ninty

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe,

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.

nor does it dictate set rules or rituals.

The scientific method. Under scientism, that is the only way one is allowed to think; all other ways are inferior.

The foundation of civilization is religion. People were taught how to be intellectual, loving, virtuous people through the messages of the prophets of God, and they have taught these messages to their children, and they taught it to their children, and so on. So basically, you have been raised to be a civilized and virtuous person because the messengers of God taught us this. This message has been passed down from our ancestors and now onto you, and being a civilized person is part of our daily lives now. Even if you don't believe in God, you are using the principles of religion such as love, respect, etc. in your daily life. It's like how most clothes come from sheep fur. The sheep fur is turned into clothes, and people wear these clothes regardless of if they believe that these clothes came from sheep fur. It's the same as how we use religion's principles even if we do not believe they came from God.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe,

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.

Theokhoth

No it isn't.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

Funky_Llama

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe, nor does it dictate set rules or rituals.

I agree. To call scientism (speaking of which, how would you identify someone who believes scientism? :?) a religion is to dilute the meaning of 'religion' to the point of meaninglessness.

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

1. it is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing allreality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
2. it is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. Examples of this second usage is to label as scientism the attempts to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics), or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

The foundation of civilization is religion. People were taught how to be intellectual, loving, virtuous people through the messages of the prophets of God, and they have taught these messages to their children, and they taught it to their children, and so on. So basically, you have been raised to be a civilized and virtuous person because the messengers of God taught us this. This message has been passed down from our ancestors and now onto you, and being a civilized person is part of our daily lives now. Even if you don't believe in God, you are using the principles of religion such as love, respect, etc. in your daily life. It's like how most clothes come from sheep fur. The sheep fur is turned into clothes, and people wear these clothes regardless of if they believe that these clothes came from sheep fur. It's the same as how we use religion's principles even if we do not believe they came from God.

amirbrandon

I see a lot of assertion, and nothing to back it up.

One post will suffice, bud. No need to copy and paste your message and post it again.Blood-Scribe

If people didn't read it, then yes there is. :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe,

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.

Funky_Llama

No it isn't.

Yes it is. That claim is this: "there isn't one, because science doesn't know it, and if science doesn't know it, it doesn't exist."

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]One post will suffice, bud. No need to copy and paste your message and post it again.amirbrandon

If people didn't read it, then yes there is. :P

So then you're going to post it once per page to avoid people going past it and onto the next page to keep up with other discussions?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

Theokhoth

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe, nor does it dictate set rules or rituals.

I agree. To call scientism (speaking of which, how would you identify someone who believes scientism? :?) a religion is to dilute the meaning of 'religion' to the point of meaninglessness.

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

1. it is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing allreality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;
2. it is used to denote a border-crossing violation in which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are inappropriately applied to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. Examples of this second usage is to label as scientism the attempts to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics), or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews).

Some nice quote mining there. I like the way you ignored the neutral definition at the start of the article and took only the pejorative meanings, and presented them as the definition of the term.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe,

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.

Theokhoth

No it isn't.

Yes it is. That claim is this: "there isn't one, because science doesn't know it, and if science doesn't know it, it doesn't exist."

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

[QUOTE="amirbrandon"]

[QUOTE="Blood-Scribe"]One post will suffice, bud. No need to copy and paste your message and post it again.Blood-Scribe

If people didn't read it, then yes there is. :P

So then you're going to post it once per page to avoid people going past it and onto the next page to keep up with other discussions?

...no, I did it once, and maybe took space from one other post... So I'm sorry? :|

Some nice quote mining there. I like the way you ignored the neutral definition at the start of the article and took only the pejorative meanings, and presented them as the definition of the term.

Funky_Llama

The pejorative meanings are the ones I'm talking about. :| The neutral definitions are irrelevant to my point: that people make science into a religion.

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Funky_Llama

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

It is still incorrect though, to refer to it as a possible religion, whether one may overvalue its importance or not.

Theokhoth

It is a full-blown religion. Science is the god of scientism; the scientific method is the dogma. There is no "possible" about it.

Your defintion though, still doesn't fit the vast majority of definitions regarding religion. It makes no claim of the purpose of the universe,

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.That is not scientism, the author of that quote does not properly understand science -- scientism can't say anything about meaning or purpose.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Some nice quote mining there. I like the way you ignored the neutral definition at the start of the article and took only the pejorative meanings, and presented them as the definition of the term.

Theokhoth

The pejorative meanings are the ones I'm talking about. :| The neutral definitions are irrelevant to my point: that people make science into a religion.

People who believe scientism do not follow it - at least, not deliberately - as defined by the pejorative meanings. By how you're presenting it, it is not a genuine stance or belief; it is an accusation.

"Science is the only rule, the only rational means to discover knowledge and meaning." that is a claim to the purpose of the universe.That is not scientism, the author of that quote does not properly understand science -- scientism can't say anything about meaning or purpose.

MetalGear_Ninty

You don't get it; that's exactly the point! Scientism isn't science, but a religion. Scientism, being a religion, finds all meaning and purpose in science!

[QUOTE="amirbrandon"]

The foundation of civilization is religion. People were taught how to be intellectual, loving, virtuous people through the messages of the prophets of God, and they have taught these messages to their children, and they taught it to their children, and so on. So basically, you have been raised to be a civilized and virtuous person because the messengers of God taught us this. This message has been passed down from our ancestors and now onto you, and being a civilized person is part of our daily lives now. Even if you don't believe in God, you are using the principles of religion such as love, respect, etc. in your daily life. It's like how most clothes come from sheep fur. The sheep fur is turned into clothes, and people wear these clothes regardless of if they believe that these clothes came from sheep fur. It's the same as how we use religion's principles even if we do not believe they came from God.

Funky_Llama

I see a lot of assertion, and nothing to back it up.

Well how do you think that people learned to become civilized, intellectual people, who can show virtues? Who taught us to be different from the other animals in the world? We couldn't just do this ourselves, we needed an educator. If spiritual and material education don't go hand in hand, humanity would take the ways of the animal, and we would only live to eat, sleep, and reproduce. But we have been educated and have learned to work together and show love to one another and be united. We don't live only with the brain's nature to do animalistic things like eat each other. We have been educated past that.

People who believe scientism do not follow it - at least, not deliberately - as defined by the pejorative meanings. By how you're presenting it, it is not a genuine stance or belief; it is an accusation.

Funky_Llama

People typically do not intentionally follow it, but it is a stance or belief, and like I said before, go back through this topic and look for messages like I have described.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Theokhoth

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

MetalGear_Ninty

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

It does make a claim for the purpose of the universe: that the universe has no purpose.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.Vandalvideo

Then you're not a scientistic person.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Theokhoth

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Yup.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

But scientism makes no claim that science can tell us everything; only that the only way to know anything that can practically be known to humans is through science.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

No, no, no. Under scientism, if there is something science does not know, then it must be unknowable.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

Some awful, awful logic there.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

People who believe scientism do not follow it - at least, not deliberately - as defined by the pejorative meanings. By how you're presenting it, it is not a genuine stance or belief; it is an accusation.

Theokhoth

People typically do not intentionally follow it, but it is a stance or belief, and like I said before, go back through this topic and look for messages like I have described.

It is indeed a stance or belief, but you are not presenting it as such. You are arguing against scientism as a stance by arguing against it as an insult or accusation; nothing more than a glorified straw man argument.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Funky_Llama

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Yup.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

But scientism makes no claim that science can tell us everything; only that the only way to know anything that can practically be known to humans is through science.

It's the same thing. And scientism does make the claim that science can tell us everything.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

No, no, no. Under scientism, if there is something science does not know, then it must be unknowable.

No, because if something is unknowable by science, then science is not the be-all end-all of knowledge, therefore scientism falls apart. So if science can't explain something, it simply does not exist, as science encompasses all knowledge.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

Some awful, awful logic there.

On your part.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Theokhoth

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

It does make a claim for the purpose of the universe: that the universe has no purpose.

Thus scientism is not a religion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

People who believe scientism do not follow it - at least, not deliberately - as defined by the pejorative meanings. By how you're presenting it, it is not a genuine stance or belief; it is an accusation.

Funky_Llama

People typically do not intentionally follow it, but it is a stance or belief, and like I said before, go back through this topic and look for messages like I have described.

It is indeed a stance or belief, but you are not presenting it as such. You are arguing against scientism as a stance by arguing against it as an insult or accusation; nothing more than a glorified straw man argument.

A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never made. I'm explaining what scientism is, not attacking someone else's view.

Read the rest of the Wiki article. It explains everything you're saying.

Thus scientism is not a religion.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="amirbrandon"]

The foundation of civilization is religion. People were taught how to be intellectual, loving, virtuous people through the messages of the prophets of God, and they have taught these messages to their children, and they taught it to their children, and so on. So basically, you have been raised to be a civilized and virtuous person because the messengers of God taught us this. This message has been passed down from our ancestors and now onto you, and being a civilized person is part of our daily lives now. Even if you don't believe in God, you are using the principles of religion such as love, respect, etc. in your daily life. It's like how most clothes come from sheep fur. The sheep fur is turned into clothes, and people wear these clothes regardless of if they believe that these clothes came from sheep fur. It's the same as how we use religion's principles even if we do not believe they came from God.

amirbrandon

I see a lot of assertion, and nothing to back it up.

Well how do you think that people learned to become civilized, intellectual people, who can show virtues? Who taught us to be different from the other animals in the world? We couldn't just do this ourselves, we needed an educator. If spiritual and material education don't go hand in hand, humanity would take the ways of the animal, and we would only live to eat, sleep, and reproduce. But we have been educated and have learned to work together and show love to one another and be united. We don't live only with the brain's nature to do animalistic things like eat each other. We have been educated past that.

Civilisation does not require religion; plenty of countries today have a low rate of religious belief and remain perfectly civilised. If you think that religion civilises us... well... look at Afghanistan under the Taliban. "If spiritual and material education don't go hand in hand, humanity would take the ways of the animal"? Prove it. As it is, that's just question-begging. "We don't live only with the brain's nature to do animalistic things like eat each other"... yeah, no doubt humanity would descend into cannibalism without religion. :lol:

A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never madeTheokhoth

That is not a claim for the purpose of the universe -- it is just a rejection of a point, and also scientism makes no claim for the supernatural.

Thus scientism is not a religion.

MetalGear_Ninty

The rejection of a point is when you claim that the universe may or may not have a purpose, but it doesn't have "x" purpose.

To state that the universe has no purpose is a positive point and a belief. It makes the same claim for the supernatural. Scientism is as much a religion as Buddhism or Christianity.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never madeVandalvideo

A red herring is a type of strawman. Theoretically, all fallacies boil down to some type of red herring.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

People who believe scientism do not follow it - at least, not deliberately - as defined by the pejorative meanings. By how you're presenting it, it is not a genuine stance or belief; it is an accusation.

Theokhoth

People typically do not intentionally follow it, but it is a stance or belief, and like I said before, go back through this topic and look for messages like I have described.

It is indeed a stance or belief, but you are not presenting it as such. You are arguing against scientism as a stance by arguing against it as an insult or accusation; nothing more than a glorified straw man argument.

A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never made. I'm explaining what scientism is, not attacking someone else's view.

Read the rest of the Wiki article. It explains everything you're saying.

You are indeed attacking a stance that was never made. Unless you're willing to claim that scientists (I don't mean that in the usual meaning of the word, of course) believe in stance that is pejorative towards themselves, which is incredibly nonsensical. What you're doing it like me arguing against religion by defining it as irrational and then attacking it as such.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never madeTheokhoth

A red herring is a type of strawman. Theoretically, all fallacies boil down to some type of red herring.

You are indeed attacking a stance that was never made. Unless you're willing to claim that scientists (I don't mean that in the usual meaning of the word, of course) believe in stance that is pejorative towards themselves, which is incredibly nonsensical. What you're doing it like me arguing against religion by defining it as irrational and then attacking it as such.

Funky_Llama

Here's the thing: most scientistic people don't even recognize what they are doing. Since can't explain religion, religion must be false, according to scientism, so the followers of scientism reject religion, thinking they are following science.

Most scientistic people don't even recognize scientism as a valid philosophy, because it undermines science in their eyes.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

And what has that to do with the purpose of the universe?

Theokhoth

Science cannot learn the purpose of the universe.

Yup.

Under scientism, science is the only means to know anything; science is the be-all end-all of knowledge.

But scientism makes no claim that science can tell us everything; only that the only way to know anything that can practically be known to humans is through science.

It's the same thing. And scientism does make the claim that science can tell us everything.

:lol: No, no it is not. I am amazed that you don't see the difference between 'science can tell us everything' and 'science can tell us anything that is practically knowable'. To conflate the two statements is only not fallacious if everything is practically knowable, which of course it is not.

Therefore, if there is something science does not know, then, under scientism, it must not actually exist.

No, no, no. Under scientism, if there is something science does not know, then it must be unknowable.

No, because if something is unknowable by science, then science is not the be-all end-all of knowledge, therefore scientism falls apart. So if science can't explain something, it simply does not exist, as science encompasses all knowledge.

Define the 'be-all and end-allof knowledge', please.

Science cannot know the purpose of the universe.

Therefore, under scientism, the universe must have no purpose.

Some awful, awful logic there.

On your part.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]A strawman argument is when I attack a stance that was never madeVandalvideo

A red herring is a type of strawman. Theoretically, all fallacies boil down to some type of red herring.

It is according to Aristotle.

And fallacyfiles.