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

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

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.

Theokhoth

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.

Still though, not asserting a purpose to the universe, nor the supernatural means that scientism is not religious, but rather ideological.

Scientism is ideological, but not religious.

The difference is the lack of assertion that a purpose or supernaural exists.

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Thus scientism is not a religion.Vandalvideo

Name a religion that has no forms of supernatural belief.

It is according to Aristotle.Theokhoth

So are you saying that science is an educated religion?eggdog1234

No, I'm saying scientism is a religion of education. There isn't anything truly educated about it.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Thus scientism is not a religion.MetalGear_Ninty

Name a religion that has no forms of supernatural belief.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim. It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="eggdog1234"]So are you saying that science is an educated religion?Theokhoth

No, I'm saying scientism is a religion of education. There isn't anything truly educated about it.

And are you claiming that people who believe in science must also believe in scientism?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Thus scientism is not a religion.Vandalvideo

Name a religion that has no forms of supernatural belief.

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

Scroll down the page to 'Is confucianism a religion?'

I think most would agree that it is a set of philosophies rather than a religion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]It is according to Aristotle.Vandalvideo

And I prefer to trust the man from whom these books and univerities get a large chunk of their information.

I think most would agree that it is a set of philosophies rather than a religion.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="eggdog1234"]So are you saying that science is an educated religion?eggdog1234

No, I'm saying scientism is a religion of education. There isn't anything truly educated about it.

And are you claiming that people who believe in science must also believe in scientism?

No.

And I prefer to trust the man from whom these books and univerities get a large chunk of their information.Theokhoth

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim.

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science, (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.

It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

That is part of scientism, and is also false.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

That is not the rule of scientism, so this is irrelevant.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]And I prefer to trust the man from whom these books and univerities get a large chunk of their information.Vandalvideo

I don't go to Oxford, Yale or Harvard, so I don't even know if they actually use this book.

I don't go to Oxford, Yale or Harvard, so I don't even know if they actually use this book. Theokhoth

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I think most would agree that it is a set of philosophies rather than a religion.Vandalvideo

The question of whether Confucianism is a religion, or otherwise, is ultimately a definitional problem. If the definition used is worship of supernatural entities, the answer may be that Confucianism is not a religion. If, on the other hand, a religion is defined as (for example) a belief system that includes moral stances, guides for daily life, systematic views of humanity and its place in the universe, etc., then Confucianism most definitely qualifieswikipedia

Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.

Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I think most would agree that it is a set of philosophies rather than a religion.MetalGear_Ninty

The question of whether Confucianism is a religion, or otherwise, is ultimately a definitional problem. If the definition used is worship of supernatural entities, the answer may be that Confucianism is not a religion. If, on the other hand, a religion is defined as (for example) a belief system that includes moral stances, guides for daily life, systematic views of humanity and its place in the universe, etc., then Confucianism most definitely qualifieswikipedia

Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.

The second is used more than the first. If it were not so, then Buddhism wouldn't count as a religion.

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

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim. It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim.

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science, (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.

That's only a very extreme form of scientism, and one I certainly do not intend to defend. It could well be considered a religion.

It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

That is part of scientism, and is also false.

Yes, but you were saying that scientism claims that science can tell us everything, which, with a few exceptions, it does not.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

That is not the rule of scientism, so this is irrelevant.

Neither is'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'. ;)

Theokhoth

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

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim.

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science, (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.

That's only a very extreme form of scientism, and one I certainly do not intend to defend. It could well be considered a religion.

Okay then.

It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

That is part of scientism, and is also false.

Yes, but you were saying that scientism claims that science can tell us everything, which, with a few exceptions, it does not.

The extreme version is the more common version. While extremism is typically a minority view, extremism is not synonymous with minority views.

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

That is not the rule of scientism, so this is irrelevant.

Neither is'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'. ;)

As that is a rule of scientism, it is not irrelevant to our discussion.

Funky_Llama

Hmm, you seem to believe that science in it's current state 100 % reflects reality.Dark-Sithious

Do I? That's news to me.

Yet science as we know it today fails to explain key aspects of our reality.Dark-Sithious

Yeah, I know. So what?

To date we can compare science to an incomplete toolbox, we lack certain tools to accomplish what we want, but we must also consider the fact that maybe the entire toolbox that we currently use is a false one...Dark-Sithious

I'm fully aware. I don't claim that the scientific method or the scientific worldview are infallible and correct without doubt. But it's about the best we've got for learning about the natural world.

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

: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.

I can't believe you don't understand that scientism makes the full-fledged statement that all things are knowable by science, if not now, then in the future.

No it doesn't. Scientism does not make that claim.

According to Mikael Stenmark in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, while the doctrines that are described as scientism have many possible forms and varying degrees of ambition, they share the idea that the boundaries of science (that is, typically the natural sciences) could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science, (usually with science becoming the sole or the main arbiter regarding this area or dimension). In its most extreme form, scientism is the faith that science has no boundaries, that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavor will be dealt and solved by science alone. This idea is also called the Myth of Progress. Stenmark proposes the expression scientific expansionism as a synonym of scientism. E. F. Schumacher critiqued this form of scientism as an impoverished world view that not only leaves unanswered, but denies the validity of all questions of fundamental importance to human existence.

That's only a very extreme form of scientism, and one I certainly do not intend to defend. It could well be considered a religion.

Okay then.

At last, something we agree on. :P

It claims that science is the only proper way to acquire knowledge; not that all knowledge can be acquired.

That is part of scientism, and is also false.

Yes, but you were saying that scientism claims that science can tell us everything, which, with a few exceptions, it does not.

The extreme version is the more common version. While extremism is typically a minority view, extremism is not synonymous with minority views.

Proof?

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

Nothing can be known without the say-so of science. Philosophy, ethics, religion, meaning: it all has to go through the microscope before it can be considered a part of reality, and if it fails the science test, it does not exist.

That is very shaky. It's not 'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'; it's 'if it fails the science test, there is no reason to believe it'.

That is not the rule of scientism, so this is irrelevant.

Neither is'if it fails the science test, it does not exist'. ;)

As that is a rule of scientism, it is not irrelevant to our discussion.

Is it? Proof?

Theokhoth

That font colour burns my eyes. :cry:

Proof?

Is it? Proof?

That font colour burns my eyes. :cry:

Funky_Llama

1. You know those teens running around spouting how evolution proves God doesn't exist, or Richard Dawkins with his biology degree declaring theology to be a useless subject? Guess what that is?

2. I've been giving you proof all throughout this topic. . . .

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.Vandalvideo

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" -- Princeton

You pursue this argument at your peril.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.Vandalvideo

*attempts to use College OED access to check* Oh great, it's not working.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.MetalGear_Ninty

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" -- Princeton

You pursue this argument at your peril.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I think most would agree that it is a set of philosophies rather than a religion.Theokhoth

The question of whether Confucianism is a religion, or otherwise, is ultimately a definitional problem. If the definition used is worship of supernatural entities, the answer may be that Confucianism is not a religion. If, on the other hand, a religion is defined as (for example) a belief system that includes moral stances, guides for daily life, systematic views of humanity and its place in the universe, etc., then Confucianism most definitely qualifieswikipedia

Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.

The second is used more than the first. If it were not so, then Buddhism wouldn't count as a religion.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Proof?

Is it? Proof?

That font colour burns my eyes. :cry:

Theokhoth

1. You know those teens running around spouting how evolution proves God doesn't exist, or Richard Dawkins with his biology degree declaring theology to be a useless subject? Guess what that is?

2. I've been giving you proof all throughout this topic. . . .

1. :roll: An extreme form of scientism. Regardless... it's still no more an instrinsic or necessary part of scientism than Calvinism is of Christianity.

2. Not of that.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Ths really is arguing over semantics. It really depends on what definition of religion you use.Vandalvideo

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" -- Princeton

You pursue this argument at your peril.

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a link

So rock climbing is a religion?

Sorry to go off topic, but I couldn't help but laugh at the multi-coloured quote-chain between okhoth and Funky Llama. :lol: Nicely done, guys.super_mario_128

Magnificent, wasn't it? :P

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a linkMetalGear_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.

1. Humans are animalia... What do you recon we are?

2. Species eat other species, that's how the food web works. We aren't exactly doing anything different from other animals.

3. A functioning civilization is only beneficial to the survival of your species.(look at the organization of some ant colonies, don't tell me you think they had an "educator" too..)

Ever heard of reincarnation, nirvana etc.?MetalGear_Ninty

Uh-huh? Neither of those are deities that are worshipped. Most Buddhists don't even believe in Nirvana.

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a link

So rock climbing is a religion?

MetalGear_Ninty

The OED website requires you have an account to view their webpages.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Sorry to go off topic, but I couldn't help but laugh at the multi-coloured quote-chain between okhoth and Funky Llama. :lol: Nicely done, guys.Funky_Llama

Magnificent, wasn't it? :P

It would have surely given someone with epilepsy a seizure. Itgave me a headache :P

1. :roll: An extreme form of scientism. Regardless... it's still no more an instrinsic or necessary part of scientism than Calvinism is of Christianity.

2. Not of that.

Funky_Llama

1. The majority useage of scientism. Which is what I was arguing; not that it was necessary (it's debatable).

2. Yes of that. The whole wikipedia thing again.

It would be better place because there are so many wars because of religion.rom11

Religion is arguably responsible for ten percent of all the wars in known history. European kings used to wage war for no reason or as a rite of passage; is Europe evil now?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a link

So rock climbing is a religion?

Theokhoth

The OED website requires you have an account to view their webpages.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

1. :roll: An extreme form of scientism. Regardless... it's still no more an instrinsic or necessary part of scientism than Calvinism is of Christianity.

2. Not of that.

Theokhoth

1. The majority useage of scientism. Which is what I was arguing; not that it was necessary (it's debatable).

2. Yes of that. The whole wikipedia thing again.

1. I'm not at all sure that it is the majority usage.

2. Nowhere did that Wikipedia thing prove that the 'rule of scientism' was as you said it was.

I have to go now. See you later.

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.

amirbrandon

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.

amirbrandon

Uh-huh? Neither of those are deities that are worshipped. Most Buddhists don't even believe in Nirvana. Theokhoth

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Ever heard of reincarnation, nirvana etc.?Theokhoth

Uh-huh? Neither of those are deities that are worshipped. Most Buddhists don't even believe in Nirvana.

It is still supernatural. They are still part of buddhism are they not?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a link

So rock climbing is a religion?

Theokhoth

The OED website requires you have an account to view their webpages.

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

That definiton is bull anyway, and I would like a link

So rock climbing is a religion?

Vandalvideo

The OED website requires you have an account to view their webpages.

I see how you've censored the primary definition that conforms to my argument.

I see how you've censored the primary definition that conforms to my argument.MetalGear_Ninty