Linked to the title to this post is an interesting article from a Canadian Humanist regarding those who keep claiming that freethinking atheists are really a religion and those who of us who scream back, we are not.Some very good arguments are presented in the article for both sides of the debate, but leaves out one key point about religion that certainly differentiates religion from humanism. The difference is that there has never been a sectarian war between different kinds of freethinkers. The overbearing and holier than thou Humanists have never picked up arms and fought against the true Atheists. The Christian wannabe Unitarians have never declared hostilities against those whiny crybaby Ethical Unionists. Got any other differences you would like to share?
Peter Nuhn
I sense a lot of anger and hostility on this blog.
1. Inhale slowly and deeply
2. Count to five
3. Slowly exhale
4. Repeat as needed
Maybe tomorrow we can work on some I messages.
Krystalline Apostate,
My gosh. Maybe you really don?t understand the question. The question is ontological in nature. How does something which was nonexistent suddenly appear? There are only a handful of ways (at best) something can rationally come into being. Example- new information in DNA or DNA period. Spontaneous generation? Or what?
Cam:
See, you didn’t phrase that question properly at all.
This has nothing to do w/Darwinian mechanisms. That’s abiogenesis, which is still a developing field.
Darwinian mechanisms (as I understand them) deal w/evolution, which is about the journey, not where it started.
Krystalline Apostate,
Krystalline Apostate answers, “This has nothing to do w/Darwinian mechanisms. That’s abiogenesis, which is still a developing field.”
Ok, again, how does something that once was not, come into being? In the DNA of just one human cell there is enough information to fill 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Where does this information come from?
Krystalline Apostate,
Krystalline Apostate says,
?Sure,it’s reciprocal altruism. It’s a developed trait in any pack animal. What violates the structure of the herd is weeded out, stamped out, or banished. Otherwise, we’d not have gotten this far.?
The nature of altruism is that it?s selfless and isn?t reciprocal. Reciprocal altruism is an oxymoron, and besides that it sounds made up.
For the sake of argument, the way you described reciprocal altruism I would put it on level 2 of Kohlberg?s 6 levels of moral development.
Karen,
Karen says, “I suspect Cam is looking for evidence of the lizard that suddenly developed wings so it could fly off the mountain.”
No, because of course that would be irrational for something that once was not to come into being. I’ll pose the question for you because it seems nobody else can answer it.
In the DNA of just one human cell there is enough information to fill 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Where does this information come from?
Cam
Take a look here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=7271.msg76592
Karen,
Nice try. The website says, ?Therefore, in comes DNA- DNA is much more stable. So whenever long term storage is needed DNA is used. RNA is still used to translate the DNA into proteins and as some enzymes to do many functions in the cell. But when keeping the data intact is really important, DNA is used.?
Keeping data intact? What data? Oh, you mean the information equivalent to filling 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Cam:
This website might help you out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
You don’t need to repeat that: we got you the 1st time.
Of course, it didn’t start out w/that much: it took millions of years to accrue.
Wow, maybe you should look items like that up before you shoot your mouth off. NTM that you screwed that all up. Re-read it again.
Here ya go:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Reciprocal%20altruism&gwp=16
You gotta love the unfounded pride of some people
Someone who presumably believes in a world wide flood, a virgin birth, transmogrification, raising people from the dead, invisible sky daddies, etc, etc has the temerity to suggest s/he is a good judge of what is “made up” and what is not!
Krystalline Apostate,
Krystalline Apostate says, ?Of course, it didn’t start out w/that much: it took millions of years to accrue.?
Something can come from nothing as long as it happens vvvverrrry ssssllllowllllly. I guess it?s kind of a slow irrationality instead of a fast irrationality. Oh, and by the way the single celled E. Coli has more information contained in its DNA than all the books in any of the world?s largest libraries.
Cam:
That wasn’t clever the 1st time.
The fast irrationality being, is that we’re formed from spit, breath & clay?
That would’ve rattled my cage, that is, if I actually were in 1.
How many scientists employ the supernatural explanation in the laboratory? I think pretty much ZERO.
No surprise there, as we share a common ancestor.
HeatheNZ says,
“Someone who presumably believes in a world wide flood, a virgin birth, transmogrification, raising people from the dead, invisible sky daddies, etc, etc has the temerity to suggest s/he is a good judge of what is “made up” and what is not!”
Krystalline Apostate says,
” The fast irrationality being, is that we’re formed from spit, breath & clay?”
Genesis 2:7, I presume. Dust= Earthen Elements, Breath= Spirit, Where did you get spit?
Anyway, some education is in order.
Atheists believe that matter (or energy) has always existed. It is absolutely rational to have such a belief. In fact, philosophically, it is necessary for atheists to believe this as you well know. Why, because nothing can come from nothing. There, of course, is no evidence to believe that matter/energy has existed eternally and has to be accepted by faith.
Theists believe that God has always existed and is self existent. This is also philosophically rational, but also is accepted by faith. Most believe that God is spirit and exists outside the dimensions of space and time at least as we know it. Christians believe that He created the universe from nothing. This also is rational given the attributes (creative power) of God. You may not agree with it or like it, but it is rational. He owns the universe and can do with it what he wants and is only limited by His attributes. He can do miracles or not do miracles at His pleasure. Believe it or not, this is also philosophically rational.
What is not rational: That something can come from nothing. That information contained in DNA can come together by chance is far beyond probability.
This is the point I was making.
Antony Flew was intellectually honest and knew it could not be explained. Here are a few of his quotes.
Flew said that the latest biological research “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved.”
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”
“My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”
Cam,
For nth time; atheists do not have to believe in anything at all. The definition of an atheist is a person that does not hold a belief in the reality of gods.
Any beliefs you may want to foist on atheists are irrelevant to atheism and therefore to any conclusion you claim derives from said argument.
I’ve had time to spend on this blog because I was recovering from major surgery and could not go to work. I’m starting back, so I won’t have as much time for this.
If I have offended anyone I apologize. I regret my “rattle the cages” remark. That was really stupid, I admit.
“Atheists believe that matter (or energy) has always existed.”
“Theists believe that God has always existed and is self existent.”
So you poke fun at the idea of believing that matter always existed, but not at the idea that a supernatural being always existed?
“There, of course, is no evidence to believe that matter/energy has existed eternally and has to be accepted by faith.”
Sounds to me like we’re both believing in something having always existed, whether it’s matter or a supernatural being, but our only basis for belief is faith, whether spiritual or in science.
So, you seem to doubt that matter has always existed. But, how is it that “god” came into existence? If you say he always existed, then your argument against atheists for believing matter has always existed becomes hypocritical.
Cam,
I hope the surgery is a protracted success. Thanks for the admission that “rattling cages” was stupid. unfortunately too many theist who breeze by here come to do exactly that. It gets tiresome after a while, but the few genuine ones that stop by tend to make it worth while.
All the best.
Cam:
Wait a minute: heard of the 1st law of thermodynamics? ___ can’t be created or destroyed (fill in the blanks for me).
How on EARTH is that rational?!?!?
Ahem:
A. I’d like to see those figures please, &
B. YOUR side claims nihilo ex nihil fit.
Really, you might want to actually try doing the research, rather than the standard creationist fare.
Oh, THIS again.
1 guy changes his mind, it rocks the foundations? Not hardly.
Flew had absolutely NOTHING to do w/my atheism. Nobody else did.
I came to it via reading the bible.
Your apology is duly noted.
Bygones.
All,
Answering questions and comments.
?I hope the surgery is a protracted success.? Thanks.
“Wait a minute: heard of the 1st law of thermodynamics?”
Answer: It’s obvious this assumption begins with naturalistic assumptions. The universe itself cannot make or destroy matter/energy and gives us a working knowledge of matter/energy. The assumption is that a god is not involved. Obviously, if there is a God this would nullify the 1st law of thermodynamics which claims that matter cannot be created. Even naturalistic assumptions have to be accepted by faith.
?YOUR side claims nihilo ex nihil fit.?
Answer: It is an argument based on cause and effect. God did not come from nothing. God is self existent and has always existed, therefore had no cause. See my entry 04/21/07 @ 15:00. God can create something from nothing. God putting the equivalent of 30 encyclopedia volumes (or an entire library in the case of E.coli) of information in DNA is not difficult.
? So, you seem to doubt that matter has always existed. But, how is it that “god” came into existence? If you say he always existed, then your argument against atheists for believing matter has always existed becomes hypocritical.?
Answer: This may have been a misunderstanding. I am not making fun of atheists who believe that matter or energy has always existed. In fact, it is the only rational belief one can have if you don?t believe in God. To believe that God has always existed is also rational. (Again, see my entry 04/21/07 @ 15:00.) To believe that matter/energy has always existed is rational. Both are rational but are faith based. I only have a problem with people who believe that something(such as information)comes from nothing. This, I believe, is irrational.
I probably didn?t change any minds but hopefully gave you a better understanding of theism. Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone.
Cam:
& that is germane, how exactly?
In actuality, there are instances where matter (OR ENERGY: let?s be clear on the difference) can be destroyed or created.
You speak of the universe has if it has a purpose, a will, thoughts. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Excuse me, but having confidence in the evidence, induction, & the logical deductions thereof hardly qualifies it as ?faith? in the religious sense.
No sale.
Oh, the uncaused cause again.So your deity has no beginning, no end, & is outside not only the laws of physics, but beyond the realm of falsifiability?
Again, no sale.
Again: NO. ?Something from nothing? isn?t our motto: that?s absurd. Along w/this ?uncaused cause? folderol, it?s irrational. Illogical. The only way anyone can believe that jive, is that they?ve been trained to.
Claiming ?faith? for both sides is not only irrational, it?s a logical fallacy known as tu quoque.
You?re trying to be polite ? which is cool. What isn?t very cool, is that you have jumped to the conclusion that none of us know about theism. Thus far, you?ve not really said anything that?s shed light on any of the issues. I?m fairly sure that you?re filtering your listening ? more often than not, for instance, when someone asks a question, it?s only partially an effort to get your take on a subject. The other part is to point something out to you as well.
I’ve also cobbled up a few links for you, if you’d like:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis
I recently watched PBS’s Evolution series – very well done.
As far as scientists can tell, the water required for carbon life-forms was brought here by meteors & comets bombarding early earth. Chances are, they probably were transports for alien bacterium – but that’s hard to establish.
1 celled fossilized organisms are nearly impossible to find by their very nature.
This is all speculatory – but hardly ‘faith based’. Rather, the hypotheses are formulated by observation, induction, & deduction.
EAC:
Yes you did, I missed it the 1st time.
However, I note that Cam shot us this link:
http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
Irreducible complexity?!?
That puppy’s been put to rest a LONNNGG time ago. It didn’t work at the Dover trial: why would it work here?
I think somebody isn’t doing their homework.
At all.
KA,
I already gave him the one link for pbs. Remember? He didn’t look at it.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2007/06/26/germany_bans_tom_cruise#c67824
Something I wrote in another area, but it relates to this discussion.
Jumpin in like monkey here, didn’t read the comments,, Just the topic suggesting atheism as a religion.. Atheism to religion is like a ladybug is to a lady who is dressed like a bug, basically 0 vs a pot of petunias. It shouldnt even be a question. Atheism is a complete lack of belief. That’s the bottom line. Can the MOVEMENT OF ATHEISM be seen as a religion? absolutely not. It is a group or a movement because we still live in the very dark ages unfortunately. It is imporant to share thoughts and information with one another as a minority in this delusional book-worshipping society. we live in.
Definitely not a religion.
I don’t think atheism is a TOTAL lack of belief. Maybe not a religion, but a belief system of some kind. I mean, no one really knows, with all facts and certainty, how we all got here (scientists and physicists and preachers included). So, isn’t everyone in the world “believing” one thing or another? Does the definition of “Open Minded” mean that one is NOT willing to accept ANYTHING until it is presented with ALL facts and certainty? Because anything short of that would be “belief”.
evidence
Atheism is a total lack of belief in gods. If you have any FACTS you would like to present about any gods, bring ‘em on.
The idea that matter and energy have “always existed” is every bit as unsupported as the idea that “god” always existed. The thinking in cosmological circles today is that the physical universe and everything in it came about as the result of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. Matter did NOT always exist (nor did its alter ego, energy). Time itself had no beginning, as the curvature of spacetime at the location of the Big Bang singularity was so distorted that “before” and “after” cease to have meaning anywhere in its proximity. The Big Bang singularity is the point at which relativity and quantum theories unify — causality, as it is experienced on the macro, phenomenological level of human inquiry, breaks down completely.
Moreover, to posit that something is “supernatural” or outside nature, is a perpectival conjecture only — to an aborigine with no prior contact with modern tecdhnology, a radio would appear as “supernatural.” The tendency among some scientists to reject, out of hand, any reported phenomena as “supernatural” and unworthy of verification (experimentation), is actually unscientific insofar as this attitude relies on an unproven assumption. Personally, I’d like to see experiments done which can show whether a Buddhist monk’s meditative state can suppress the startle response, rather than assuming at the outset that any claim that he can is “supernatural.” The amount of knowledge we have of nature today is miniscule, and it is not a great leap to conjecture that many, many reported phenomena that might today be regarded as “supernatural” claims might, in fact, be shown at some future date to be altogether natural.
Atheism may be a total lack of belief in gods, but the writer who pointed out that it is nonetheless a belief of another kind is also correct. There is no absolute certainty in nature, as quantum menchanics indicates. you may know the position of a particle with certainty, but if you do, you cannot know its velocity. Or vice versa. There is no “true,” fundamental underlying reality, as reality is determined by consciousness. Every quantum mechanical experiment has verified this. Therefore, to posit that the god proposition is outside the pale of scientific verification, as materialists and positivists do, is not only a belief, but a mistaken one at that. In the quantum universe, anything that can happen will happen. For all I know, the entire universe in which I reside is a quantum mini black hole experiment being conducted in a parallel universe, wherin the lab-coated physicists conducting the experiment are, for all practical purposes, “god,’ insofar as they virtually created me and every single galaxy, photon and tapeworm out of nothing (quantum vacuum).
Roasberry,
You are talking of anything being possible even though there is no evidence or reason to expect the “anything” to exist. However, then you pick god-idea as an example when in fact The Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a better example. The reason is that all god-ideas have failed to stand up to reasonable inquiry, whereas, there is no evidence that FSM is not there.
Go ahead and speculate about all things that are possible but, please when you do, make an exhaustive list of all the things.
That is a misrepresentation of what I stated. Look at my post again. What I stated is that in a quantum universe, anything that can happen will happen. Obviously, something that violates the fundamental laws of physics CAN’T happen and therefore WON’T happen. You fail completely to grasp my point: I am arguing 1) that scientific materialism is founded on an unproven assumption (i.e. subject-object dualism) and 2) that the extent of scientific knowledge is so limited at present that what would appear “supernatural” today may be proven to be perfectly natural tomorrow. Case in point: the EPR paradox formulated by Einstein as “proof” that quantum mechanics violates relativity, and therefore cannot be validated. It HAS been validated — by Alain Aspect in France, for one.
The quantum mini-black hole experiment I alluded to, incidentally, does not violate the fundamental laws of physics and is therefore within the realm of possibility/probability. Insofar as the entire physical universe COULD be the product of such a quantum fluctuation experiment, it follows that perhaps someone DID “create” the universe we know, in the very literal sense. What then?
And to get back to the original purpose of this entire thread, I’d submit that what makes classical atheism a religion is the idea held by many atheists that there is some discreet division separating subject and object, the observer and the observed. Positivism depends on this; and yet positivism is falisified by quantum mechanics.
Roasberry,
Ya, quantum mechanics breaks down in certain places. That is no doubt because it is not complete. It may never be complete. However, the parts of quantum mechanics that you are pointing to are only slightly better than speculation. That is what I was pointing out to you, it just doesn’t matter much beyond the sheer joy that it provides to those who study it.
Stephen Hawking doesn’t seem to take it as seriously as you do, does he know anything that you might not?
And to get back to your last statement. You might want to reread the statement and question that is the subject of this thread. The first question I would ask you in that regard is; are you an Atheist?
Logical positivism, or Comte’s version?
Then you bring some supernatural event that’s unexplainable, but prove that it happened at all, & can’t be duplicated by people.
Otherwise, you’re just blither-blathering in idle speculation, a very dim appeal to wonder.
Well of course atheism is religion, it must be!
Just like not believing in Santa Claus is a religion and not believing in the Tooth Fairy is a religion and not believing in the Massive Flying WTF is a religion. All these religions are observed by billions of people around the world.
Anyway why should anybody bother to agree on a definition for a word? Why let someones ignorance about language be an impediment? Haven’t the ignorant turned the word ?theory? from ?A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena? to ?a totally uneducated random guess.?
KW
Let me get this straigh. Because its *possible* for Santa to travel around the world overnight, delivering presents to all the good little child of the world, naturally, there’s a guy in some parallel universe who *does.*
Now, if this were true (I won’t pretend to know enough to judge), then *all* Gods would be real and us poor Atheists would be the blasphemers of the worst sort. In this case, I suppose polytheists would have the greatest chances of being “right”.
Its pretty weird how I don’t see all those typos while I’m typing, but they sure are obvious once I’ve hit the “Send comment” button.
KnowledgeIsPower: If you will read what I actually wrote above, you will see that your Santa Claus analogy is not valid. I specifically stated, “in a quantum universe, anything that can happen will happen. Obviously, something that violates the fundamental laws of physics CAN’T happen and therefore WON’T happen.”
The Santa Claus delusion depends on a grotesque violation of physical laws — a fat man in a sleigh, travelling at several hundred miles per second to deliver gifts of mass M to N number of Christian children while travelling through an atmosphere of density D — the whole Santa team, sleigh, reindeer and all would vaporize from the friction. Read what I said, dammit.
One point I was arguing at a different forum is that Atheism is a belief system, calling it religious belief would be incorrect. Yet belief system perfectly fits the profile.
According to FringeWisdom.com a belief system is, “Your belief system is the actual set of precepts from which you live your daily life, those which govern your thoughts, words, and actions.” I completely agree.
I’m an atheist and my belief system (atheism) defines my daily life (i do not pray, i do not talk to God, I don’t go to church, etc), it governs my thoughts and words (i speak for atheism, i write for atheism, i think atheism), and it governs my actions (i join atheist organizations, atheist activism, i am not afraid to do things that God would punish me for). This is what I am, and atheism made me this way. As for reason and science, they are the ones that helped me become atheist and help me promote atheism.
Faith is not a requirement for something to be considered a belief system. However, it is a requirement for religion.
v1ktor
i coulden`t agree more yet I get the feeling that people look at me as less of a person ehat should i do
What is most interesting is that all you atheists really fear the presence of God, religion and spirituality and decide you must fight it…
There is much bad religion in the world, granted, but that has no bearing on the fact that God is real and spiritually takes place in spite of religion or atheism…
You even get offended by displays of religious nature in public… rather than embracing all religions and say every man to his faith and that is great!
Oneness with God is a process… Spirituality is as real as day and today it is being proven left and right… for ex. by Gary Schwartz.
One day you find yourselves wondering… your pride, your ego-centered atheism is a cause with an end.
No way is atheism a religion, but it would make a great political party.
I recently had this debate on another
atheist blog. If I leave the window open, as inconclusive, whether some force of nature has a personality and was instrumental in the occurrance of nature as we know it, that is not the same as being a creationist nor lending any validity to organized religion.
Conversely, my experience has led me to doubt a lot of the things that have been offered to me as facts by the scientific community, such as Einstein’s idea that a stationary grid of space and time causes gravity as objects move through it. Or the connection between carbon dioxide levels and climate change. I take the same approach, prove it to me. Sometimes it seems to me that the scientific community tries to be our neopope and expect us to accept things because they tell us to. For those who do, it has become a religion in its own right.
NeoWolfe
Though I have never heard of, nor can imagine, a situation where atheists come to blows over who is the “pure atheist”, their are certain, sometime stark differences in the ideas of people in our wing of thought. There those, as described who are humanist, some who believe there is good in all religion without picking a particular deity to worship. The other end of the spectrum is those that think that life and unimaginably huge universe is an accident. I am one of those weirdos in the middle. The universe and it’s potential for discovery beyond what is already breathtaking on our own little speck of dust in space leave me undecided about some form of design. But, what is stark in the face to any thinking individual is the fact that organized religion is crap, designed to victimize as many as possible, exploiting their fear of death (survival instict) that nature built in.
So while some purist atheists might consider themselves as having risen above religion, the fact that they take on faith an unproven principle that life is an accident, and no force of nature exists who may have manipulated the outcome of the universe, they have indeed adopted a religion of their own.
NeoWolfe