The Difference Between Atheism And Religion

[Politesse]

If it was truly new, would it even be valuable? The most fundamental thoughts are those that recur. Across time, between cultures.

"We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?"
~Tom Stoppard

 

[steve_bank]

There is a line in the movie Inherit The Wind about the Scopes trial over evolution.

A character says. 'The only book the jury has ever read is probably the bible'.

When talking about thought we are usually preaching to the choir, like minded people. Most people are not well read enough to begin to understand.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump did.

So that is what, 1% of the public?

Ignore statistical reality at your own convenience.

 

[DBT]

God can be as abstract as you like. As philosophical as you want to make It.

 

[Swammerdami]

They aren't militant atheists like you come across on the internet, they are apathetic. They don't care. It isn't an ideological fixation or political with them.

Plot twist here (in bold). I've had exactly one interaction with you here "on the internet," and you've decided (apparently) that I'm a "militant" atheist.

Did you misinterpret the reddened clause? I think he meant "like one comes across on the Internet." The alternate interpretation, with Ford the accused antecedent in "like you", would require a comma before the "come" and would still be slightly non-idiomatic.

Since I'm butting in to the thread, I myself am one of the apathetic atheists DLH refers to. Among a hundred or so close acquaintances over a lifetime, I can recall only one who was obviously religious (two if we include a Jew who refused to pronounce "Yahweh"). Of the remainder the only ones who enunciated their atheism were 7th-graders who got sophomoric thrills from finding contradictions in Genesis.

As apathetic as I am, perhaps I should call myself an "agnostic" or a "do_not_care-ist." I ended up at this message-board by some fluke that had nothing to do with religion or lack thereof.

I will say that some Infidels here do seem obsessed with their atheism, even to the point of twisting history and twisting facts to support their "religious need" that Jesus of Nazareth be a pure myth with no mortal existence, supernatural or not.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Dunno -- since this is an atheist website, by and large, it may appear to be in-your-face. But that's because we realize that religion can be talked about any old way onsite -- flippantly, irreverently, contentiously, even obscenely. Religions are just weird confections held on to by lots of humanity. The day I get atheist door-knockers on my block is the day I'll think atheists are showing too much 'tude.
Irritated (or enraged) that politicians make a big deal of faith and are now enacting statutes that back up their faith -- yes.
Motivated to make everyone atheistic -- mostly not. Most of us are like George Will, a self-defined "nonaggressive atheist."

 

[Politesse]

Dunno -- since this is an atheist website, by and large, it may appear to be in-your-face. But that's because we realize that religion can be talked about any old way onsite -- flippantly, irreverently, contentiously, even obscenely. Religions are just weird confections held on to by lots of humanity. The day I get atheist door-knockers on my block is the day I'll think atheists are showing too much 'tude.
Irritated (or enraged) that politicians make a big deal of faith and are now enacting statutes that back up their faith -- yes.
Motivated to make everyone atheistic -- mostly not. Most of us are like George Will, a self-defined "nonaggressive atheist."

The only rule is not seriously or critically.

 

[DLH]

The forum has been and still is an education for me in religion, psychology, and human behavior.​

Nonsense. It's your confirmation bias tool. You ignore anyone who doesn't sound like you.
​

The argument that science is religion so religious beliefs are as valid as science theory appears periodically o the forum, nothing new. I already worked through my respojnses.​

Contextually, outside of the legal sense, valid is defined as "(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent." On atheist forums like this the argument is ideological, not theological or scientific. The most quasi-valid argument on atheist forums is most likely scientific (allegedly related to science) because informed theists don't post on atheist forums unless they're egomaniacal and atheists are more interested and/or informed about "science."
​

Th difference between religion and science is simple. Science works regardless of your religious or philosophical views. Atheist or theist, when you turn on the lights they work according to science used to design them.

When a jet is on a takeoff roll I have faith it will fly. I know the theories and they are well tested. It is not like a religious faith in something that can not be proven, like a god or an afterlife in a heaven.​

Science seeks to explain the world through observation, evidence, and testable theories, aiming for natural explanations. Religion seeks meaning, purpose, or moral guidance, often relying on faith, revelation, or the supernatural. Science asks "how," religion asks "why" - different tools, different domains.

Science often rejects progress, like mechanical flight, for example, or germ theory? It isn't really fair to say "science" rejected those, but rather scientists who were unscientific in their approach. Take mechanical flight: In the late 19th century, some prominent scientists, like Lord Kelvin, dismissed heavier-than-air flight as impossible, despite evidence from early inventors and nature (birds!). That wasn’t science rejecting flight; it was scientists ignoring observation for theory. Same with germ theory - Pasteur and Semmelweis faced pushback from doctors who scoffed at invisible "germs" causing disease, even as data piled up. The resistance came from entrenched biases, not the scientific method itself.

(Conversation between Grok and myself)
​

Science can not address religious beliefs, they are not subject to scientific test and observation.​

That isn't true. Occidental atheists tend to have a very myopic perspective on the subject that is more theological than scientific. Especially given the following:
​

• The soul​
• Spirit​
• Hell​
• Heaven​
• Creation​
• God​

The alleged "science" minded atheists are familiar only with theological transmogrifications of those things. The dumbed down unscriptural versions distorted traditionally by pagan influence. All of those things can be explained scientifically. Religion itself can be observed scientifically. My own definition of religion comes from Oxford's Dictionary: "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." Although it is also defined ibid as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods." The point being religion doesn't have to be theological, and can be scientific.
​

Some say god does not exist. My view is there is no tangible evince to support religious claims of a god so I reject the claim. To be honest I have to say a god could exist, but then so could fairies, Big Foot, Loch Ness Monster, and ghosts.​

You are using an unscientific and limited definition of gods and God.

Oxford Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.​

 

[DLH]

Ignore statistical reality at your own convenience.

And political polemic pontification at your leisure.

 

[pood]

The forum has been and still is an education for me in religion, psychology, and human behavior.​

Nonsense. It's your confirmation bias tool. You ignore anyone who doesn't sound like you.​

Unsupported assertion.

​

The argument that science is religion so religious beliefs are as valid as science theory appears periodically o the forum, nothing new. I already worked through my respojnses.​

Contextually, outside of the legal sense, valid is defined as "(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent." ​

In logic, “valid” means the conclusion follows from the premises. However, that does not mean the premises are true. An argument is sound as well as valid only if the conclusion follows from the premises, AND all the premises are TRUE, and there are no hidden premises that need to be tested.

On atheist forums like this the argument is ideological, not theological or scientific. ​

Unsupported assertion, contradicted by much evidence to the contrary. Also, this is not strictly an atheist forum. It identifies as a secular forum, and religious people can also be secular.

​

 

[pood]

​

You are using an unscientific and limited definition of gods and God.

Oxford Dictionary definition of God:
1. In Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. In certain other religions, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity; an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; used as a conventional personification of fate.
3. An adored, admired, or influential person; a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god.
4. Informal: the gallery in a theater.​

Yes, we know you love your Oxford dictionary definitions. You don’t seem to realize that the purpose of a dictionary is not to define reality, but to define words, with all their multiple meanings and shades of meaning, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. As I noted earlier, we even have contronyms, the same word carrying opposite meanings depending on the context. When atheists here speak of disbelieving in God, they most definitely do not mean that they disbelieve in the existence of theater galleries.

 

[DLH]

Yes, we know you love your Oxford dictionary definitions.

Love as defined by Oxford as "a great interest and pleasure in something" in this context rather than "an intense feeling of deep affection."

You don’t seem to realize that the purpose of a dictionary is not to define reality, but to define words, with all their multiple meanings and shades of meaning, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

That's funny. No.

As I noted earlier, we even have contronyms, the same word carrying opposite meanings depending on the context. When atheists here speak of disbelieving in God, they most definitely do not mean that they disbelieve in the existence of theater galleries.

I don't deny that, I deny they use it as such in an accurate context. Your uninformed opinion isn't contextually accurate for the most part. That why you're making excuses that make no sense.

 

[DLH]

Unsupported assertion, contradicted by much evidence to the contrary. Also, this is not strictly an atheist forum. It identifies as a secular forum, and religious people can also be secular.

I think that to most this is a political forum. The same as any other atheist forum I've posted on. Militant fundamentalist atheist frustration in a quasi-theocratic majority.

 

[steve_bank]

Unsupported assertion, contradicted by much evidence to the contrary. Also, this is not strictly an atheist forum. It identifies as a secular forum, and religious people can also be secular.

I think that to most this is a political forum. The same as any other atheist forum I've posted on. Militant fundamentalist atheist frustration in a quasi-theocratic majority.

Religion and politics have always been in entwined. Rome and Egypt are the obvious well known examples. The Holy Roman Empire.

The history of Christianity and political power in Europe. Iran and Saudi Arabia today. Our congress and the Republican party.

 

[pood]

There are very few, if any “militant fundamentalist atheists,” and as a matter of fact I don’t even know if the adjective “fundamentalist” can be applied in any coherent sense to atheists. Are there also “fundamentalist” a-Santa-ists? “Fundamentalist” a-unicorn-ists? There may be “militant” atheists who aggressively seek to undercut superstitious belief systems, but I think most of the atheists here simply are non-believers who would be content to leave religious people alone with their beliefs. But what gets atheist hackles up here is when theists attempt to shove their beliefs down our throats and dictate public policy, in violation of the church-state separation clause (which is secularism and which is why religious people can also be secular — they can and should want church and state to be kept separate). Many atheists, like me, also defend religious freedom and condemn nations that try to suppress religious beliefs and displays, as the old Soviet Union did.

 

[pood]

Phrases like “militant fundamentalist atheists” are the cute little canards that theists so often use to promote the false idea that there is no real difference between theism and atheism, that atheism is a kind of “religious fundy belief system” in its own right. It’s complete garbage, of course.

 

[DBT]

Yes, we know you love your Oxford dictionary definitions.

Love as defined by Oxford as "a great interest and pleasure in something" in this context rather than "an intense feeling of deep affection."

You don’t seem to realize that the purpose of a dictionary is not to define reality, but to define words, with all their multiple meanings and shades of meaning, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

That's funny. No.

As I noted earlier, we even have contronyms, the same word carrying opposite meanings depending on the context. When atheists here speak of disbelieving in God, they most definitely do not mean that they disbelieve in the existence of theater galleries.

I don't deny that, I deny they use it as such in an accurate context. Your uninformed opinion isn't contextually accurate for the most part. That why you're making excuses that make no sense.

The bible gives a definition of Love.

 

[Swammerdami]

Phrases like “militant fundamentalist atheists” are the cute little canards that theists so often use to promote the false idea that there is no real difference between theism and atheism, that atheism is a kind of “religious fundy belief system” in its own right. It’s complete garbage, of course.

Have you spent much time in the Jesus Myth Theory threads? There are some here with such a desperate "need" to refute Christianity that they defy the consensus of professional historians and common-sense by insisting that even a mortal ordinary Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all! They have a blind faith in the charlatan Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD quite similar to the faith Fundie Christians had for Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

 

[pood]

Phrases like “militant fundamentalist atheists” are the cute little canards that theists so often use to promote the false idea that there is no real difference between theism and atheism, that atheism is a kind of “religious fundy belief system” in its own right. It’s complete garbage, of course.

Have you spent much time in the Jesus Myth Theory threads? There are some here with such a desperate "need" to refute Christianity that they defy the consensus of professional historians and common-sense by insisting that even a mortal ordinary Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all! They have a blind faith in the charlatan Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD quite similar to the faith Fundie Christians had for Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Well, there is a thread titled The Christ Myth Theory, but as I mentioned once before, I avoided it for a long time because I misread the title as The Crystal Meth Theory.

 

[Politesse]

Phrases like “militant fundamentalist atheists” are the cute little canards that theists so often use to promote the false idea that there is no real difference between theism and atheism, that atheism is a kind of “religious fundy belief system” in its own right. It’s complete garbage, of course.

Have you spent much time in the Jesus Myth Theory threads? There are some here with such a desperate "need" to refute Christianity that they defy the consensus of professional historians and common-sense by insisting that even a mortal ordinary Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all! They have a blind faith in the charlatan Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD quite similar to the faith Fundie Christians had for Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.

Well, there is a thread titled The Christ Myth Theory, but as I mentioned once before, I avoided it for a long time because I misread the title as The Crystal Meth Theory.

Not plausible. Jesus died sometime around 30 CE, wheras crystal methamphetamines weren't first synthesized until 1919 CE: a substantial temporal gap. The historical Jesus would more likely have used opium or a cannabis derivative.