/sci/ - Science & Math

Hurt. We against got.

>>3081272
There's Buddha in Buddhism. It's simply and usually involves worship of a 'supreme being'.

"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "


Unlike Atheistm, Buddhism gives supernatural purpose, cause, and nature of the universe, has ritual observances and sometimes has a supernatural deity (buddha) depending on what sect you are.

While Atheism itself has no central theme or component that derives any type practices or beliefs in the definition.

An atheist can have some of those characteristics though, BUT, atheism, as it is, does not hold to any of those characteristics of a religion, as mentioned in the definition.

>>3081295

Atheists seem to consider themselves 'supreme beings.'

>>3081367
citation needed

>>3081272
Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair color.

>>3081367
hmm, no. I don't think I'm omniscient, omnipotent, or all good. Infact, I don't think I'm anything special, I just got lucky enough to be born as a self aware human.

>>3081367
go and read a book or two

>>3081367

>>Atheists seem to consider themselves 'supreme beings.'

Translation: "I am never wrong, therefore if atheists disagree with me, they must think they are gods."

>>3082423
That would be irreligious

Atheism is the lack of a belief in religion. Therefore, it would be self defeating if atheism was a religion.

>>3082591
No, it's Atheism.

>>3082606
>Atheism is the lack of a belief in religion.

Religion is a delusion.

>>3082614
Atheism: The belief there are no gods
Irreligious: Not having any beliefs regarding gods

Pick one

>>3081272
theism - religion
a - not

atheist - not religion

Atheists do not claim that god does not exist. In fact they make no claims. The just don't believe god exists. Can you see the difference?
This is why you can be agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. When you say you are an atheist you are automatically saying you are agnostic atheist.

However there are antitheists and neoatheists that claim that god does not exist. These are on the same level of religion. They are belief systems.

>>3082628
God damn, shut the fuck up, you dumb asshole.

Atheism is a delusion.

>>3082628
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".
A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".
A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:
From Merriam-Webster Online:

Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:

Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god

>>3082637
I think you are retarded.

ITT: You argue semantics

Have fun, kids.

>>3082637
I second this emotion.

>>3082642
Huh, today I learned I'm not an atheist.

I don't believe in the existence of god but since I am not retarded I don't claim a god doesn't exist because I have no evidence. What am I.

>>3082659
Agnostic

>>3082642
Okay, atheism is now a belief system and on the level of religion. There is no arguing this.

>>3082638
Atheism doesn't believe in something that is unsubstantiated.

So, religion DOES believe in something that cannot be proven. You ARE delusional, bye-bye.

>>3082642
>This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless".
Blah. Both, theism and atheism, stem from "theos", meaning "god". "Atheos" is already just a derivative of that term with the prefix "a" to indicate a "lack of", or "without".

Stop citing that fucking retarded site. Might as well quote Conservapedia.

A religion is basically a loosely tied set of beliefs regarding origins, metaphysics, etc. In this way I would consider atheists religious. I would not consider atheism a religion though since atheism only speaks to the idea of god(s), but is not set to one form of beliefs. In the same way with Christianity, true Christians share a set of fundamental beliefs, yet "Christians" who deny these beliefs are still considered "Christians" by our society. There is a double meaning in this sense where "Christians" is a slightly more defined form of theism, and true Christians share a much narrower view on reality.

>>3082659
hes trolling via dictionary, go onto page 4

Is monotheism a religion?

>>3081295
Buddha ain't a supreme being bro. He was just a normal guy like you and me.

>Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

>>3082659
>I don't believe in the existence of god but since I am not retarded I don't claim a god doesn't exist because I have no evidence.

That position is just as retarded.

- Gods almost always have abilities that are impossible according to everything we know about the universe.

- Gods are almost always involved incidentally or by nature in historical accounts that we know are false.

- Gods are improbable. Complex intelligences show up late in the universe, not early.

- There is virtually no positive evidence of the existence of gods, and there is no evidence at all that isn't better addressed by naturalistic explanations.

- Gods are known to be fictional characters made up by men.

We should be about as certain that gods don't exist as we are that Harry Potter doesn't exist. The agnostic position is saying that gods existing is just as probable as gods not existing so you can't justify belief in either direction, which is obviously wrong if you know the first thing about religion, history, and science.

Theism: A belief regarding a deity or deities, specificially that it or they exist
Atheism: A belief regarding a deity or deities, specifically that it or they do not exist.
Religion: A belief regarding the creation of the universe, regardless of what that belief is.

Technically, if you've thought about the creation of the universe and you've thought about it long enough to formulate some kind of theory on how it came to be, you can be stated as having a religion.

Does that matter? Not really, unless you're one of those people who take connotations way too seriously.

>>3083425 me
And by connotations, I mean one of the morons who takes a position that they don't want to be associated with any religion whatsoever, but only associating it with the connotative meaning of religion, not the denotative meaning.

>>3083425
>Technically

According to who? Not any of the standard dictionaries, not the related social sciences, not the law (at least not in America), and as far as I can tell not common usage.

>>3083425
Atheism: A belief regarding a deity or deities, specifically that it or they do not exist.

Correction: A lack of belief in a deity or deities

>>3081295
the stupidity

it hurts

>>3083383
agnostic athiesm is most logical position and your picture is a troll one and biased

>>3085305

agnostic atheism is the position held by the atheist in that picture.

Atheism is just

I don't believe in a god. I'm not religious.

Boom. That's it.

Atheism is to belief as baldness is to hair colour.

>>3081272
Sorry for my bad English, I'm not from an English-speaking country.

In my opinion atheism IS a religion. Roughly, it is the belief that science will be able to understand all phenomena we encounter. As long as physics is not even able to define notions such as thinking or emotions any other scientific (for example biological) explanations can only partly explain phenomena, since all sciences stand on the shoulders of physics.

Therefore materialism is as ridiculous as any other religious beliefs.

I'm an atheist myself, and I firmly believe that there is no way that there is a god like the one Christians have.

If we had a God, just looking over us and our blue planet that we named Earth.. wouldn't things just be going better overall? Even if Eva messed up in the garden and was seduced by a talking snake (lol), there's no reason to cause earth quakes and other such things.

But you know why they happen? Because they are natural occurrences and nature is really the only thing that matters.

Nature is everything. It's the atoms we are made out of. It's the creatures that we are. Nature constantly expands itself and evolves, the creatures that live in it evolving to adapt to their environments over time.

Also, what I never really understood is, we can carbon date things now and some things have been dated as millions of years old, however, this does not measure up to the Christian belief of the Earth not existing for longer than.. what.. 10,000 years tops?

I just don't the whole idea silly of a god. There are sextillions of stars out there and 90% of them have planets 2-10 times the size of Earth. Why shouldn't there be life amongst those UNCOUNTABLE NUMBERS OF STARS?

We are but creatures living on a single planet circling around a star.

seriously...moot needs to make /ph/ because this is not the place to be discussing philosophy, or religion.

>>3085337

>In my opinion atheism IS a religion. Roughly, it is the belief that science .....
No.

>As long as physics is not ...
Also no.

>since all sciences stand on the shoulders of physics.
Go on, take a guess as to what physics "stands" on

>Therefore materialism is as ridiculous as any other religious beliefs.
I forget, which one of those actually has evidence in support?

>>3085348
A Christian physicist here.

>If we had a God, just looking over us and our blue planet that we named Earth.. wouldn't things just be going better overall? Even if Eva messed up in the garden and was seduced by a talking snake (lol), there's no reason to cause earth quakes and other such things.
>That's simple: Bible is meant to be symbolic.


But you know why they happen? Because they are natural occurrences and nature is really the only thing that matters.

>Nature is everything. It's the atoms we are made out of. It's the creatures that we are. Nature constantly expands itself and evolves, the creatures that live in it evolving to adapt to their environments over time.
I don't think so. See my views >>3085337

>Also, what I never really understood is, we can carbon date things now and some things have been dated as millions of years old, however, this does not measure up to the Christian belief of the Earth not existing for longer than.. what.. 10,000 years tops?
That is easy: it's not a Christian belief. Beyond that, it is obvious that we have consciousness, and can think logically. If you assume, that a "god" wants to create an intelligent being, and the same time he wants to give it freedom, you conclude that he also have to create some traces of past.
So even if it were a religious belief, it would be logical assuming the existence of a god.

>I just don't the whole idea silly of a god. There are sextillions of stars out there and 90% of them have planets 2-10 times the size of Earth. Why shouldn't there be life amongst those UNCOUNTABLE NUMBERS OF STARS?
As long as science cannot fully understand the forming of life, it is not logical to assume that there is extraterrestrial life.

>>3085398
Don't you see how completely illogical it is for life not to exist on another planet when the universe is so large?

We're 1 planet around 1 star. There are sextillions of stars. You know how many chances that is for life to exist? It's pretty much saying to you that thinking that we're the only life out there is stupid.

>>3085355
Try using arguments. Protip: "no" is not one of them.

Physics of course stands on two thing: mathematics and measurement, and you cannot measure things you cannot define.

>>3085403
It is not illogical at all. If you ASSUME life can evolve spontaneously, it is logical to assume that it might exist on other planets. (But not logical to calculate it's probability, but that's another question. So it wouldn't be illogical even in that case.)

Although if you assume that life was created, it is logical to assume that no other life forms exist, still it's not illogical to assume that life could exist (could be created) on other planets.

>>3085413

The first no is because he falsely defined atheism.
The second no is because there is no indication (afaik) that physics will reach some limit beyond which it probe deeper.
Any supposed limitation - historical or otherwise - was surpassed with new insights in related fields, more accurate equipment, better methods etc.

Stating that physics has a limit is meaningless if you cannot define that limit. Hence, "no".

>>3085403

Just because something has a high probability of occurring, doesn't mean that it will occur.

I personally believe that it is absurd to believe that Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life. But since there is no evidence of life on other planets, I cannot demonstrate my belief to be true.

Would life on another planet (extinct or otherwise) pose any threat to religion or would they simply include such an event into their reasoning?
It seems to me that it would ultimately discredit any religion that states we are special creations.

>>3085337

Materialism is not synonymous with atheism or positivism. Your entire post was one long misunderstanding.

>>3085457
Plus, "religion" is not synonymous with "belief". Even if all atheists held strong materialist views it wouldn't automatically make them a religion.

>>3085441
Of course the first sentence about atheism is not a definition. I wouldn't start a definition with 'roughly speaking'. The word 'atheist' has many meanings. I was talking about materialistic atheism, which definitely comes to this point.
>The second no is because there is no indication (afaik) that physics will reach some limit beyond which it probe deeper.
>Any supposed limitation - historical or otherwise - was surpassed with new insights in related fields, more accurate equipment, better methods etc.

I don't see your point as describing emotions or consciousness or logical thinking are limitations which physics couldn't pass. Of course you can be optimistic, but that's your _belief_, not the only logical way of thinking.

From a scientific point of view it's not logical to suggest that physics has no limits just because you cannot prove it has "unoverpassable" (sorry, a word doesn't come into my mind) limits.