Does Atheism count as a religious viewpoint?

[Ipecac Drano]

Ah the 'Science is just a tool' argument.

It was never intended to be anything else.

Won't even get into how much like zealot religion that goes into. You are more then welcome to your own view, live and let live. Peace.

If you went into it, would that make you a tool?

So long as you don't cross the line into declaring that not only are you right (which is of course fine), but that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, all's well.

It depends on what's being disagreed. If someone isn't in the mood to believe that 2 + 2 = 4; I have a free pass to laugh at them.

[HYHYBT]

So long as you don't cross the line into declaring that not only are you right (which is of course fine), but that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, all's well.

[Mytical]

Ah the 'Science is just a tool' argument. Won't even get into how much like zealot religion that goes into. You are more then welcome to your own view, live and let live. Peace.

[Talon]

Have there been some gaffs since? Sure, but they've been corrected.

Oh but you forgot a goodie. By what mechanism were those gaffes corrected? The scientific method of course!

Like the Piltdown Man fraud, oft-touted by creationists as "proof" that evolution was a fraud. It was the application of the scientific method that eventually exposed the fraud.

[Ipecac Drano]

We live on a tiny spec, in a rather large universe. Our claiming we have ANY answers absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , right..would be like an ant which has never moved from a grain of sand claiming to know how the whole world works.

No, it wouldn't. Science does know a lot about what we have observed but it doesn't claim to know about what hasn't been observed; which is more than could be said about religion.

We see so little, but think we know so much. Does that mean the answers we have now are not right? Look above to the "I KNOW I don't have the answers." so yeah we MIGHT be right, or 1000 years from now we could be looking back and saying "Man how stupid were we."

Again, science doesn't work that way. If anything, science is self-correcting.

Either side, religion or atheist that claims "My way is the only right answer." I stop listening to. There is no possible debate there, or chance to learn and grow. Not even worth debating them, and I LOVE a good philosophical debate.

You might listen when someone tells you that there is no evidence of something that can't be observed.

Look at how many things we "KNEW" at one time were proven wrong...

At one time we KNEW man could never fly...
At one time we KNEW that the world was flat...
At one time we KNEW that the universe revolved around Earth...
Think about what we might KNOW tomorrow...

And, as mentioned before, science corrects itself. The funny thing is that all of those notions were swept aside centuries, if not millennia, before the Scientific Enlightenment of the 18th Century. Have there been some gaffs since? Sure, but they've been corrected.

Some have claimed that Agnostics are cowards..refusing to chose a side out of fear. I don't know if that is true or not..but I do 'KNOW' () one thing. I will continue to question everything..until I have found the answers that satisfy me.

Some, but not all.

Regardless if it is religion, or gravity, or the existence of the paranormal. Once you have closed your mind to any possibility..you may overlook answers because you refuse to see them.

I've found that those who accuse others of having a close mind have theirs closed even tighter. Being a skeptic, I keep my mind open, but not to the point of gullibility; where unicorns, vampires, the Easter Bunny and other silly notions pop in without a verifiable trail.

[Mytical]

Personally the way I see it, is live and let live. I would be classified as agnostic..because I KNOW I don't have the answers. At all. Not even close. Let me explain why..

We live on a tiny spec, in a rather large universe. Our claiming we have ANY answers absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , right..would be like an ant which has never moved from a grain of sand claiming to know how the whole world works.

We see so little, but think we know so much. Does that mean the answers we have now are not right? Look above to the "I KNOW I don't have the answers." so yeah we MIGHT be right, or 1000 years from now we could be looking back and saying "Man how stupid were we."

Either side, religion or atheist that claims "My way is the only right answer." I stop listening to. There is no possible debate there, or chance to learn and grow. Not even worth debating them, and I LOVE a good philosophical debate.

Look at how many things we "KNEW" at one time were proven wrong...

At one time we KNEW man could never fly...
At one time we KNEW that the world was flat...
At one time we KNEW that the universe revolved around Earth...
Think about what we might KNOW tomorrow...

Some have claimed that Agnostics are cowards..refusing to chose a side out of fear. I don't know if that is true or not..but I do 'KNOW' () one thing. I will continue to question everything..until I have found the answers that satisfy me.

Regardless if it is religion, or gravity, or the existence of the paranormal. Once you have closed your mind to any possibility..you may overlook answers because you refuse to see them.

[Rapscallion]

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

I can see where you're coming from, but the gods that have been claimed to exist are ones that have all sorts of awesome powers, or omnipotence and omniscience. We're talking about gods or a god that knows everything and could appear in the form of a burning bush, or seduce a damsel when in the form of a bull, or ...

You get the idea.

The problem isn't that we might find a race that has some or all of the attributes on other planets, but more that such has been declared to exist by those who seek to persuade us as to the rectitude of their utterances. We are exhorted to believe in their tales based on ancient legends, but there's never any proof around these days. The god who lead one group of people out of servitude and was able to sacrifice his own son hasn't done anything really noticeable of similar magnitude of late. There's been a number of claimed miracles, but many are subject to harsh scrutiny. The gods of ancient Greece (one of Zeus's preferences was mentioned above) haven't exactly been voluble.

We're talking about claims about things that are supposed to be current. They're not.

Rapscallion

[Ghel]

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s.

All the current treatments for AIDS are created by humans. Any expected prevention for SIDS or Cerebral Palsy will be created by humans. Are you saying that God will exist in the future when humans create him? That seems to be what you're saying.

[Plaidman]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

I'm really curious now about something.

Is space travel possible?

What about cure for AIDs, HIV, complete pervention of SIDS, Cerebral Palsy, etc? I mean, there is no cure yet, so it doesn't exist correct? Does this mean it'll never exist simply because it hasn't been proven yet?

Same with God/s. It hasn't been proven if they exist. We haven't even explored a tiny fraction of the universe, and there is very likely that on other planets there could be creatures that could be considered like gods. (Say for example a planet with a heavy gravity, if those people came here, they'd likely be stronger then an average human), or a planet where people with wings exist simply because of how the creatures turned out there.

Just because something hasn't been proven NOW, does not mean it'll never be proven.

Otherwise we'd all be stuck in the stone age hunting for food and trying to grow veggies while hoping we have enough wood for fire this winter.

Science discovered and learn every day. What was possible now was unheard of hundred years, fifty years, even twenty years ago in some things.

Does this mean God exists? No.
Does this mean God doesn't exist? No.

[the_std]

I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

At this point, I have to ask - why? We know that negative proof doesn't always apply. But Andara's point was that it is possible, it can exist, which negated what Ghel was saying when she said that negative proof doesn't exist.

So why bring it up?

[Ipecac Drano]

I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.

I wasn't accusing you of arguing that; I was just giving an example of where negative proof does not apply.

[Ghel]

You're actually using that term wrong.

Which term?

Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

You're partially right. I stopped my statement too soon. What I should have said is "you can't prove a negative existential claim." As in: you can't prove that a god doesn't exist or you can't prove that unicorns don't exist.

[Andara Bledin]

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

I've never argued otherwise (or for, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that the terminology was being misused.

^-.-^

[Ipecac Drano]

You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

And God's existence would be a case where the onus is upon the proponent.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't believe any gods exist, but I obviously don't have any evidence of that (since you can't prove a negative).

You're actually using that term wrong. Plus it's a fallacy. You actually can prove a negative, dependent upon what is to be proven.

What we have here is an argument from ignorance.

I'm not making any comment as regards the OP or anything relate to religion in this post, it's just that this particular phrase being bruited about has bothered me for a long enough that I had to look into it a bit further.

^-.-^