No matter how many times that claim is tested by science, it will always be declared true, because science rejects anything that isn’t natural. If a natural answer can’t be found, the explanation is “we just don’t know yet”.

You could argue that naturalism is a position taken on faith that can’t be disproved by science because it is a base assumption of science (which means that whenever science confirms it, the confirmation is based on circular logic).

Saying that things we don’t understand work based on natural processes could potentially be referred to as “naturalism of the gaps”, and “we don’t know yet, but there is a natural explanation… we’ll probably find it with more research, or it might be too complicated for us to understand but it IS NATURAL” is somewhat akin to “the lord moves in mysterious ways… we’ll understand someday in heaven, but even if we don’t GOD STILL DID IT”.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of science, but thinking it’s the end all and be all, the ultimate explanation, describing everything in the universe naturally – that seems like faith, or at the very least (if you choose to distinguish) unfounded, unprovable belief. But then doesn’t everyone, in honest, have to accept that science is based on several unprovable assumptions that might be described as logical fallicies? Like the idea that when things are repeatable, it proves they always happen. In fact, all conclusion based on induction is a bit shaky… it has very important practical purposes, but it’s hardly proof.

Anyway, Naturalism=faith? Thoughts?

(obviously not killing people, but you kill peoples careers)

If a religious person can’t prove their god exists in a court of law
then no claims about said god can be made in public. Any claims such as god hates homosexuals should be charged as incitement to hatred and the peron jailed until such time they can prove their god exsits.

The point is until it is established that YOUR CLAIMED god exists, criticizing Atheists is stupid, disingenuous and a position that ignores the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE for any god claim made by any religion.

As soon any any evidence even suggested that a particular god may actually exist a whole new field of science would open overnight.

I’m sick or religious dicks twisting the facts and insulting Atheists
essentially trying to bully their religion on others. Get over the first hurdle of proving your claim god exists then you will actually start to have some credibility instead of looking like a stupid asshole.

No, not all Atheists, but almost all that I’ve met. You have no idea how many times I’ve had someone ask me if I’m religious just so they could start in on a rant about Atheism. I mean, I have no beef with Atheists, and agree with most of what they believe, but if you don’t want to be seen as religious zealots or fanatics, for Darwin’s sake, stop shoving your ideas down people’s throats. That’s one of the biggest issues I’ve got with the major world religions – the missionary work. Maybe Jungle Baby doesn’t give two shits about Jesus or Odin or Darwin?

What I’m about to say (or any of this, even) isn’t directed at anyone here or the author, so please bare with me. It’s my opinion based on my own run-ins with Atheists: Atheism is a smart way to go, science is – whatcha call it? Oh yeah, proof. But it’s one thing to hold beliefs, that just makes you of a certain mindset. It’s a whole other to decide that people who don’t share those beliefs are beneath you and must be brought up to speed by any means necessary – that makes you a Christian.

I don’t believe in god in the way the concept has been presented by most human beings. That’s it. That’s the way I’ve always been and only a few years ago discovered that there was a word for people like me… technically I guess I’m more agnostic.

It’s stupid to even call it anything. I’m a non-believer. Is that better? Does that carry with it less of a label?

I’m not part of some organization, I don’t make plans to meet with other people like myself and praise those of the science community and other such things that people who are religious tend to do.

What the hell sort of qualifications are there to whether something is a religion or not? Why does it matter?

The core of this claim comes from atheism’s assertion that “God does not exist.” (I’m going to limit this to Christianity’s God for the sake of brevity). God is non falsifiable – there is no way to disprove He exists. We have no way of sensing Him (if He exists).

So in that sense, to assert that God definitively does not exist is to say something unproven that is accepted on faith. That’s why I think of atheism as a religion.

The only purely logical view as far as I can tell is agnosticism. If I were interested in being logical, I’d be an agnostic. But, as someone above me said, atheists and Christians alike are ignorant and petty. I think it’s good that everyone’s trying to do the right thing, though, right? Most people that are invested in their religion (or worldview) are doing it because they believe it’s going to make them a better person. I can be sad that you guys don’t have God on your side, but at least you’re doing good stuff. I just want to hug someone now gosh.

However, this simply isn’t the case. Some of these internal conclusions happen to reflect reality.

If this was not the case there would be no medicine, no computers, no cars. We wouldn’t have a hope above the level of chance of making everything work. Now of course non of these things work perfectly, computers crash sometimes, cars fail to start, medicine doesn’t always prevent/cure illness. That’s because science starts on the basis of knowing nothing and moving forward bit by bit, building on old knowledge by testing very precise hypotheses, and sometimes refuting old knowledge as innacurate. But medicine and technologies (that are currently available, and these are continuously evolving and developing all the time) work a lot of the time. Certainly above the level of chance. This is why people are living longer, communication is easier (like you reading this right now. Without science this would never have been possible). For all of these things to work there needs to patterns of phenomena occurring that are measurable in some way that makes them predictable. That is how science works. This is scientific thinking.

Now a large percentage of people educated to a high level, particularly within the sciences,(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html) are atheist. No, that doesn’t automatically make atheism it right, but it is arguable that people who have been taught to think in a scientific and critical manner have reached the conclusion that atheism is the logical starting point. That in order for us to claim something to be real there needs to be quantifiable data that shows it’s existence beyond it happening by accident.

So really the challenge should be on people who believe in religion that their view is an accurate portrayal of reality, that their god and that god’s influence actually exists, rather than the people who believe in nothing.

This is why atheism is not a religion.

And incase my argument hasn’t convinced you, here are some further points…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RO9RkvHN4l