Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards - View Single Post - another discussion about religion
View Single Post
Old 12-20-2010, 05:09 PM   #151 (permalink)

feat. Otto Neurath
Ligeia's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093

I will leave with a brief critique of the most galling points in elT's response (some of which was ok, some of which wasn't):

And yes, IMO, Atheism is a "religion" as any other "religion".
Which is absolutely laughable. Tell me: what are the contents of the concept called "atheism"? Atheism is a commentary on only one question (does god exist or not). Have you ever heard the phrase "Atheism is a religion like non-stamp-collecting is a hobby"?

Most of your argument is actually against naturalism, which is quite distinct from atheism (though many atheists are also naturalists).

There are many glorious scientific reports that promise a better new world but it has all remained in the drawers, on papers, journals etc.. etc.. yet nothing of significance or substance. It is astonishing fact that most of the progress in today science is driven strictly by and for profit. On that is hasn't always been a part of it but never, IMO, at this magnitude.
Absolute garbage. For you to say that nothing of signifance or substance has happened in science of late only demonstrates how fundamentally ignorant of science you are. To take but one absolutely monumental discovery of the last couple decades: you don't think sequencing the human genome was of the utmost importance? I'd also wonder how closely you read any scientific papers (do you get your science from the media or the scientific journals?) because scientific papers are chock full of caution; very rarely do they make any claims about how revolutionary their research is. If you want to blame scientists for the work of science journalists in the popular media, I suppose that's your choice.

A lot of scientists will display the very same behavior exchanging science, evolution, progress and improvement with religion, belief, spirituality etc..etc..
I don't see how you can call that the same behaviour. Would you say that someone passionate about bettering the world is exhibiting the same behaviour as someone passionate about destroying the world, just because they're both passionate?

Scientists are generally focused on what is empirically verifiable. Religion is the antithesis of empirically verifiable. Stop falsely equivocating the two so that you can produce your desired conclusion.

Religion and institutions as well as their representatives should never ever be confused in any way shape or form.
Could you maybe do us both a favour and tell me what religion is, and how you determined that to be the case? I think you're ignoring all the etymology and sociological data that contradicts your view.

Last edited by Ligeia; 12-20-2010 at 05:18 PM.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key