• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it wrong to consider evangilical atheism a religion?

tosca1 said:
:lol: You won't accept two evidences....and yet macro-evolution is embraced with NONE!

Did you read the others?
Click to expand...

From the article:
Nine per cent described experiences that could be called "near-death experiences," meaning they had memories and emotions such as fear during the event, but couldn't recall specific things they saw or heard.

Read more: Near-death, out-of-body experiences rare but possible, study finds | CTV News
Click to expand...

Remembering that you're in the operating room but not being able to recall any specific details does not constitute evidence for supernatural activity. That is pure nonsense.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
From the article:


Remembering that you're in the operating room but not being able to recall any specific details does not constitute evidence for supernatural activity. That is pure nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, take it or leave it. I'm not forcing you to swallow it. But clearly it shows there are quite a few science studies about it and some have interesting results.
 
Can we get back on topic? Are we agreed that atheism is not a religion? I didn't say evangelical atheism because if evangelical atheism is a religion then atheism would be a milder form. I am an atheist so not a member of any religion.

religion
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
"consumerism is the new religion"
Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘life under monastic vows’): from Old French, or from Latin religio(n- ) ‘obligation, bond, reverence’, perhaps based on Latin religare ‘to bind’.


I am not obligated or bonded to atheism and I have no reverence for it.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Well, take it or leave it. I'm not forcing you to swallow it. But clearly it shows there are quite a few science studies about it and some have interesting results.
Click to expand...

You can believe whatever wacky things you want, but don't drag in ridiculous stuff like this and tell us science is proving supernaturalism. Science is the one that disproved it in the first place and it's not making a comeback.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You can believe whatever wacky things you want, but don't drag in ridiculous stuff like this and tell us science is proving supernaturalism.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You can believe whatever wacky things you want, but don't drag in ridiculous stuff like this and tell us science is proving supernaturalism. Science is the one that disproved it in the first place and it's not making a comeback.
Click to expand...
:roll:

So they did disproved and years later (due to advanced tech),retracted other things! Some things science proved years ago are being disproved again....and vice versa...it's hard to keep up!

Anyway, you have a good day. :2wave:
 
tosca1 said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but peer-reviews are not reliable. There's been lots of scandals about them.


Opinion: Scientific Peer Review in CrisisThe case of the Danish Cohort

By Dariusz Leszczynski | February 25, 2013

The publication of a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal is commonly recognized as a kind of “nobilitation” of the study that confirms its worth. The peer-review process was designed to assure the validity and quality of science that seeks publication. This is not always the case. If and when peer review fails, sloppy science gets published.

According to a recent analysis published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, about 67 percent of 2047 studies retracted from biomedical and life-science journals (as of May 3, 2012) resulted from scientific misconduct. However, the same PNAS study indicated that about 21 percent of the retractions were attributed to a scientific error. This indicates that failures in peer-review led to the publication of studies that shouldn’t have passed muster. This relatively low number of studies published in error (ca. 436) might be the tip of a larger iceberg, caused by the unwillingness of the editors to take an action.
More....

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...le/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/



An obscure academic journal. A memorable peer review scandal.

Peer review, says an explanation for budding young scientists on the Web site of the University of California-Berkeley, “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7′ sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.”

It “is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science,” Richard Smith, a prominent editor of a major academic publishing house has written. “It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. …When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed.”

He went on to describe the flaws of the process, which he said are numerous and generally well known to academics.
More....


An obscure academic journal. A memorable peer review scandal. - The Washington Post


THE DEFECTS OF PEER REVIEW.
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals



How to Manipulate Peer Review and Get Your Paper Published
Another scandal of peer review abuse should urge academic journals to reconsider their publication requirements.
How to Manipulate Peer Review and Get Your Paper Published « Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences
Click to expand...

If you're cynical about the quality of peer reviewed articles, shouldn't you be overwhelmingly cynical about articles that don't even meet that criteria?
 
Unrepresented said:
If you're cynical about the quality of peer reviewed articles, shouldn't you be overwhelmingly cynical about articles that don't even meet that criteria?
Click to expand...

The words hoisted, own and petard come to mind.
 
Unrepresented said:
If you're cynical about the quality of peer reviewed articles, shouldn't you be overwhelmingly cynical about articles that don't even meet that criteria?
Click to expand...

Of course not, all theists care about is if it makes them feel good. They don't look critically at their own beliefs, they just try to rip down everything else so their own position doesn't look so laughably pathetic.
 
Cephus said:
Of course not, all theists care about is if it makes them feel good. They don't look critically at their own beliefs, they just try to rip down everything else so their own position doesn't look so laughably pathetic.
Click to expand...

The thing that irks me most about Christians is that none of them actually live according to the rules laid down in their holy book. They ignore the bits that they don't agree with. It makes a mockery of their so-called belief.
 
tosca1 said:
:roll:

So they did disproved and years later (due to advanced tech),retracted other things! Some things science proved years ago are being disproved again....and vice versa...it's hard to keep up!

Anyway, you have a good day. :2wave:
Click to expand...

More specifically, it appears hard for you to keep up.

Science is not a stagnant body of knowledge, it is a method and everything is tentative to subsequent evidence. It's why science thrives and religions die.
 
tosca1 said:
Oh please, spare me the hysterical rhetorics by those in denial! :lol:
Click to expand...

Well.. since you want to push 'id', can you provide some actual evidence for it, rather than an attack on evolution, and the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'. We already know how the state that Behe called 'irreducibly complex' can involve naturally... as a matter of fact it can be consistently reproduced in the lab. That is by the use of 'co opting genes for a new purpose' , and 'removing of scaffolding' are the two methods known.

NOw, show that "ID" is more than a psuedo science by giving a prediction of something unknown to test for.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well.. since you want to push 'id', can you provide some actual evidence for it, rather than an attack on evolution, and the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'. We already know how the state that Behe called 'irreducibly complex' can involve naturally... as a matter of fact it can be consistently reproduced in the lab. That is by the use of 'co opting genes for a new purpose' , and 'removing of scaffolding' are the two methods known.

NOw, show that "ID" is more than a psuedo science by giving a prediction of something unknown to test for.
Click to expand...

No. No she can't. Just thought you should know.
 
Cephus said:
No. No she can't. Just thought you should know.
Click to expand...

Probably. But, I want to see if how the question is either avoided or answered.
 
RAMOSS said:
Probably. But, I want to see if how the question is either avoided or answered.
Click to expand...

Oh, like all of the other religious crazies, I'm sure. Lots of arm waving, empty claims and calls to faith. It's all they have.
 
Cephus said:
Oh, like all of the other religious crazies, I'm sure. Lots of arm waving, empty claims and calls to faith. It's all they have.
Click to expand...

then, let her demonstrate it, or not.
 
Pozessed said:
Some say yes, some say no. I'm curious of your individual opinions.
Click to expand...

That's tricky. They aren't organized. They don't have similar beliefs. They don't have similar methods. I think the term evangelical atheism is an appropriate term because they are attempted to convert others to atheism. I'm not sure it fits the criteria of being a religion.

In my opinion a religion is something that you do every day, every hour, every moment and every second of your life constantly. Americans aren't really religious about anything except maybe their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom