Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yukimura
I would argue that atheism is a religion. It's a person's set of beliefs about the nature of the universe. Lack of religion may not be entirely accurate.
|
Atheism isn't a fundamental belief, it's an evolving understanding. It's neither uniform nor unchanging. The term atheism is actually not dissimilar from terms like "pagan" or "gentile" wherein it refers to a person for what they are not instead of for what they are. An atheist disbelieves in a supreme being. That's hardly a doctrine or "set of beliefs", and we have no necessary actions to accompany our understanding.
BTW, you only used description #2. Here is all of them:
Quote:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
So are you agreeing with me that science can't explain everything? If not, do you have some sort of rebuttal to what i said?
|
If when you say "everything" you're not only referring to what is but also fiction and what isn't, then yes I agree that science cannot explain everything. If, however, you mean everything as in that which is in the universe that is real and not fictitious, then I disagree. I needed clarification before presenting a rebuttal.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
I'm not a physicist either, but i'm not really sure that it is prudent to argue from an ostensibly pro-science position that what seems like a general consensus among quantum physicists is wrong because it offends your sense of the way things ought to be. Interestingly enough, you are agreeing with einstein when he said, "I cannot believe that god would choose to play dice with the universe." This might be an odd position in which to find yourself in.
|
My understanding of the uncertainty principle not a sense, it's an observation based on tons of precedence. I'm also not aware of a general consensus on Heisenberg, either. As I understand it, many physicists agree that it's something we cannot solve today, but that hardly means it's something we can't solve tomorrow.