What Does Science Have To Do With Non-Belief (or Atheism)?

[Nam]

It seems to be, from reading various topics and discussions on this website, and on many others.  Articles, and stories, and even a recent viewing of a Sherlock Holmes movie (with Matt Frewer playing Sherlock Holmes) where it seems that the two are synonymous with each other.  Atheism, I feel, has nothing to do at all with science.  It's not a scientific precept[ion].  They may have things in common with each other but do not necessarily have to go hand-in-hand.  I think many people see this as being what atheists cling to -- what their religion is.

I do not know much about science.  I know what basically everyone else mainly knows.  The basics of science.  But it seems that when I tell someone that I'm a "non-believer" of sorts, that they automatically think several things:

1.  Science is my religion
2. I automitically percscribe to the theory of Evolution as being the "ultimate truth"[1]
3. (if Christian) I hate god
4. I'm immoral

etc.,

But this isn't just the notion of one religious person to those who are not; this seems to be the philosophy of the vast majority of atheists and/or non-believers or non-religious peoples.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm just reading too much into it but I think there's some truth to what I state.

Science and atheism (as an example) have similarities and common aspects to each other but atheism and religion has many similarities and common aspects to them -- am I  to preclude that atheism is therefore a religion?

-Nam

1.	actually heard someone use that term before on another website awhile back

[dloubet]

Science has nothing to do with atheism. Just like theism has nothing to do with science. But when arguments fly, people like facts to back them up, and so both sides turn to science. Unfortunately, only one side seems concerned with accuracy and valid logic.

[Dante]

Atheists, for the most part, are simply skeptics. To be convinced of certain things, skeptics require evidence. Science is an evidence based methodology. So, the similarity between science and atheism is that both require evidence.

Calling atheism a religion, IMHO, is a bit of a stretch.

[jetson]

Science is the current best method for weeding out the non-sense, and getting closer to useful information that moves us hopefully towards a better future (arguable, I know).  And atheism, quite naturally, uses that method to support it's arguments.  Makes perfect sense to me.

If one rejects the scientific method, then how can they ever support their arguments?

[grant]

I've never been religious and I've always considered the whole god / bible concept to be absurd. Finding out Santa Claus wasn't real was a pretty good hint.

Science may strengthen atheism, but atheism certainly isn't reliant on science. Atheism is reliant on common sense. Science just clearly exposes the idiocy of biblical stories to those who can't see how stupid most biblical stories really are in the first place.

I don't need science to tell me there was no talking snake or a boat that saved every animal species on the planet. Common sense tells me that snakes do not have the physical make up or intelligence to "talk" and even today, saving every species on the planet is beyond our ability, let alone some uneducated farmer pulling it off thousands of years ago. Common sense and simple observation shows me that humans are very close to animals in make up, so why would we have souls but not animals?

I just simply don't believe in the whole god stuff. So I'd say no to atheism being remotely considered a religion.

[Omega]

I think religion implies belief in something without evidence, while science is exactly opposite.

[Nam]

Science has nothing to do with atheism. Just like theism has nothing to do with science. But when arguments fly, people like facts to back them up, and so both sides turn to science. Unfortunately, only one side seems concerned with accuracy and valid logic.

Funny enough, I actually read a really old short story by this Catholic in I think it was either Harper's Weekly (now Monthly) or some similar magazine of the the mid to late 19th century where the author of the work (which I wish I could remember the author's name and the title but I can't) stated that, and I'm paraphrasing of course "...Catholicism is not only the basis of science but God created it, as stated in the Bible.[1]".

Calling atheism a religion, IMHO, is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, but I think one could state as a truth that many atheists are formerly religious (in the U.S. mainly Christian) and since that's what they know, then, turning something that isn't something into what "they know" makes such things possible.  If you get what I'm stating.  Plus when you have the opposition trying to grind such nonsense into peoples heads, that makes it difficult (but not improbable) to argue such a ridiculous point.

I think religion implies belief in something without evidence, while science is exactly opposite.

I agree, I believe even one of my signatures implies such a thing.

To the other two that commented (thanks by the way) I'm not ignoring you, I just have no reply to your statements.

-Nam

1.	I have yet to find where it states that in the Bible

[Hatter23]

Science is the current best method for weeding out the non-sense, and getting closer to useful information that moves us hopefully towards a better future (arguable, I know).  And atheism, quite naturally, uses that method to support it's arguments.  Makes perfect sense to me.

If one rejects the scientific method, then how can they ever support their arguments?

That's easy, with logical fallacies.

[Omega]

Best way to suppot your argument is to use bigger gun than your oponent    It always works unlike logic and science.

[Omen]

But this isn't just the notion of one religious person to those who are not; this seems to be the philosophy of the vast majority of atheists and/or non-believers or non-religious peoples.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm just reading too much into it but I think there's some truth to what I state.

I agree with absolutely everything, except this.  I just don't see anyone actively making the kind of QED logic you're implying in this statement.

I've been pointing out that something in science being true does not necessarily have anything to do with a god existing or not for years.  The results are more negative than positive, theist perceive this correlation more strongly than atheist and they respond emotionally to it because it challenges their imagined polemical notions.

[Nam]

Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 11:04:35 AM ]I agree with absolutely everything, except this.  I just don't see anyone actively making the kind of QED logic you're implying in this statement.

Well, minus the last two on the list, I've read or have personally argued with atheists have the inclination of the first two as if it was dogmatic to being a "true atheist".  I've had people actually argue against me because I wouldn't "fall in line" as I should, or what not.  However, I state it above as if it's the "vast majority" or just a greater number than it probably actually is; that's most likely incorrect on my part since I have no evidence to actually back it up; but, I feel even if I researched it, or even did a survey/study on it that I, or one who would probably would get the same responses as if one was questioning a religious person.  The fear of being wrong, or being stated that one is wrong I think lies in everyone[1].

-Nam

1.	including myself to a point though in the end I really do not care