yeah, read the new disclaimer, bud!

So how does metaphorically describing a set of people with a shared standard of beliefs/ethics in the context of food, or the like, equate to true but not describing atheists who are also a set of people with shared standards of beliefs and ethics not equate to true? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding...mainly because the two separate sets of standards being mixed to apply as tests for validity.

I don't get how a shared set of beliefs and ethics is only true in a metaphorical sense but not a literal sense when it comes to describing the atheist demographic? Explain your rationale there.

And nothing about the CIA World Factbook??

cool!

*struts*

Who the **** is saying that? I said hard science, not stuff like string theory (which by the way is noted as theory).

A ton of stuff about our bodies, the air, water, animals, the planet, the sun and moon, the solar system, and the universe in general are cold hard scientific facts. Don't cloud that fact by bringing up quantum theory.

Again, the only people I know who refer to science as a belief system are in denial about evolution.

You can find a lot of scientists who view the information containing properties of DNA, RNA as evidence for intelligent design.

You're right, food is a religion.

Guess that's what happens when you edit your post after someone has already hit reply.

I fail to see how referring to science as a belief system necessitates denying evolution.

I understand what you're saying but how is that germane?

There is an array of unexplained scientific mysteries, e.g. spontaneous human combustion, the origin of our own universe is still a subject of great debate. So science isn't always cold hard fact, even outside the fields of theoretical sciences. Even in medical fields just for another example.

And proponents on both sides of science and religion seem to think that creationism and evolution must necessarily refute each other. But I don't.

So if you're addressing that because I'm Christian, I can't resolve that curiosity for you.

I recognize science deals with cold hard facts but it also deals with a lot of theory, and that does necessarily require the practice of faith...regardless of how much circumstantial evidence supports the theory, it's still a theory and an expression of faith until it's proven true with no possibility to be falsified. Let's not portray all the fields of study and branches as science as being so firmly rooted in fact. If everything was simply established in fact, there would be no further need for research or experimentation.

The point is while there is certainty in matters that are relatively-trivial (this is subjective) there is little to no certainty whatsoever on other matters in science. So it's not this big infallible force that is irrefutable as science has proved many times throughout the course of history that it needed to redefine the paradigms upon which science's understanding is predicated in many fields.

That's why I say many arrogantly assume we all have it figured out because somebody inna lab coat at the Acme Science corporation says "we have data." I'm not saying you necessarily possess that belief but others do and they seldom question their sources or the methods used to determine a particular conclusion from research. That was my opinion that the presuppositions were borne from arrogance but maybe some assume out of ignorance too. I don't know...that is a subjective statement from me.

never too late to share you feelings with me...

I'm here for you!

look, I'm not tryin'a continue down this mutually-condescending path. I ain't built like that and honestly. If nobody here wants to be open minded about their belief, it's completely pointless to continue.

Have fun...I was genuinely trying to have discourse and explore alternative possibilities.

I can't continue if there's no constructive end to this.

Cheers and enjoy your thread.

P3@cE! (fo'real this time)

In Douglas Coupland's Generation X, the author describes many hallmarks of Generation X, one of which is something he calls "metaphasia": an inability to perceive metaphor.

This is clearly a metaphor and not to be taken literally. As a matter of fact, it is the comparison of two unlike things that strengthens the sentence. Hence, "atheism is a religion" has punch precisely because it's a metaphor, and thus the metaphor draws attention to the often fanatical devotion atheists have to their belief system.

Everything is a theory in science.