Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?

[Anonymous]

just like alien existence. Some theorize and believe they exist, but not proven.

[Anonymous]

some believe they can become a cat or other animal by thinking it and putting a costume on. They are on YouTube, look it up. It's a belief that some in society accept as valid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:some believe they can become a cat or other animal by thinking it and putting a costume on. They are on YouTube, look it up. It's a belief that some in society accept as valid.

Cosplay is not a belief system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

It's an unproven belief. Scientific theories aren't proven btw

So unicorns are just unproven beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

^ it is continuing to evolve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe atheist wokeism absolutely meets the Websters dictionary definition of a religion. It's a set of beliefs, deeply held, about what's right and wrong (sin). Could make a list of commandments for it sure

Then you are misinformed. Possibly deberately so, I understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

Science deals with only what we can perceive. Science doesn't search for meaning. Religion does. Maybe you're confusing the two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

It's an unproven belief. Scientific theories aren't proven btw

So unicorns are just unproven beliefs?

No.

Every "theory" in science means it's unproven.

It's not the reverse - Not every unproven belief constitutes a scientific theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some believe they can become a cat or other animal by thinking it and putting a costume on. They are on YouTube, look it up. It's a belief that some in society accept as valid.

Cosplay is not a belief system.

https://youtu.be/T6T0tI6KcUc

There's cat ladies on YouTube who identify as cats. This is not just like they like to wear costumes and meow. They believe their identity is cat. It's a belief system people can be cats. Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:some believe they can become a cat or other animal by thinking it and putting a costume on. They are on YouTube, look it up. It's a belief that some in society accept as valid.

Cosplay is not a belief system.

https://youtu.be/T6T0tI6KcUc

There's cat ladies on YouTube who identify as cats. This is not just like they like to wear costumes and meow. They believe their identity is cat. It's a belief system people can be cats. Yes.

DP. There are theistic and atheistic therians though, which is an interesting distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

Damn, you know how weak this argument is right? Those are NOT the only two choices.

And no, it’s not a religion, just like bald isn’t a hair color, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, and off is not a channel on your TV.

Is there more than two choices for how the universe started ?

Certainly more than the two quoted. The fact is there is no evidence other than the singularity - that’s as far as we can see, so everything extraneous is a guess. We have no evidence there was time before the Big Bang, so the idea that something existed ‘before’ it is a crazy concept on its own that would need to be shown before accepting any hypothesis which needs that presupposition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe atheist wokeism absolutely meets the Websters dictionary definition of a religion. It's a set of beliefs, deeply held, about what's right and wrong (sin). Could make a list of commandments for it sure

Then you are misinformed. Possibly deberately so, I understand.

No, there's definitely a list of beliefs many atheists hold that others do not (for example, the beliefs are not bible based or islamic) about what makes a person good or bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no system of beliefs. Unless you’re talking about science (big bang, etc). I guess that’s a “religion”.

There are many things we believe, quite rationally, that we cannot prove. Take basic moral claims, for example, such as “It’s wrong to inflict pain on people for no reason.” This seems rational and sensible, but I doubt I could prove it without assuming some more basic moral claim on which it is based.

I was referring to OP's comment about the big bang theory. Scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Usually they don't require supernatural forces.

NP
What is the causes of the Big Bang ?
A) Creator
B) It just happened
Both are based on faith.

B isn’t faith. You seem confused about the difference between faith and scientific uncertainty.

I have no problem with scientific uncertainty.
My problem is with an Atheist comparing Creator beliefs with fairy tales.
This happened in the Atheist/Agnostic tread.

Some creator beliefs are considered to be fairy tales by people who believe in other creator beliefs.

e.g., Athena, goddess of wisdom, born from the brain of Zeus, the main ancient Greek God. Christians don't believe that at all. They believe that the Son of God was crucified and rose from the dead.

If you believe in the Creator of the universe beyond space time no religion will say it is a fairy tale.
Some Atheist will say that.
That’s why they have strong confidence in something coming from nothingness.
Which is the same thing as faith for nothingness.

It just means…we don’t know.

Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty?

What I said doesn’t apply to people who say we don’t know or we don’t care.

Who says they know?

Some Atheists say they know there is no Creator, Agnostics say they don’t know.

We were talking about how the universe was formed.

We don’t know definitively how it was formed. Specifically, which natural forces were at play. Just because there is uncertainty doesn’t open the door to supernatural forces.

Unless maybe if you’re uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I would say agnostics are not uncomfortable with assuming uncertainty. Try again.

Being uncertain doesn't mean assuming supernaturalism.

You can't say that you don't know and then go on to define what you don't know.

We can certainly say “I don’t know the mechanism in this natural world that formed our universe”.

That’s just how science works. We don’t know but we investigate and learn - within the natural world. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean we have to jump to supernatural.

How did my shoes end up in the family room? Oh, must be Zeus.

We're not talking about shoes in your living room, that's a straw man. We're talking about how the universe began. If you're talking about science, of course science doesn't presuppose the existence or absence of a deity. It's neutral in that regard, and limited by human perception.

It was a joke. Chill.

Yes, some of us look to science for explanations in our natural world. We know it’s not perfect and it’s confusing to evolve over time. Sometimes there is no answer - yet. That doesn’t mean we jump to supernatural beliefs.

Science deals with only what we can perceive. Science doesn't search for meaning. Religion does. Maybe you're confusing the two?

Again, we are talking about how the universe was formed. Maybe you personally look for some meaning in that but for many people it’s just another scientific theory to possibly explain our world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe atheist wokeism absolutely meets the Websters dictionary definition of a religion. It's a set of beliefs, deeply held, about what's right and wrong (sin). Could make a list of commandments for it sure

Then you are misinformed. Possibly deberately so, I understand.

No, there's definitely a list of beliefs many atheists hold that others do not (for example, the beliefs are not bible based or islamic) about what makes a person good or bad.

How is this list of beliefs shared among atheists?