Is Atheism a religion without a church or temple ?

[Anonymous]

Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

[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.

No, there definitely is not. The only commonality is that they don’t believe in God. You know there are entire groups of atheists who believe in crazy shit like aliens on earth, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn’t make it so. It is not a religion by any definition. End period. Unless you are one of those people who defines our religion as any damn thing people think like being vegetarians or fans of the Jacksonville jaguars, or people who believe aerating their lawns makes them nicer.

If that’s the case, then your definition of religion is meaningless.

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

Crusade to disprove something…that doesn’t exist? Why would we want to waste our time on that?

I do think religions are a problem when they encourage people to try to push their religion on others. They can believe whatever they want to believe but leave my body alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

Crusade to disprove something…that doesn’t exist? Why would we want to waste our time on that?

I do think religions are a problem when they encourage people to try to push their religion on others. They can believe whatever they want to believe but leave my body alone.

Oh, my. What has happened to your body? I'm not a dualist. Change my mind.

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

Crusade to disprove something…that doesn’t exist? Why would we want to waste our time on that?

I do think religions are a problem when they encourage people to try to push their religion on others. They can believe whatever they want to believe but leave my body alone.

Oh, my. What has happened to your body? I'm not a dualist. Change my mind.

Don’t be obtuse.

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

NP = new poster who hasn’t posted on the thread before
DP = different poster, not immediate PP

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

NP = new poster who hasn’t posted on the thread before
DP = different poster, not immediate PP

DP

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

The giant flaw in your thinking:

There is no evidence of anything “up to” the Big Bang, therefore no reason to presume something was there.

None.

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

The giant flaw in your thinking:

There is no evidence of anything “up to” the Big Bang, therefore no reason to presume something was there.

None.

So, you are saying something came from nothing ?

[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:

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.

Scientific observation doesn't presuppose the existence or the absence of a god, but in your previous post you were discussing science as though it is in opposition to religious faith. It's not the role of science to "jump to supernatural beliefs" but to theorize about the natural world, so the point of your post was unclear. Science and theology are separate disciplines and not mutually exclusive.

I’ve been trying to tie back to my earlier question:
“Do people use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? “

Maybe I should have been more specific:
Do believers use “faith” as a support mechanism because they are uncomfortable with uncertainty? Do they use “creator” to explain the unknown bits?

NP
I use logic.
I will go with the scientific explanation up to the Big Bang.
There is no better explanation for me than the Creator beyond creation, space time is the cause of it.

The giant flaw in your thinking:

There is no evidence of anything “up to” the Big Bang, therefore no reason to presume something was there.

None.

So, you are saying something came from nothing ?

I am saying there is no evidence of a before for something to come from. I am saying you don’t even know what nothing is or what it means. I am saying that you presume there was something eternal prior and that presupposition is the flaw in your thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is a religion. Many atheists seem to be on a crusade to disprove the existence of God and show the moral and social ills caused by religion. This is opposed to someone who simply doesn't care and says let people believe whatever they want.

atheists simply don’t believe in God.

Antitheism, also spelled anti-theism, is the philosophical position that theism should be opposed. It refers to direct opposition to the belief in any deity.

Antitheism has been adopted as a label by those who regard theism as dangerous, destructive, or encouraging of harmful behavior. Christopher Hitchens (2001) wrote:

"I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."


Other definitions of antitheism include that of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain (1953), for whom it is "an active struggle against everything that reminds us of God".

Atheism and anti-theism so often occur together at the same time and in the same person that it's understandable if many people fail to realize that they aren't the same. Making note of the difference is important, however, because not every atheist is anti-theistic and even those who are, aren't anti-theistic all the time. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods; anti-theism is a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism. Many atheists are also anti-theists, but not all and not always.

If a person cares enough to deny that gods exist, then perhaps they care enough to attack belief in gods as well — but not always. Lots of people will deny that elves or fairies exist, but how many of these same people also attack belief in such creatures?

Anti-theists seem to be extremely angry. They are usually a hypocrite who is religiously bigoted but criticizes others for being religiously bigoted.

I don’t believe the majority of angry atheist posters here are atheists at all. I think they are anti-theists. They do not believe in freedom of religion as our Constitution guarantees us as American citizens, so they also have other issues that mark them as incompatible with our way of life in America.