Atheism also certainly does have a clergy, whether they like it or not the lay population has made it so that scientists are their clergy, or at least their prophets.
Atheists like to believe these three things (no deity/rituals/clergy) but as I've pointed out there are synonyms within atheism.
And just as scientists debate theories and they change over time, why do you think there are so many denominations and flavours of other religious bodies?
@arealityfarbetween It's funny that theists try so hard to claim that atheists are just like theists in order to attempt to make them look silly. Is this evidence that theists realize that their position is ridiculous and they want company? Atheism requires nothing from me. In fact, that is the central point of it entirely. NO BELIEF!!!
@TheEkstaza I already had this discussion with another poster and I wasn't trying to make anyone look silly. But you've got to understand that yours is a religious viewpoint, and accept that. I've also explained how this 'no belief' is just dogma and anyone posting in capitals really believes in their dis-belief. lmao.
Nothing you've said has refuted anything that I've posted so far, and at least most of my stuff was spelled correctly. Believe what you like, my friend.
@arealityfarbetween You certainly must believe that you are so clever. However, you are not. Not having a religion will never be a religion. It doesn't matter how bad you wish it to be true. Once again, it is very laughable that you compare atheists to theists in order to invalidate their point of view. It's a quite telling revelation about how you truly feel about your faith. If you wish to know what atheists really think, ask an atheist instead of trying to tell us what you think we believe.
@TheEkstaza Not that I'm clever, just that you are as thick as two short planks. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Did you think that just because you said I'm wrong I'd turn around and accept your viewpoint?-without you even so much as answering any of the points I've raised! I haven't tried to invalidate anyone's point of view, none of my posts have looked down upon the atheist community or ridiculed it in any way.
@arealityfarbetween Atheists have no clergy. Scientist do not simply read from a book and say it is so. They research the natureal world through observation and report their findings. Also, they are not above reproach. Anyone can question a scientists findings and they must be able to reproduce the results. Scientific theories change over time because science is falsifiable(testable). Religion just says that they have the definitive answer. Science is not that arrogant.
@arealityfarbetween But besides all of that, atheists are more than welcome to believe anything in the world that they want. An atheist can believe that air sinks in water if he or she wants. He or she can believe that unicorns fly circles around lollipop castles, for that matter. The ONLY thing that the word "atheist" implies, is a lack of belief in any god. An atheist can completely disregard science altogether. So, I say again, You Sir/Madam, are WRONG!!!
@TheEkstaza Religions change and branch just like science, to absorb new viewpoints. That's why there are so many denominations of christianity, or buddhism, for example. Just because in your particular variant of atheism, you choose to disregard reality and believe in flying unicorns, and therefore have no clergy (because there's only you!) doesn't make it any less of a religion; there are variants of paganism and also the URC which have no formal clergy, and some that can be practised alone.
@TheEkstaza Also, it's not any particular religion that is arrogant about the viewpoint. It is the people who hold the view. Exactly the same can be said of many followers of atheism, oh but wait, although it's a crass generalisation, that's another mark on the 'is a religion' list. lol
@arealityfarbetween I didn't say that I believe in unicorns. I only said that atheism doesn't require a belief in anything, science included. Are you intentionally missing the point to avoid admitting your error? Does not collecting stamps count as a hobby? Does not playing baseball count as a sport? Can I make this concept any more clearer????
@TheEkstaza No I haven't made an error, you've just completely failed to acknowledge my point. Ie. That atheism requires that you believe in gods<0, the definition of atheism. The only group that could claim no belief are agnostics. Can _I_ make it any simpler than that?!
@arealityfarbetween I see. It's clear that you need a bit of instruction on the meaning of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist". The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be both at the same time. As an atheist, I reject the claims of theists and do not believe in any gods. Understanding that I cannot possibly know everything, I realize that the correct answer to the question, "is there a god?", is simply "I do not know". So if I must have a title, I would be called an agnostic atheist.
@TheEkstaza I understand they're not exclusive, but I was using the term to illustrate my point about belief and how atheism requires it, even if it's a negative. Someone who would class themselves as simply agnostic probably doesn't think about it either way. However, someone who takes the time to post in this thread has probably made their decision and therefore has lost their agnosticism.
@arealityfarbetween I still cannot for the life of me, see how you get atheism = religion. Atheism is a response to theistic claims. If it weren't for theists, there would be no need to label anyone an atheist.Theists make a claim that we reject on the basis of lack of evidence. How can that possibly be considered a religion? It cannot, because it isn't. Does it bother you that there are people that simply have no religion?
@TheEkstaza And to think, you've just been saying that atheists can choose to believe anything they wish (flying unicorns and lollipop castles?), now you say that's as long as they believe there are no gods because we haven't seen one and therefore have been unable to record his/her shoe size... Make your mind up. Part of why it's a religion is this dogma, and maybe part is because it _is_ a response-equal and opposite. It doesn't bother me, everyone has a religious viewpoint.
@arealityfarbetween Of course they can believe many other things. They just happen to be people who, also, do not claim a belief of any god. Why should we, there is no evidence for one. Nothing I have said contradicts. And when I say we it is simply because there are more than one persons who do not believe these unfounded claims, not because "we" are some kind of inclusive group. And no, just because someone has a viewpoint about religion, doesn't mean they have a "religious" viewpoint.
@TheEkstaza What, so each different denomination of christianity is a different faith because of a slight variation of doctrine? In the same way that all christians believe in one god but execute that belief slightly differently, all atheists believe in no-gods and can do the same.
And, OMG, of all the ridiculous things to say! "just because someone has a viewpoint on religion doesn't mean they have a religious viewpoint"...
@arealityfarbetween You are still confusing beliefs, (i.e., religious beliefs) and knowlege. No atheist knows that there is no god. What theists propose is that everyone should believe until proven otherwise. WHY? Should we all believe that invisible pink unicorns exist? Of course not. Does that mean that we all belong to a cult of non-pink unicornists? NO
@arealityfarbetween I have views about the Amish, does that mean I have an Amish viewpoint? I have views about psychopaths. Does that mean I have a psychopathic viewpoint? Is this really that hard to understand?
@arealityfarbetween You see, atheism deals with belief, and agonosticism concerns knowlege. It is a very different thing to know something, than it is to believe it. Just because I don't know something exists or not, doesn't mean I have to believe that it does. It is much more reasonable to consider it doesn't until given reason to believe otherwise. It seems that you take the other route and believe until proven otherwise. However, I dare say none will ever be given.
you both miss my point about the first cause and strengthen it at the same time, by definition it can't have been an effect otherwise it would not be first. Whatever that may be, it is something that can be called god, or the father of gods.
As I've said, atheism does have a dogma since it has it's own established beliefs-ie. one must believe that there is no supreme being, one must believe in science above all else.
@arealityfarbetween Wrong my friend, all one has to do to be considered an atheist is simply NOT believe in any gods. It is odd that we are given this tittle, though, as people who do not believe in unicerns are considered aunicornists, or people who do not believe in leprecauns are not called aleprecaunists. While I am what you'd call an atheist, I am also perhaps an aphilatelist as I also do not collect stamps.
@htargett1 no, i'm not comparing atheism to christianity. I haven't even mentioned any particular faith. The 'description' is a definition and by that definition atheism is a religion, the dogmatic belief that there is no deity is not unbelief as you put it.
It's ridiculous to say that if someone doesn't understand evidence but still accepts it is not blind faith, what would you call it? deaf faith? lol
Reasonably sound, based on a set of assumptions about the priests (scientists) of atheism.
And just so you can put this in context, to be an atheist does not imply that someone is scientific or rational, and the same applies the other way around. To be a scientist does not imply atheism. The two are separate but _all_ atheists use science to attempt to strengthen their point, personally, I would call that a ritual.
Also, atheism goes further, to state that everything is an effect of a particular cause. Atheists seem to gloss over the fact that something has to have started it off.
@arealityfarbetween I did not say that atheism and scientific rationalism are symbiotic. Science and atheism are often well-suited to each other, but it is not always the case.
When you accept that a scientific theory is right, even if you do not understand the evidence, you can be reasonably sure that the theory has been criticised and debated fiercely within the profession. There are always scientists who have conflicting opinions and this criticism helps determine a theory's validity.
@arealityfarbetween You say that something must have caused the universe to exist, but there is no evidence to suggest that this "something" was god. Therefore, accepting god as a first cause is pure conjecture. Of course, we must also ask ourselves what caused god, if everything must have a cause. How can you answer that?
Atheism has no dogma and no clergy. It does not have a central organisation that controls it. It is not even a cohesive group. We do not tell you how to live your life.
@arealityfarbetween You're comparing this to Christianity, where the majority of people understand the doctrine, but the doctrine itself is unsubstantiated, simplistic nonsense. Maybe people find it difficult to understand scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that accepting their validity is blind faith. The best science is peer reviewed and has substantial evidence to support its conclusions. We can therefore accept that the science is reasonably sound.
@arealityfarbetween Hi, thanks for commenting. Just to clarify - this is not an atheist video, we are the Christian Union at Newcastle Uni. The statements in the video are things that other students often say to us when we discuss Christianity with them. We don't believe that science has disproved God's existence, but rather we're just repeating what many people who describe themselves as atheists have said to us, as they are all topics that we're covering in the talks in our Events Week.
"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" (taken from wikipedia), atheism has a set of beliefs, ie. that there is no supernatural deity figure, everything is cause/effect starting out with the big bang or possibly earlier depending on the atheist you speak to, in that sense, it is a religion.
Atheism does require blind faith from the vast majority of it's lay community since they have no understanding of the scientific texts themselves.
Atheism is not a religion. We have no rituals or ceremonies. We don't claim to have knowledge of the universe that no-one else has. If you think that atheism is a religion, then you have no understanding of what a religion is.
I don't personally know of any atheists who would say that science has disproved God's existence. This is, of course, technically impossible.
Science does not require blind faith. The evidence for scientific theories is freely documented for anyone to read.
Atheism also certainly does have a clergy, whether they like it or not the lay population has made it so that scientists are their clergy, or at least their prophets.
Atheists like to believe these three things (no deity/rituals/clergy) but as I've pointed out there are synonyms within atheism.
And just as scientists debate theories and they change over time, why do you think there are so many denominations and flavours of other religious bodies?
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween It's funny that theists try so hard to claim that atheists are just like theists in order to attempt to make them look silly. Is this evidence that theists realize that their position is ridiculous and they want company? Atheism requires nothing from me. In fact, that is the central point of it entirely. NO BELIEF!!!
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza I already had this discussion with another poster and I wasn't trying to make anyone look silly. But you've got to understand that yours is a religious viewpoint, and accept that. I've also explained how this 'no belief' is just dogma and anyone posting in capitals really believes in their dis-belief. lmao.
Nothing you've said has refuted anything that I've posted so far, and at least most of my stuff was spelled correctly. Believe what you like, my friend.
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween You certainly must believe that you are so clever. However, you are not. Not having a religion will never be a religion. It doesn't matter how bad you wish it to be true. Once again, it is very laughable that you compare atheists to theists in order to invalidate their point of view. It's a quite telling revelation about how you truly feel about your faith. If you wish to know what atheists really think, ask an atheist instead of trying to tell us what you think we believe.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza Not that I'm clever, just that you are as thick as two short planks. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Did you think that just because you said I'm wrong I'd turn around and accept your viewpoint?-without you even so much as answering any of the points I've raised! I haven't tried to invalidate anyone's point of view, none of my posts have looked down upon the atheist community or ridiculed it in any way.
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween Atheists have no clergy. Scientist do not simply read from a book and say it is so. They research the natureal world through observation and report their findings. Also, they are not above reproach. Anyone can question a scientists findings and they must be able to reproduce the results. Scientific theories change over time because science is falsifiable(testable). Religion just says that they have the definitive answer. Science is not that arrogant.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween But besides all of that, atheists are more than welcome to believe anything in the world that they want. An atheist can believe that air sinks in water if he or she wants. He or she can believe that unicorns fly circles around lollipop castles, for that matter. The ONLY thing that the word "atheist" implies, is a lack of belief in any god. An atheist can completely disregard science altogether. So, I say again, You Sir/Madam, are WRONG!!!
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza Religions change and branch just like science, to absorb new viewpoints. That's why there are so many denominations of christianity, or buddhism, for example. Just because in your particular variant of atheism, you choose to disregard reality and believe in flying unicorns, and therefore have no clergy (because there's only you!) doesn't make it any less of a religion; there are variants of paganism and also the URC which have no formal clergy, and some that can be practised alone.
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza Also, it's not any particular religion that is arrogant about the viewpoint. It is the people who hold the view. Exactly the same can be said of many followers of atheism, oh but wait, although it's a crass generalisation, that's another mark on the 'is a religion' list. lol
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween I didn't say that I believe in unicorns. I only said that atheism doesn't require a belief in anything, science included. Are you intentionally missing the point to avoid admitting your error? Does not collecting stamps count as a hobby? Does not playing baseball count as a sport? Can I make this concept any more clearer????
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza No I haven't made an error, you've just completely failed to acknowledge my point. Ie. That atheism requires that you believe in gods<0, the definition of atheism. The only group that could claim no belief are agnostics. Can _I_ make it any simpler than that?!
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween I see. It's clear that you need a bit of instruction on the meaning of the terms "agnostic" and "atheist". The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be both at the same time. As an atheist, I reject the claims of theists and do not believe in any gods. Understanding that I cannot possibly know everything, I realize that the correct answer to the question, "is there a god?", is simply "I do not know". So if I must have a title, I would be called an agnostic atheist.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza I understand they're not exclusive, but I was using the term to illustrate my point about belief and how atheism requires it, even if it's a negative. Someone who would class themselves as simply agnostic probably doesn't think about it either way. However, someone who takes the time to post in this thread has probably made their decision and therefore has lost their agnosticism.
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween I still cannot for the life of me, see how you get atheism = religion. Atheism is a response to theistic claims. If it weren't for theists, there would be no need to label anyone an atheist.Theists make a claim that we reject on the basis of lack of evidence. How can that possibly be considered a religion? It cannot, because it isn't. Does it bother you that there are people that simply have no religion?
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza And to think, you've just been saying that atheists can choose to believe anything they wish (flying unicorns and lollipop castles?), now you say that's as long as they believe there are no gods because we haven't seen one and therefore have been unable to record his/her shoe size... Make your mind up. Part of why it's a religion is this dogma, and maybe part is because it _is_ a response-equal and opposite. It doesn't bother me, everyone has a religious viewpoint.
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween Of course they can believe many other things. They just happen to be people who, also, do not claim a belief of any god. Why should we, there is no evidence for one. Nothing I have said contradicts. And when I say we it is simply because there are more than one persons who do not believe these unfounded claims, not because "we" are some kind of inclusive group. And no, just because someone has a viewpoint about religion, doesn't mean they have a "religious" viewpoint.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@TheEkstaza What, so each different denomination of christianity is a different faith because of a slight variation of doctrine? In the same way that all christians believe in one god but execute that belief slightly differently, all atheists believe in no-gods and can do the same.
And, OMG, of all the ridiculous things to say! "just because someone has a viewpoint on religion doesn't mean they have a religious viewpoint"...
arealityfarbetween 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween You are still confusing beliefs, (i.e., religious beliefs) and knowlege. No atheist knows that there is no god. What theists propose is that everyone should believe until proven otherwise. WHY? Should we all believe that invisible pink unicorns exist? Of course not. Does that mean that we all belong to a cult of non-pink unicornists? NO
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween I have views about the Amish, does that mean I have an Amish viewpoint? I have views about psychopaths. Does that mean I have a psychopathic viewpoint? Is this really that hard to understand?
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@arealityfarbetween You see, atheism deals with belief, and agonosticism concerns knowlege. It is a very different thing to know something, than it is to believe it. Just because I don't know something exists or not, doesn't mean I have to believe that it does. It is much more reasonable to consider it doesn't until given reason to believe otherwise. It seems that you take the other route and believe until proven otherwise. However, I dare say none will ever be given.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
you both miss my point about the first cause and strengthen it at the same time, by definition it can't have been an effect otherwise it would not be first. Whatever that may be, it is something that can be called god, or the father of gods.
As I've said, atheism does have a dogma since it has it's own established beliefs-ie. one must believe that there is no supreme being, one must believe in science above all else.
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween Wrong my friend, all one has to do to be considered an atheist is simply NOT believe in any gods. It is odd that we are given this tittle, though, as people who do not believe in unicerns are considered aunicornists, or people who do not believe in leprecauns are not called aleprecaunists. While I am what you'd call an atheist, I am also perhaps an aphilatelist as I also do not collect stamps.
TheEkstaza 3 months ago
@htargett1 no, i'm not comparing atheism to christianity. I haven't even mentioned any particular faith. The 'description' is a definition and by that definition atheism is a religion, the dogmatic belief that there is no deity is not unbelief as you put it.
It's ridiculous to say that if someone doesn't understand evidence but still accepts it is not blind faith, what would you call it? deaf faith? lol
Reasonably sound, based on a set of assumptions about the priests (scientists) of atheism.
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
And just so you can put this in context, to be an atheist does not imply that someone is scientific or rational, and the same applies the other way around. To be a scientist does not imply atheism. The two are separate but _all_ atheists use science to attempt to strengthen their point, personally, I would call that a ritual.
Also, atheism goes further, to state that everything is an effect of a particular cause. Atheists seem to gloss over the fact that something has to have started it off.
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween I did not say that atheism and scientific rationalism are symbiotic. Science and atheism are often well-suited to each other, but it is not always the case.
When you accept that a scientific theory is right, even if you do not understand the evidence, you can be reasonably sure that the theory has been criticised and debated fiercely within the profession. There are always scientists who have conflicting opinions and this criticism helps determine a theory's validity.
htargett1 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween You say that something must have caused the universe to exist, but there is no evidence to suggest that this "something" was god. Therefore, accepting god as a first cause is pure conjecture. Of course, we must also ask ourselves what caused god, if everything must have a cause. How can you answer that?
Atheism has no dogma and no clergy. It does not have a central organisation that controls it. It is not even a cohesive group. We do not tell you how to live your life.
htargett1 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween Also, the description you provide of religion is incomplete. You are cherry-picking material that supports your own conclusions.
Atheism is unbelief in a deity. I'm not sure how you can believe in unbelief, but you appear to suggest that this is possible.
htargett1 1 year ago
Yeah, I know. I was v. surprised at the content while I was eating my tuna mayo sandwich :)
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween You're comparing this to Christianity, where the majority of people understand the doctrine, but the doctrine itself is unsubstantiated, simplistic nonsense. Maybe people find it difficult to understand scientific theories, but that doesn't mean that accepting their validity is blind faith. The best science is peer reviewed and has substantial evidence to support its conclusions. We can therefore accept that the science is reasonably sound.
htargett1 1 year ago
@arealityfarbetween Hi, thanks for commenting. Just to clarify - this is not an atheist video, we are the Christian Union at Newcastle Uni. The statements in the video are things that other students often say to us when we discuss Christianity with them. We don't believe that science has disproved God's existence, but rather we're just repeating what many people who describe themselves as atheists have said to us, as they are all topics that we're covering in the talks in our Events Week.
newcastlecu 1 year ago
"A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" (taken from wikipedia), atheism has a set of beliefs, ie. that there is no supernatural deity figure, everything is cause/effect starting out with the big bang or possibly earlier depending on the atheist you speak to, in that sense, it is a religion.
Atheism does require blind faith from the vast majority of it's lay community since they have no understanding of the scientific texts themselves.
arealityfarbetween 1 year ago
Atheism is not a religion. We have no rituals or ceremonies. We don't claim to have knowledge of the universe that no-one else has. If you think that atheism is a religion, then you have no understanding of what a religion is.
I don't personally know of any atheists who would say that science has disproved God's existence. This is, of course, technically impossible.
Science does not require blind faith. The evidence for scientific theories is freely documented for anyone to read.
htargett1 1 year ago
Brilliant!
RuthLecko 1 year ago