Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.
Learning that being right doesn’t make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.
The satanic temple’s 7th tenet sums it up quite well.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different
Only theists try to bring atheism down to a belief system.
By that logic: absence of being on fire is kind of being on fire. Not drowning is a specific type of drowning. Vacuum is a particular form of atmosphere. Being an idiot is just a form of wisdom.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.
Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.
Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.
Please go on such a diet.
Now you’re confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.
I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.
Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.
E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.
I used to be big on atheism but I do think it is also a belief system now. I realized that when a christian friend asked me “if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God, would you still believe he doesn’t exist ?”
So, anyway, I say I’m agnostic and that I really dislike organized religion now.
You really should educate yourself a little bit more to get to the baseline level.
Oh, nevermind, you’re one of those feel-good nonsense wafflers.
Atheism is as much a belief as bald is a haircut. Technically slightly different, but makes sense to throw into the same box.
Learning that being right doesn’t make you not an arsehole is a lesson too many of us had to learn the hard way.
The satanic temple’s 7th tenet sums it up quite well.
Only theists try to bring atheism down to a belief system.
By that logic: absence of being on fire is kind of being on fire. Not drowning is a specific type of drowning. Vacuum is a particular form of atmosphere. Being an idiot is just a form of wisdom.
Atheism does require belief. Even if it’s only in the axioms of physics.
As per my analogy, bald is not a haircut, but an absence of hair. You would be hard pressed to find a bald person who complained about it being lumped in with haircuts in a form.
Recognising the limits to our own knowledge is an important part of finding the truth.
Oh and the options “on fire” and “not on fire” obviously belong in the same grouping, even if they are different things.
Interestingly, a diet poor in Omega-3 leads to inability to distinguish between belief and fact.
Please go on such a diet.
Now you’re confusing atheism - lack of belief in deities - with general knowledge of science, and then confusing general knowledge of science with belief. You are also confusing empirical evidence with faih.
Go eat fish.
I’m scientifically trained (physics specifically), I’m also an atheist myself. I believe, based on a preponderance of evidence, that no creator being exists. The exception possibly being the simulation hypothesis. However, without specific evidence of that, the chances are extremely slim so I default to the null, aka atheism.
Interestingly, science has very few “facts”. Facts are mostly a thing of mathematics , which can create rigorous proofs. There is a lot of evidence in science, along with predictions and theories, but few facts.
E.g. I don’t know, for a fact, that the sun will rise in 1 year’s time. The evidence says it’s practically a certainty, but it is not a true “fact”. It’s a prediction based on an absurdly large evidence base.
Did you burn down your family‘s Christmas tree too?
I used to be big on atheism but I do think it is also a belief system now. I realized that when a christian friend asked me “if we witnessed something that is indisputably an act of God, would you still believe he doesn’t exist ?”
So, anyway, I say I’m agnostic and that I really dislike organized religion now.
“If you saw a pig with wings soaring trough the skies, would you still believe pigs couldn’t fly?” Impecable logic, no notes.
Do rocket propelled pigs without wings count as flying?
deleted by creator
What is something that is indisputably an act of God?