Sounds like Atheism, like all belief systems, empowered an asshole with self-righteous validation. Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.
Atheism isn’t really a belief system by itself. It can refer to a lot of things, including positive atheism (the claim that there is not/cannot be a god/supernatural entity), negative atheism (the lack of belief in a deity due to lack of evidence), the absence of religion and many other things. Militant atheism, on the other hand, definitely counts and is susceptible to all the failings you mentioned.
It’s not called militant atheism, you’re describing anti-theism. I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either, just that since there’s no evidence the claims aren’t worth consideration and can be dismissed as nonsense.
As if there were any other way to hold any kind of opinion about what could be beyond the bounds of reality as we know it, but to just bet on shit we don’t know the first thing about. It’s all just bets. Nobody knows and everyone is pretending that not only are they right but their rightness is of a superior quality than the claimed rightness of others. They’re still all just blind morons betting on horse races that are fixed by minds far closer to the truth and in control of it than they.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
They especially have the advantage over the people standing outside who are pretending there are magical centaurs in the park that grant wishes if you’re not gay.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
No, the metaphor breaks down at that point because there is no peeking over the wall, there is no listening to talk from inside the stables. We’re not even at the track. It’s all shit that is beyond observation, beyond calculation, beyond any kind of verification or validation. It is a thing nobody has any good reason to act like they know anything about in a scientific capacity.
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.
So technically, in math we refer to the core “ideas” from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it’s more like - “if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics”.
Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating “fact (repeatable observation)” with “fact (tested causal mechanism)”
So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that “there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments” IRL we can use this interchangeably with “I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables”. Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.
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.
Sounds like Atheism, like all belief systems, empowered an asshole with self-righteous validation. Even if you bet on the right horse, it doesn’t mean everything you do is automatically justified; empathy is a higher order law.
Anon forgot that having an asshole doesn’t mean you should regularly act like one.
Atheism isn’t really a belief system by itself. It can refer to a lot of things, including positive atheism (the claim that there is not/cannot be a god/supernatural entity), negative atheism (the lack of belief in a deity due to lack of evidence), the absence of religion and many other things. Militant atheism, on the other hand, definitely counts and is susceptible to all the failings you mentioned.
It’s not called militant atheism, you’re describing anti-theism. I’ve never heard of atheism claiming definitively that there are no deities or higher powers either, just that since there’s no evidence the claims aren’t worth consideration and can be dismissed as nonsense.
I believe what you are describing is Agnosticism, which questions the existence of God but doesn’t claim there isn’t one either.
Atheism afaik does claim that something like a God can’t/doesn’t exist (or Anti-theism).
As if there were any other way to hold any kind of opinion about what could be beyond the bounds of reality as we know it, but to just bet on shit we don’t know the first thing about. It’s all just bets. Nobody knows and everyone is pretending that not only are they right but their rightness is of a superior quality than the claimed rightness of others. They’re still all just blind morons betting on horse races that are fixed by minds far closer to the truth and in control of it than they.
The people standing in the park trying to tease out which horse is fastest from previous observations have the advantage over anyone just going with their feelings.
They especially have the advantage over the people standing outside who are pretending there are magical centaurs in the park that grant wishes if you’re not gay.
No, the metaphor breaks down at that point because there is no peeking over the wall, there is no listening to talk from inside the stables. We’re not even at the track. It’s all shit that is beyond observation, beyond calculation, beyond any kind of verification or validation. It is a thing nobody has any good reason to act like they know anything about in a scientific capacity.
You must be one of the people outside the track afraid to look because you can’t bear the thought of not having your very own wish-granting centaur.
Superstitious nonsense.
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.
So technically, in math we refer to the core “ideas” from which all mathematics is derived as axioms, which we hold to be true until found to be false/self-contradictory/redundant. We arrive at these by describing the world, so it’s more like - “if you agree to the following statements, then you must also agree to the entirety of mathematics”.
Continuing with the occupational pedantry, I think there is some confusion lies in conflating “fact (repeatable observation)” with “fact (tested causal mechanism)”
So, kinda not really, but kinda? This is more philosophy but i think the idea is that as long as we can ensure that “there exists a statement for which there is a piece of evidence that can prove a statement false, but no evidence exists after significant testing and experiments” IRL we can use this interchangeably with “I have found a causal mechanism that causes this phenomena and can replicate the effect while controlling for confounding variables”. Statements under both are true and correct to the best of our understanding.
And the “trained physicist” confuses that with “belief”.
Literally some neurologists say he can be cured of that by eating more fish.
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