Atheists religiously repeating the word “science” long enough that they trick themselves into believing they have explained the origins of the universe. And thus there is no reason for anyone to believe in God.
Certainly science has achieved a lot. However we are no closer to explaining the origins of the universe as before. As the origin has not been explained why is everyone somehow so confident in the falsehood of a creator?
Agnosticism (not being sure about a creator) is totally fine. However Atheists have a weird obsession about being absolutely certain of something they cannot prove an their alternative for. Atheism runs on pure faith that “science will figure it out in the future”. It is a religion in itself.
The “largest minds” of Atheism are all too often based on pure emotion. As we find with Richard Dawkins, the man so smart that he can explain the universe away… and also believes Israel is not committing Genocide in Gaza.
Your explanation reveals a misunderstanding of the terms, both of science and atheism.
If I may, could I suggest you would be better served by learning about what science is, and also, particularly in this case, just asking atheists what they think and what they mean by the terms they use.
This isn’t a put down, I genuinely think you would be better served by doing so.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
As clearly demonstrated in this thread by people certain of their atheism so much you would be hard pressed to find a religious person so arrogant in their beliefs.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don’t need to make the claim that God doesn’t exist, and most atheists don’t.
The only thing we’re certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven’t met their burden of proof.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I’m not a theist because they haven’t convinced me of any theistic claims. I don’t claim no gods exist. I just don’t know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
There is a key distinction between these terms. An atheist doesn’t believe in the existence of a god or divine being. The word atheist originates with the Greek atheos, which is built from the roots a- (“without”) and theos (“a god”). Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
In contrast, the word agnostic refers to a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it’s impossible to know how the universe was created and whether or not divine beings exist.
It’s difficult to dismantle an argument that does not exist. I suppose if your explanation is non existent you always win the discussion. Le epic Atheist wins again.
The origins of the universe have still not being scientifically explained.
Cargo cult atheism has gotten to the point where people now confidently believe we have evidence of things which we do not.
Could you expand further on this? It’s not a term I’m familiar with.
Atheists religiously repeating the word “science” long enough that they trick themselves into believing they have explained the origins of the universe. And thus there is no reason for anyone to believe in God.
Certainly science has achieved a lot. However we are no closer to explaining the origins of the universe as before. As the origin has not been explained why is everyone somehow so confident in the falsehood of a creator?
Agnosticism (not being sure about a creator) is totally fine. However Atheists have a weird obsession about being absolutely certain of something they cannot prove an their alternative for. Atheism runs on pure faith that “science will figure it out in the future”. It is a religion in itself.
The “largest minds” of Atheism are all too often based on pure emotion. As we find with Richard Dawkins, the man so smart that he can explain the universe away… and also believes Israel is not committing Genocide in Gaza.
https://raseef22.net/english/article/1095904-et-tu-dawkins-you-refuse-religion-but-support-israel
Your explanation reveals a misunderstanding of the terms, both of science and atheism.
If I may, could I suggest you would be better served by learning about what science is, and also, particularly in this case, just asking atheists what they think and what they mean by the terms they use.
This isn’t a put down, I genuinely think you would be better served by doing so.
I wish you well.
Atheism is certainty of the nonexistence of a creator.
As clearly demonstrated in this thread by people certain of their atheism so much you would be hard pressed to find a religious person so arrogant in their beliefs.
This is wrong. The only thing required to be an atheist is lacking a belief in theistic claims. You don’t need to make the claim that God doesn’t exist, and most atheists don’t.
The only thing we’re certain of (not absolutely, but fairly certain) is that theists haven’t met their burden of proof.
That’s called Agnosticism.
Atheism means you are certain that god does not exist.
You highlighted the A without any understanding of what the prefix a- means. It means not, or without.
I’m not a theist because they haven’t convinced me of any theistic claims. I don’t claim no gods exist. I just don’t know of any gods that exist, therefore I am without theism. A-theism.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/atheism-agnosticism/
No, this is incorrect. Feel free to ask.
You are free to correct a person in a conversation if you feel so inclined.
I don’t believe correcting you would be helpful.
I’ve made my suggestions, which I believe you would be much better served by exploring.
I’ll repeat for your benefit, that if you want to know what someone thinks or what they mean, the best thing you can do is to ask them.
Give it a try, you may be pleasantly surprised or possibly even learn something.*
*Maybe or possibly are not guarantees. I make no promises, but I’ll try.
So indeed nothing of value as expected.
It’s difficult to dismantle an argument that does not exist. I suppose if your explanation is non existent you always win the discussion. Le epic Atheist wins again.