Why do atheists think being an atheist makes them a scientist?

1. Richard Dawkins and his followers. General atheist culture.

2. Richard Dawkins again and his book. His seminars, his demos. His followers and his colleagues.

>Has scientific-atheism become a religion itself

Haven't you seen the billboards?

>Name people or shut up.

All the 13 year olds that post here.

Maybe some? It's all pretty annoying, cant people just keep religious opinions to themselves?

>science has become a religion itself
You can't just throw around words you don't know the meaning of like that. I'll exist the living traffic cone out of you. Look up what the word religion means.

>Why do atheists think being an atheist makes them a scientist?

I'm an atheist.

I don't think atheism makes me a scientist.

Next question?

It's impossible to find an unbiased definition . Websters has been taken by the scientism croud.

>1. Richard Dawkins and his followers. General atheist culture.

Richard Dawkins doesn't think he's a scientist because he's an atheist.

Richard Dawkins thinks he's a scientist because: "He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, graduating in 1962; while there, he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision, receiving his MA and DPhil degrees by 1966, and remained a research assistant for another year. Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly in the areas of instinct, learning and choice; Dawkins's research in this period concerned models of animal decision-making.

And after that, pic related.

Veeky Forums is a conspiracy to push the retarded definition agenda. Also the bilderberg group.

>atheism
atheism is a religion
the definition of "god" does not allow it to be falsified under any circumstance. we can never make a conclusion that God does not exists.
atheism = faith on the nonexistence of God, which translates to a religion.
and btw religion has nothing to do with scientific method

protip: most "atheists" are agnostics (including dawkins).

>playing semantics

>it doesn't matter

the definition of "unicorn" does not allow it to be falsified under any circumstance. we can never make a conclusion that unicorns do not exists.
aneighism = faith on the nonexistence of unicorns, which translates to a religion.
and btw religion has nothing to do with scientific method

you can rate yourself out of 10 to find out how certain you are about whether god exists, or not. But many people will find themselves in a grey area.

emotionally, 100%
Everything I ever do is decided assuming god doesn't exist.
scientifically, 99.99%

If you are a theist, will your actions ever reflect god 100%?

well scientific input is what matters. emotions change and you will get the urge to grasp at a higher power when you get older and the closer you get to death.

“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

But science can never disprove god. So anyone claiming to respect the rigor of science and evidence cannot claim that they know god in fact does not exist. They must remain an agnostic.

>science can never disprove
Unicorns or elves either. So what.

So you can't say God doesn't exist. Which prevents you from being an atheist.

>Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

What?

The question "do you believe in a God" has 3 answers, and any of these answers will label you as such. You can't pussyfoot around the fact that you believe that there is no God. If you disagree then you either believe in God or you're just not sure, which makes you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Since you think god is equivalent to an elf, I can do nothing except totally agree.

I'm amazed, you can always find idiots on the internet to argue about the existence of god back and forth for hours

>Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

>The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)",

>that transition from hard scientific publications to schlock

>He returned to the University of Oxford in 1970 as a lecturer. In 1990, he became a reader in zoology. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, a position that had been endowed by Charles Simonyi with the express intention that the holder "be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field",[41] and that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.[42] He held that professorship from 1995 until 2008

Employed as the professor for the public understanding of science?

People have always loved to bask in the warm glow of things they don't understand.

How many religious people have a basic grasp of theology?

Oh yeah absolutely, the 1994 -> 1995 transition is a straight kick in the bean pouch.

He still doesn't fit that upthread retards example of somebody who "thinks he's a scientist because he's an atheist" or however that idiot phrased it.

>>How many religious people have a basic grasp of theology?
the same amounts of undergraduates who have a basic grasp of scientific realism.

>Richard Dawkins
if Richard Dawkins is hack, then why do he have a circle of of higher beings around him?

> 5000$ to stand next to him
being white and mighty has privileges I guess

He's a top tier shitposter tbqh

He heard about "reputational economy" and decided to cash in.