fake Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Didn't we go through all this last week? Danot, to be an atheist you only have to be without belief in God. That's all. That is just one interpretation of an atheist as its not quite as cut and dried as that. This is a fun read. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheist I happen to be an atheist that believes there may have been a God but one devoid of any religion or supernatural powers, so I suppose it all depends on how one define's "God." Some older civilisations thought that their invaders were Gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 That is just one interpretation of an atheist as its not quite as cut and dried as that. This is a fun read. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheist I happen to be an atheist that believes there may have been a God but one devoid of any religion or supernatural powers, so I suppose it all depends on how one define's "God." Some older civilisations thought that their invaders were Gods. Somebody who "believes that no god or gods exist" (the 2nd definition in your link), also "lacks belief in a god or gods" (the 1st definition in your link). The 1st definition is the minimum requirement, it's the most common one that I and other atheists I know use to describe themselves, and it is fully compatible with what RootsBooster said: "To be an atheist you only have to be without belief in God. That's all." This is absolutely correct, and doesn't contradict with the 2nd definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well, there's a shedload of scientific evidence to explain the origins of everything we see around us - and bugger all evidence to support creationism. Quite straightforward really.Scientific evidence might be able to explain the origins of everything around us, but it cannot present a shred of evidence that can disprove that creationism isn't responsible for it, therefore, it should stop claiming that creationism isn't responsible for it and just accept that something unknown was responsible for it, something that contemporary science and logical reasoning is unable to comprehend or explain. And yes, the same applies to the religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Proving by presenting absence of evidence for proof of a negative. That's novel logic you're using there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Your statement presents a false dichotomy as there are other possible scenarios. Still, I shall answer. No, I do not commemorate the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus. I do participate in the festival of chocolate eating which takes place over the double bank holiday over early spring. jb You mean the chocolate in the form of an egg which is still associated with the ancient religious beliefs and ideological symbolism of birth and re-birth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Scientific evidence might be able to explain the origins of everything around us, but it cannot present a shred of evidence that can disprove that creationism isn't responsible for it, therefore, it should stop claiming that creationism isn't responsible for it and just accept that something unknown was responsible for it, something that contemporary science and logical reasoning is unable to comprehend or explain. And yes, the same applies to the religious. And your point is? You think you are more clever than everyone else and feel the need to try and demonstrate this is the case, even if this involves lengthy correspondernce with no real point to it on your part? Is that it? There is an interesting link in Deltic's by-line which goes some way to explaining such behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Wrong, an atheist need not consider "the notion that the universe was created by God/s" but they are perfectly able to do so and be an atheist. What defines atheism is a lack of belief that gods actually exist, you can attain that state by never having considered gods in any way shape or form or after considering and rejecting the arguments put forward for god/s. I'd say it's highly unlikely that someone would have never considered gods in any way shape or form.. so I'll rule out that notion. And to reject the creationism argument after careful consideration on the grounds of there being no credible evidence which can explain the existence of a creator would present the atheist with an equally good reason to consider, question, then reject the notion that the universe may not need a cause or creator and may have always existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 That is just one interpretation of an atheist as its not quite as cut and dried as that. This is a fun read. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=atheist I happen to be an atheist that believes there may have been a God but one devoid of any religion or supernatural powers, so I suppose it all depends on how one define's "God." Some older civilisations thought that their invaders were Gods. The Urban Dictionary appears to be slightly confused, this from your link... "Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics" What the hell is that supposed to mean? Also, the second defintion from your link... "2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist." Is someone who is not only an atheist but also an antitheist, ALTHOUGH, this has become a common use for the word (out of mild ignorance I think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 No, to be an atheist one must simply lack belief in god. An atheist can consider that the universe was created by a super intelligent pan dimensional four sided triangle if they so desire, they however will not be taken seriously until they can present some evidence to back up their claims. jb So what evidence have cosmologists presented that can back-up their claims which suggest the universe may not need an initial cause? What evidence have they presented that can back-up their claims which suggest that nothing existed before time and space existed? What evidence have they presented that can back-up their claims which suggest the universe wasn't created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 So what evidence have cosmologists presented that can back-up their claims which suggest the universe may not need an initial cause? What evidence have they presented that can back-up their claims which suggest that nothing existed before time and space existed? What evidence have they presented that can back-up their claims which suggest the universe wasn't created? Barleycorn never mentioned anything about having to provide proof that the universe WASN'T created. You can't disprove a (sighs, yawns) negative. He said "they however will not be taken seriously until they can present some evidence to back up their claims." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.