quisquose Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Funny how this subject seems to generate so much useless discussion from non-atheists about the definition of the word atheist. It's almost as if they've not actually got anything of substance to bring to the discussion ... oh, wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 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. You really seem to have trouble understanding people's posts. He didn't say that an atheist DOESN'T consider Gods, he actually said that you CAN be consider God's "work" and STILL be an atheist. He said that you do not NEED to consider God to be an atheist. 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. ....this bit doesn't even make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 What point are you trying to make? You don't believe atheists exist? Is that it? No it's not that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster 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. Since when has "scientific evidence" claimed that "creationism isn't responsible for it (everything around us)" ? Danot I think you really need to think about what you are posting. I've had a good look back through this thread and many of your posts appear extremely confused or maybe just hastily written. Either way, you're tangling the topic without need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Right. So to be atheist, the notion that the universe was created by God/s must be ruled out and never considered, but any other notion; no matter how ridiculous can be believed? No, an atheist just doesn't have a belief in God. Danot do you understand the difference between A) Having no belief in God and B) Believing that there is no God ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Funny how this subject seems to generate so much useless discussion from non-atheists about the definition of the word atheist. It's almost as if they've not actually got anything of substance to bring to the discussion ... oh, wait. Danot is making sopme serious points here. 1. Nobody is an atheist unless he says so 2. Atheists are rubbish and agnostics are much better 3. Just because you have nothing to say doesn't mean you shouldn't spend several hours telling other people they are wrong at great length Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Not me, and an atheist doesn't have to know how the universe came in to being to have no belief in God. But they're more than welcome to believe that the universe could have always existed without cause? Basically, atheists can proclaim to believe any old rubbish providing it doesn't involve God/s. As I said earlier, I'm discovering that the uncanny similarities between the styles of atheistic and theistic arguing is very refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 No I don't commemorate his birth, death and Resurrection why would I when to me if he did exist he was just a man. So you're claiming he would have been a false prophet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But they're more than welcome to believe that the universe could have always existed without cause? Basically, atheists can proclaim to believe any old rubbish providing it doesn't involve God/s. As I said earlier, I'm discovering that the uncanny similarities between the styles of atheistic and theistic arguing is very refreshing. No, I mean yes! an atheist need only have no belief in God. They can believe anything else they want, just not the existence of God. Translation of the word atheism: a(without)theism(belief in God) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 No it's not that. What is it then. What are you trying to say? Because repeatedly thinking up obscure, convaluted reasons to tell other people they are wrong is giving people the impression you haven't actually got anything to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.