Finally. We agree. I'm glad to see you made it this far. Now, answer us all the question that's burning us up: who is luke and why did you change your screen name to indicate that you lick him?
So you're saying that no matter what the fantasy is, we should automatically be agnostic about it simply because it can't be proven either way? I go about my life as if there is no god, I don't believe in god. I think that is the way most atheists are. Some atheists go an extra step and say there is no god at all.
So you do agree that: Only those that support the claim that the universe is without God can be considered an atheist by intention of original definition. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58531 http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58533
You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that because we don't know something, it's okay to invent whatever fiction or mythology will provide a suitable answer and then say this is "truth." Utter poppycock. Science came from religion. Science says that even a half truth is better than no truth, which means you come up with a theory of hypothesis, such as the big bang theory, the unified field theory, quantum theory, or the theory of relativity, and then you continue to test these theories until they break and another better theory is invented, but it's still part of the discipline of science to attempt to answer the unanswered, and this is the same drive that came originally from religion. Why became how. I say you are completely and utterly wrong and that by using the god cop-out, it is the theist that "limits" himself. What reason, then, is there to look for answers if you can say god did it or the tooth fairy took the tooth; or the sandman made you sleepy; or coyote tricked you; etc.? The athiest never will ask why, and will only ask how, so the athiest is limited by the fact that the athiest isn't even attempting to ask certain questions. Example, if we assume there is a God, then we can discuss how to create a universe, and how to create lifeforms. How would an athiest come to these questions without myths? It's not like we have the technology today to even pretend to ask some of these questions, but the creation myths predicted some of the science we have now, like genetics, and space travel, and solar energy. Newton believed in God, Einstien too, Bohm too. By not falling into the superstitious nonsense of religious cults like christianity and islam, I'm able to go on observing the universe around me and to be in complete awe at what I see. You assume every religion is based on superstition. Some religions are based completely on science, such as, STRING THEORY! Such as, BIG BANG THEORY. Many people believe in these two theories and unless you can prove them wrong with science, and if they are ever proven right, you'll have to deal with the new scientific religions that are forming based on the backing of scientific discovery. I don't need whatever the in-vogue god is of the day to make my life any more complete than it already is. Nor do I need to have some superstition in my life in order to find a reason to live or something to "aim for." And, anyone that does is a truly pathetic excuse for a human. Exactly, you don't, but then you are disconnected from the universe itself also because if you don't realize that your body is not real, it's just a bunch of atoms, and you are essentially a biological machine, well, okay, who built you and what is your purpose? Even an android on Star Trek would ask this question. Even if you discover you created yourself, don't you want to know who you are? Or are you satisfied being a machine? Be a robot if you want to.
No, your life is a pinball machine, money is your god, and you'll worship it. You go to work, you worship your boss too. So while you may not have the same God, you cannot say anyone lives their life as if there is no God, because there is always a higher power, even if it's the power of nature itself. Nature has laws, and even tribal people worshipped nature. Even if you don't worship. In order to have any stable believe, you need faith. God provides stability, because without it, how do you know any of this is real, how do you know your body is anything more than a mechanical machine? How do athiests see themselves?
Now you are defining God in a very scripted strict definition. God, is simply the creative force of existance. Egyptians called this force Heka. This force is responsible for fertility. This force is also responsible for the big bang. From the infinite energy of nothingness came everything. Nothing can become everything, everything cannot become nothing, because you cannot uncreate. Energy once created, exists forever, just like light exists forever, and sound, because these are simply waves of energy in different forms. You can turn the energy of an atomic bomb into soundwaves, microwaves, or light, you then can slow light down by freezing it, or speed light up, and you can do the same with sound, all using your creative brain energy. http://www.kemet.org/glossary/heka.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heka_(god)
Ah... see, we're back to square one. Atheism isn't about a claim. Its 'without' one. Not accepting the claim that your god is real isn't the same as claiming there are is no God. The god claim is that of the superstitious. The burden of proof is theirs. But I'm curious. If those that simply chose not to believe in gods -who are without gods- aren't atheists, what are they? If they don't assert the claim that the universe is godless, but simply see no reason to accept the initial claim that your god is anything beyond silly superstition, are they not atheist?
Are you sentient? You are attempting to define God in a very narrow way, perhaps because you cannot grasp the fact that the concept of God is the basis of self awareness.
Science is agnostic. How someone lives their life is their choice. That's their choice, but there is no proof that I can see. I don't go around saying 'there is no giant invisible teapot orbiting the sun'. If somebody were to ask me, I'd say it seems unlikely, but I can't prove anything...
That is irrelevant. This is the point: Theist: God does exist. Atheist: God does not exist. This is the very definition of atheism. Agree or disagree.
And I'm being accused of semantics? If the universe wasn't designed and created by intelligence then the universe is without 'god'. It's really that simple.
Back to what? This is the whole point of the thread. Atheism has nothing to do with accepting or not accepting a claim. It is a position as stated.
Or: Theist: there is a god Atheist: its your claim; prove it then maybe I'll accept it. There need not be a counter-claim, though I readily agree (and always have) that there are atheists who fit your definition. That just doesn't happen to be me or most of the atheists I know.
But what if the thiest believes God is existance? Instead you should ask me if God is real or not. I'd say the thiest believes God is real, and the Athiest believes God is fake.
Atheism may be a position for some. But for most of the atheists I know, including myself, it means not willing to accept the claim that there is a god. If you show me sufficient evidence, I'll revise that statement and accept your god. Until then, what do you call the person who doesn't accept your claim (that there is a god) without evidence?
