Earth

[Wyrd of Gawd]

[robvalue]

Yeah. It's a series of several "something from nothing" occurrences that theists always complain is impossible.

[KevinM1]

Glare_, dude.... Why do you put up with this idiot? Putting aside the religion part of it, he has demonstrated in a pretty clear way that he's a thin skinned jerk who operates through threats and intimidation. You can do better in the friend/acquaintance department.

[Chas]

Erm... Hello to you, too, StarDrive85

Hi, you probably think of me as an idiot or a douch from what glare wrote on this post eh?

Well, if you were the one he was talking about, then yes.

[Thackerie]

I think religion and god are fake. Shouldn't you respect my opinion, also?

I respect yours because you unlike glare don't go out of your way to say that, if you just say that and drop it there then i'm not gonna fuss over it.

---

And what is it that you are specifically saying?

I'm trying to say that we read in Quran that earth was the first object to form, it would not say that in that way but it says it in another.

However it was said, it is absolutely wrong.

Fortunately, we have plenty of scientific information on the formation of the Earth, and you have ready access to it. Educate yourself and you won't have to be embarrassed for being fooled by mythology.

---

No, it's not even about you, you know? I don't know you. But I'm honestly terrified to live in a world where a large percentage of the population loses completely the grip of evidence and evidence based decision making, because that's very dangerous for us all.

Look if you'r just going to respond with aggressive things against me and my beliefs then how bout you just stop responding then? because i don't want to read this nor am i interested.

Hey, SugarButt, you're the one who barged into an atheist forum. Irrational nonsense WILL be pointed out here. If that embarrasses you to the point where you can't defend yourself, it's time for you to go bye-bye.

Edit: I see now that he has. Oh well, he was a great source of laughter while he lasted.

[Whateverist]

.. i'v grown up in a religions family so i'm never going to go against what's in that book nor do i wish to, i know its stupid from a science point of view, but hey science is not always right right?.

That's a good point. I think most of us recognize the science that reinforces what we already believe while doing our best to ignore the rest. No, that's not right. That is what theists do. Atheists just study the facts impartially the way any good Vulcan would and follow the facts wherever they lead.

[Smaug]

Naturally there are theist scientists out there but they follow a simple rule: they don't implant their beliefs into their work. I'm speaking of responsible scientists of course but not of pseudo-science freaks. Consider Isaac Newton: he had interests in religious philosophy yet he explicitly separated it from scientifically-aquired facts. Faith is not bad by itself. It helps to encompass person's aspirations and produce fundamental motives. Even atheists in fact have fundamental elements of faith (i.e. elements of irrationality) though they may not pay enaugh attention. Such elements of faith may include the faith in cognitibility of the Universe and other highly-philosophical concepts. It's sometimes hard to separate atheism, deism and agnosticism.

However, most of the problems discussed on this forum relate to the mainstream religions and the fact that their adepts are often very primitive in terms of philosophy. Even the most sophisticated apologists do no more than take other's irrational ideas for granted and defend them relentlessly.

[Alex K]

Atheists just study the facts impartially the way any good Vulcan would and follow the facts wherever they lead.

Yeah, right, in what universe

---

It's sometimes hard to separate atheism, deism and agnosticism.

I'd say that in deism, it's kind of a continuous sliding scale from abstract principle of nature to personal creator with a mind, and so it's not strictly separable in principle unless you specify what your deism does, precisely. What agnosticism means has been subject of much debate - I come down on the side of it being orthogonal to the theist-atheist spectrum, and that one can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist. To a critical thinker, gnostic=bad. Of course, this only applies to God concepts that are logically sound. I can be gnostic about there not being a God with inconsistent properties.

[robvalue]

Atheists have a kind of faith in the assumptions we must make to function, sure. The thing is, theists make the very same assumptions, whether they'd admit it or not, and then pile unecessary ones on top of that.

[StarDrive85]