Atheism's Definition - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Erinome]

People who would shamelessly admit to being a young earth creationist are the most worthless and dangerous kind of xtian. They're the kind that would stifle truth if given the power, and trample upon things such as the beauty and elegant nature and reality of life, the universe, and everything.

Most dangerous to your preconceived notions about reality, most certainly.

No the most dangerous in reality, period. Why? Because they perpetuate myths that have no value in reality.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. It's impossible to know whether gods exist, so the people who believe in gods have to take a leap of faith to do so. I have seen evidence with my own eyes that the earth is much older than 6k years, and that evolution is a fact. What kind of absurd fucking idiot would I be if I denied it because it wasn't recorded that way in some shitty fucking book written by ignorant fuck sticks with an agenda? I'd be a Lucent, with hot tits, and a good brain, wasted. Thank fuck I am me.

What evidence is that?
[/quote]

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnp...earth.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOKW_7KajCU

You stand in awe that you're a space chimp? If you believed in God, your eyes would be open and you would see the truth as it really is, as opposed to how you prefer it to be. God does expect you to use your brain and not be satisified with just-so stories that masquarade themselves as science. How about you actually challenge yourself and refute the arguments in this book?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0...ition=used

I am not a chimp. Chimps are:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Subtribe: Panina
Genus: Pan

Humans are:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens

Not much difference, as you can see. In FACT, there is only 1% difference in DNA between Humans and Chimps, and everything Humans are that distinguishes us from Chimps can be found in that 1% difference in DNA.

I am not ashamed to be made of the same things that make up the stars. I am happy to know some truth about the origin of all species on earth, including myself.

If I were a chimp, I would not be ashamed. In fact, Chimps are actually quite a bit more civilized than Humans. They don't delude themselves with silly myths, for one thing. They don't tear each other's throats out because one Chimp doesn't believe the same bullshit the other believes. I think it would be fantastic to be a Chimp. Not shameful at all.

Whether you accept it or not, when you go to the doctor, your doctor got their doctor degree by studying and learning all about the biology of your species. Your doctor knows you are an animal, and that you are related to a Chimp very closely.

I haven't read that book, but it probably isn't brimming with any sort of real evidence for anything but that man, as a species, still clings to the definition of evidence that is viewing the world subjectively, and then basing their "evidence" upon things that are how they would like to see them, and not how they actually are.

I used to believe in god, Lucent. I saw no truths, just what I wanted to see. My eyes were closed, and now they are open to see the beauty of reality as backed by peer reviewed scientific facts that continue to grow and change as our perception becomes ever clearer with the passage of time, experience, and discovery. Your beliefs never change, never grow. They're stuck in the fucking bronze age. I feel very sorry for you, sir.

[frankiej]

BOOM!

[Ace Otana]

Don't forget about the human tail bone. They hate that.



http://kelltrill.files.wordpress.com/201...s2_big.jpg

[Norfolk And Chance]

You have a belief, that God doesn't exist. You've said this many times.

NO you ignorant TWAT because I'm not even arguing there is no god. No, I have a lack of belief in any deity. I reject theistic claims about "god" because they present no evidence, since they assert the deity itself cannot or will not prove its own existence to mankind demonstrably so there would be no more debate. I think the term "god" meaningless in almost every context because there is no valid coherent definition or ontology put forward. Its a nonsensical concept. Theists are all each presenting their own different gods claims with arbitrary criteria and faulty reasoning. I can easily reject them all because while it's not logically possible all theists are right, it is possible that they are all wrong.

It says nothing for whether something is true or false. It is an irrelevent detail about your psychology. The answer is either yes, no or I don't know.

Right, but we're currently talking about people's standards of evidence and the justification for accepting other's claims within an epistemic dispute. We've yet to brush upon their ascribed truth values because you *refuse* to fucking acknowledge at one rebuttal that I've offered so far. I reject your claims because you refuse to employ scientific methodologies that obtain empirical and measurable evidence subject to reasoning. You haven't presented a valid-working theory for god, merely an assertion that barely qualifies as a hypothesis. Therefore, because you fail to meet your burden of proof I remain in the default position of disbelief. Sorry you cannot accept that.

It has nothing to do with gaps. Either life and the Universe had an intelligent causation or it was the result of chance. So, the idea of God does have explanatory power. And it is not a God of the gaps when it is a better explanation for the phenomenon.

Ugh, this is pathetic and almost painful to read. Asserting god has explanatory power does not make it so. Try again next time. And next time APPLY yourself.

Apparently you have no idea what constitutes historical evidence...

I'm getting tired of reading your bullshit lucent. Since you refuse to acknowledge what I've said I'm going to disregard the inane drivel that you've just spouted out and repeat myself until it sinks in that amazingly dense cranium of yours.

We have no historical evidence of Jesus. Even with good theological scholarship we have no idea who wrote the Gospels. We have no contemporaries of the life of Jesus, at all. All you have is people who are reporting heresy. That's why when you ask your *educated* Christian friends they will remind you that you have to take the writings on Jesus' life and divinity on faith, because all you have is blind hope he was/is real.

You take quite a lot of faith, actually.

You make a lot of erroneous assumptions actually. I take nothing on faith.

Well, that's the difference betwen you and I. I believe that you're worthy of respect, and even love. I believe in treating you the way I would want to be treated. I believe that even if we disagree that you have an essential dignity that I can't ignore. So, I guess you can chop that up to different values; you don't value me, I value you. More than that, God values you, which is why I am here.

Now you're starting to piss me off. I don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Truth is you know nothing about me in real-life, at all. You're addressing me rather than your own 'argument' and failing to meet the obligation of your own damn burden of proof for your god claims and that is making this (dare I say it) "debate" even more tedious than it was before.

No it isn't. If someone called you and told you that a bomb was going to go off in your house in two minutes, would you sit there and wait it out? No, you would leave that house even though it hadn't been sufficiently proven as true.

That's asinine. Containers, vessels, objects filled with explosives, incendiary materials, smoke, gases, or other destructive substances, designed to explode via various means EXIST you pollock. Their effects are measured and the damage they cause is well understood. Even if the devices didn't exist in reality, a bomb threat is not even remotely comparable to a supernatural universe-creating god. Unlike bombs, god has not been demonstrated to exist.

Totally false.

Sorry but you're wrong. Try again without the appeal to common belief fallacy next time.

It claims that God doesn't exist. So you have no evidence that atheism is true?

You have no fucking clue what 'atheism' means. I no longer care.

Prove there's a god, or go away.

Theowaffler = OWNED.

---

Debate the facts then:

"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god") is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not"

(Academic American Encyclopedia)

Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightement, the age of reason"

(Random House Encyclopedia-1977)

Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods.

(Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995)

Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God"

(Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996)

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

(The World Book Encyclopedia-1991)

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god.

(The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967)

Atheism denies the existence of deity

(Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia-Vol I)

These are not facts, these are definitions. Definitions can be wrong, they can be unclear, facts can't.

Personally speaking, the definitions above WOULD correctly define ME, as I completely reject god.

However, no two atheists are the same, and in many cases the definitions above would not be correct. As non belief in god is not technically the same as stating "there is no god"

[reverendjeremiah]

So basically, Lucid, you are arguing that since arguments fall short for proving or disproving a god, you say that it is fine to be a theist in this situation, but atheists have to go even further to argue their postion.

That atheism is not a simple disbelief, but an active belief that a god doesnt exist.

So, in a sense, you are arguing that belief in a god is the default position? And those who disagree have to prove beyond a doubt that a god does not exist.

..and since it is impossible to confirm with 100% accuracy that a god exists or not, the atheist is doomed to fail because he cannot support his belief that a god doesnt exist.

[Ace Otana]

So basically, Lucid, you are arguing that since arguments fall short for proving or disproving a god, you say that it is fine to be a theist in this situation, but atheists have to go even further to argue their postion.

That atheism is not a simple disbelief, but an active belief that a god doesnt exist.

So, in a sense, you are arguing that belief in a god is the default position? And those who disagree have to prove beyond a doubt that a god does not exist.

..and since it is impossible to confirm with 100% accuracy that a god exists or not, the atheist is doomed to fail because he cannot support his belief that a god doesnt exist.

It almost seems like it's all been set up.
How can one disprove the non-existent after all?

[reverendjeremiah]

So basically, Lucid, you are arguing that since arguments fall short for proving or disproving a god, you say that it is fine to be a theist in this situation, but atheists have to go even further to argue their postion.

That atheism is not a simple disbelief, but an active belief that a god doesnt exist.

So, in a sense, you are arguing that belief in a god is the default position? And those who disagree have to prove beyond a doubt that a god does not exist.

..and since it is impossible to confirm with 100% accuracy that a god exists or not, the atheist is doomed to fail because he cannot support his belief that a god doesnt exist.

It almost seems like it's all been set up.
How can one disprove the non-existent after all?

Yet, at the same time, the mention of Asatru and Thor immediately invoked a mention of "Flying spaghetti monster" from Lucid.

Apparently, according to Lucid, only HIS god is the default god, and other gods are obviously not real. Or since they are no longer popular gods (with the mention of Thor), then they are not even to be considered.

Therefore, the only God that matters is the one Lucid believes in. If, say, someone steps up and starts arguing the existence of Diana, then Lucid is well in his rights to brush that deity off as obviously not important, as Diana is not winning the popularity contest with modern earth.

..but, at the same time, if Lucids arguments for his deity fall short, and in fact that ALL posible arguments for his god falls short, that in no way merits that his god may not exist, since it is impossible to prove or disprove that Lucids god exists or not.

So, arguments for Thor is not necessary and should pretty much be ignored. If they are wrong then Thor doesnt exist. If they are correct, then...possibly Satan is involved. You obviously can prove that Thor doesnt exist by saying that he is Satan, or that Thor believers are stealing arguments for Lucid's god.

Arguments from atheists can not win, because you cannot prove that Lucids god does not exist. Athiets arguments are doomed to fail.

Lucids god is the default position (out of the thousands of sects in Christianity). If his arguments fail, that does not mean that his god does not exist. Lucid's god is mysterious, and is therefore difficult to prove or disprove. Lucid's god has a punishment set up for non-believers, so it is your best bet to believe and be wrong, as opposed to disbelieve and his god punish you if he does exist.

In other words "HELL" is the biggest factor that Lucid's god is the default, as atheists take a very noticable risk of burning in Hell if they are wrong.

Am I correct Lucid?

[lucent]

No the most dangerous in reality, period. Why? Because they perpetuate myths that have no value in reality.

According to your evolutionary worldview, theists have been selected as having the most value.

http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnp...earth.html

Do you know the assumptions they make in radiometric dating?

1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter material to natural material
3. Beginning conditions known
4-5. No leaching or addition of parent material
6-7. No leaching or addition of daughter material
8. All assumptions valid for billions of years

So, for billions of years they assume there was no leaching in or out, and the decay rate stayed the same. They also assume that the beginning conditions were known. Of course there is no way that they can know any of those things. You may also not realize that when they send fossils in for dating, they send in the age they're looking for which they extrapolated from field relationships..and what they get back is a range of dates based on that data, which they then pick and choose from, discarding any dates that don't agree with their preconceived answer as anomolous. So, contrary to science, they actually start with an answer and throw away data that doesn't agree with it.

In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.

R L Mauger East Carolina University
Contributions to Geology

http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Dating-secrets.html

fishy

Tiktock has been debunked. Even the evolutionists admit it:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...07-01.html

The predictions of evolutionary theory do not match up to the facts. The fossil record is not your friend. Darwin knew this:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't match the predictions of his theory. He blamed that on a small sample size, but the fact is the situation has only gotten worse:

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

The record just completely contradicts the predictions of evolutionary theory. Consider the Cambrian Explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKMKYd0WSV0

The prediction is gradual change over time, but the finding of the Cambrian Explosion is the sudden emergence of every major body type, phyla, order, etc

The cambrian explosion occured in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time...not only the phylum Chordata (backboned, the highest order) itself, but also all its major divisions(all the major divisions of the highest order right at the beginning)..

Nature - Gould
Vol.377, 26 10/95 p.682

Not only that but you also have extreme diversity immediately:

demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they were today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver.

discover p.40 4/93

You have creatures appearing suddenly in the record, not changing at all, and leaving just as sudden. They appear in stasis.

Not much difference, as you can see. In FACT, there is only 1% difference in DNA between Humans and Chimps, and everything Humans are that distinguishes us from Chimps can be found in that 1% difference in DNA.

No, there is a 4 percent difference, which means a 120 million nucleotide difference. Meaning, over 120 million beneficial mutations are required. A tall order when not even one can be sufficiently demonstrated. Just 3 mutations can cause cistic fibrosis.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...genes.html

Common genetics also indicate a common designer. We are almost genetically identical with sheep, does that mean we're closely related?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2..._76285450/

How about these similarities?

Blood Serum...Chimpanzee
Milk Chemistry...Donkey
Cholesterol...Garter Snake
Foot Structure...Glacial Bear
Tear Enzyme...Chicken
Blood Antigen A...Butter Bean
Brain Hormone...Cockroach

Does the fact that our brain horomones is most similiar to a cockroach mean we're closely related?

If I were a chimp, I would not be ashamed. In fact, Chimps are actually quite a bit more civilized than Humans. They don't delude themselves with silly myths, for one thing. They don't tear each other's throats out because one Chimp doesn't believe the same bullshit the other believes. I think it would be fantastic to be a Chimp. Not shameful at all.

No, they just kill eachother for territory:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100621_chimps

I haven't read that book, but it probably isn't brimming with any sort of real evidence for anything but that man, as a species, still clings to the definition of evidence that is viewing the world subjectively, and then basing their "evidence" upon things that are how they would like to see them, and not how they actually are.

That's your presumption, but it is not shallow in any sense. It has challenged scientists, so you would probably find it stimulating. If you want to remain in your bubble, then just continue to read things that agree with everything you believe.

I used to believe in god, Lucent. I saw no truths, just what I wanted to see. My eyes were closed, and now they are open to see the beauty of reality as backed by peer reviewed scientific facts that continue to grow and change as our perception becomes ever clearer with the passage of time, experience, and discovery. Your beliefs never change, never grow. They're stuck in the fucking bronze age. I feel very sorry for you, sir.

Your scientism is showing. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. As I am sure I told you before, I was agnostic before becoming a Christian. I believed in evolution and everything else that you cling to now, and I was even willing to encorporate those beliefs into my faith. However, upon investigation, I found that what was taught as fact, wasn't..that there is no actual evidence for macro evolution. That it is a fairy tale that begins with "once upon a time, long long ago"

However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once....Time is in fact the hero of the plot.

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

[Norfolk And Chance]

When you die, it will go black for ever.

[reverendjeremiah]

The prediction is gradual change over time, but the finding of the Cambrian Explosion is the sudden emergence of every major body type, phyla, order, etc

Yet the cambrian explosion lasted several million years. It is an explosion in comparison to the 4.3 billion year history of Earth. A few million years compare to 4.s billion years seems to be a brief moment. But to humans, the "explosion" is not an explosion at all.

Not to mention there is NO evidence of humans as they are in that strata