Do you believe in "GOD" ,and the "Great" beyond ?

Any logical and rational person will realize that there are so many holes in the evolutionary theory that in its countless forms there is always something hidden away that proves its untruth. The tip of a thread frayed can unravel the whole thing, eventually ruining an entire knot.

There is no evidence pointing towards many things in this world. The only way to explain life is that there is something unexplainable. For example, what created the universe? Nothing in that regard can be proved or disproved, as there is no way to do so. To use the elementary example, spontanious generation was believed for decades if not centuries because of immense scientific data. Anything we prove to be true has the potential to be disproved.

And I don't use God as an excuse, a fallback, or anything else. He has nothing to do with my life. I will accept that he exists, respect him, and leave him alone. If God has any sense he'll stay away from Earth. If I have any sense, I'll stay away from him. That's my logic. I'm not religious or spiritual, I just believe that there is something intelligent out there that we cannot explain. That itself explains everything.


There are two things I hate in the world. First is religious nuts who fervorently believe in a ridiculous religion and live their lives all according to those rules. Second is scientific nuts who are too ignorant to see that human error has never been eliminated. If you run a tornado through a junkyard a million times and it doesn't make a car, you cannot declare that it is physically impossible for that to happen.

Then we're not even talking about religion, we're just talking about your own little personal belief in an omnipotent creator. So I wouldn't call that "God".

[/img]

Because 90% of all scientists in the civilized world are all irrational people. Those "holes" you are referring to are about as many holes as there are in the "gravity theory", that wrong too? "Untruth" so why do the vast majority of all scientists still cling to this backwards theory? Scientists aren't usually the type to stick with outdated and incorrect information. I normally don't reply to this kind of thing, but as an aspiring Biologist, I feel compelled to make discussion.

It's about religion alright, but not only about monotheistic, abrahamic religions. Religion is not only the major ones, everything from Christianity to Scientology to those small, shamanic cults in Siberia are religion.

Also, I never claimed that I believe in any omnipotent creator. In fact, I don't. I just pointed out how ignorant you were for claiming that God doesn't exist when you have absolutely no proof of it. Personally I want to believe that there is a God somewhere, but with no proof of it I can't. I refer to my and Rbz's discussion about agnosticism a few pages back in the thread.

And me being more of an agnostic-theist I agree with that, but as I said in my last, and in my original post, I believe that the universe is to complex to be created by chance.

And you don't believe in an omnipotent creator? It seems to me you're an agnostic-theist.

Evidently I read the incorrectly.

Something that never sat well with me. But, by that dude's definition of atheism, he won't be willing to attach the label of atheist to himself.

^True that, I'd never put the atheist label on me, since those narrow-minded atheists are just as bad as the narrow-minded religious fundamentalists.

And no, I don't believe in any kind omnipotent God. I don't believe that if there is a higher power that he even knows that mankind exists, or that he cares. "the universe is to complex to be created by chance" is pretty much as far as my thoughts on God goes, I don't believe that God has, or are able, to have any impact on my personal life. Thus, I don't believe he is omnipotent. I'll just hope that you'll see what I mean.

Something I agree with. Being narrow-minded is really the most irritating thing in an intellectual exchange. You may stick to your beliefs, but if your enemy has a point, you have to give in to that. I may be a theist, but I hate bible-hugging fundamentalist Christians who don't accept scientific fact more than atheist. Sometimes its the atheist I encounter that asks the question that makes me think of an answer, and that search for the truth makes me feel closer to the God I believe in.

Just making a point here. Don't mind me, proceed with the shit-storm.

Atheism just means you don't think there's a supernatural dimension. How is that being narrow-minded? Why do we even need the word atheist?

I'll just hope that you'll see what I mean.

I see what you mean. That doesn't mean it makes sense, however.

No, atheism means that you reject the idea of a possible supernatural dimension, there's a huge difference. They claim that there is proof that there is no "Higher Being". And alright, all atheists aren't narrow-minded, neither are all theists. But there's at least as many atheist claiming that the nonexistences of God is the "truth" as there are theists claiming the opposite. These fundamentalists are narrow-minded. Claiming that you're right in a discussion about something that has no right or wrong, and refusing to look in perspective makes you narrow-minded

That's utter bullshit. I have never met an atheist who claimed that there is evidence supporting god's nonexistance. Are you seriously telling me you know of people who say that atheism is the "truth"? It isn't anything to begin with! When people say there isn't a god, it's because the possibility is so diminishingly small that it's entirely negligible. That's not the same as claiming there's evidence supporting the notion. It's like if I were to say my mother's not a serial killer and you call me out on it for not producing any evidence.

Well, we have the discussion with NeoStriker here to start with, the discussion started with
And then he proceeded with how Epicurus Statement was scientific proof that God don't exist and some BS. And yes, I know a bunch of people who argue along the same lines.


Yeah, but that's not really "atheism" by the word, I quote EB:

the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

Thus, atheism should not be confused with agnosticism. However you can be agnostic-atheistic and not believe that there is any God, but not claim that it is the truth. Even if I see what you mean and realize that most people wouldn't care if they were agnostic-atheistic or purely atheistic. Still now I was going by on extremities, about those fanatical atheists who claim that it is the truth, versus the fanatical religious people that claim that they are right. So it's my bad.

No, because this is something that actually can be proved. It's not the same thing.

Umm sorry but Evolution is a fact, it happens PERIOD.

Maybe you need to educate yourself in the many areas of science.
And sure there are many things we do not know and that is what is great about life.
We use science to figure out the unknown.
Just because we don't know something yet doesn't mean you can just make up any BS and claim it has any truth.





No Atheism is just the non-belief in a god/gods or deity.

It assumes nothing else.

There can be Atheists who still have a religion or Atheist who don't have a religion.
There can be Atheists who believe in ghosts and Atheists who don't.
There can be Atheists who reject evolution and Atheists who don't.


The only thing we Atheists share in common is our non-belief in a god/gods or deity.

What your are talking about when you say there are people who say they have knowledge to prove god doesn't exist is different.

Those are Gnostic Atheists.


I am a Agnostic Atheist.

Here's what Oxford English Dictionary has to say about atheism

atheism

/aythi-iz’m/

†¢ noun the belief that God does not exist.

— DERIVATIVES atheist noun atheistic adjective atheistical adjective.

— ORIGIN from Greek a- †˜without’ + theos †˜god’.

It really isn't so convoluted that it needs to go into further specifics than this, does it?

/facedesk

It isn't a belief, but a lack of it; that is,


No matter what authority any of you pull out, the definition that might have once been used no longer reflects modern day atheism. Like any other thing humans come up with, popular usage changes what once was.

Still what the dictionary says... not me. I emphasized this because, even a lack of belief is still technically a belief; an opinion, perspective.

I should mention I'm not a theist trying to argue for the other team.

Yes everything said in the dictionary is ALL TRUE