i'm a nontheist, but i could totally get down with some spiritual type of religion that doesn't require the endless adoration of some old man labeled as a god.
deletedover 9 years
I did explain in my first post why I disagreed with using the term agnostic, reading comprehension is always a good skill my friend. The line "one who believes it impossible to know anything about...the creation of the universe" is a silly stance in my opinion, because it discounts actual evidence and observations that do provide information on how the universe was formed. There's no reason to even assume god is a possibility except by incorrect logic like "complex things must have creators," so having the stance that you simply don't know should automatically default to non-supernatural means anyway.
deletedover 9 years
cital, you're stupid just stop posting. Don't reply to this because you're wrong
deletedover 9 years
From the first paragraph in the wikipedia article on atheism: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
Woah, it's almost like, there's no definite way to say it is any of those in particular, and the exact scope that the word should encompass is up for debate. Atheists don't believe in or worship a god. No single person, however, can be correct in saying that there is without a doubt no god at all, because that's silly. So no, it isn't as clear as you'd like it to be.
deletedover 9 years
Atheists say there is no god, agnostics say there might be a god, or a higher power but it's impossible at the current moment to prove such existence. You, just like him are wrong, shut up.
deletedover 9 years
That's not wrong. You CAN define atheism just as he said, albeit it is more common to say it's a rejection of beliefs rather than a lack of beliefs.
I dislike the distinction made between atheism and agnosticism; virtually none of the former would say to know with 100% certainty that there is no god, as such as thing can't actually be known, even though this stance is usually credited towards agnostics rather than atheists. The atheist view is that in light of no strong evidence in favor of there being a god, and evidence in favor of the universe having originated from non-supernatural means, there's no reason to believe in a god. Yeah we can't know for certain, but you can say it's highly probable one way or another, so being an "agnostic" by saying "well we can't actually know for sure" is basically atheism with the rejection of scientific advances into the nature of the universe and probability.
yeah, i guess i should rephrase it as: man can create a god for earth and humanity, but not for the universe. but a god of humanity is virtually god to us
If God demanded you to break His law, He'd absolve you from the consequences of doing such. This throws out the excuse of "God made me do it" when facing the consequences of doing such.
Painting atheism as ration is propaganda, in the same fashion that this experiment deliberately refers to God as She.
