by easyreader1970 32 Replies latest jw friends
"Evolution and Atheism are both theories......."
Don't read into it too much, as I am an Agnostic myself. All I meant is that Atheism means that part of your beliefs of the origin of the universe and life is that you do not believe in any God, and since it can't be proven, isn't that a theory?
And the only reason I say I'm Agnostic and not Atheist is for this reason. If I cannot disprove God, there's a "chance" there is one, of some kind, and therefore I am Agnostic.
Hi robert. Fairies cannot be disproven either. Do you believe in them? An atheist keeps an open mind about 'god' what ever he/she/it might be. Might there be a 'god'? Sure, but an atheist doesnt believe it until it is proven.
Saying you dont believe in something does not discount the possibility that your disbelief is incorrect. Only that at the moment there is not the required proof for you to belief it is true.
It sounds to me that you are an atheist but dont understand what an atheist is.
Atheist: I dont/cant know but I dont believe so at this time.
Agnostic: I dont/cant know but cant be bothered with expressing a belief or disbelief.
I quite possibly am a closet Atheist :)
The evolution of science and knowledge of the world we live in is continually expanding as more knowledge is gained progressively,
less of the unknown is being explained and revealed. This puzzle of a thousand pieces are being carefully put in place.
Its inherently responsible on part of are human intelligence to accept these new discoveries as well as to accept the unknowns that
science as yet to explain.
As science and technology is quickly revealing yesterday's unknowns we can expect the riddle of all to be known to be soon in are hands.
Certainly now we can set aside the stories and words of primitive men in their explanation of the worlds existence of ourselves
and acknowledging their inherited ignorance of their time and place in history.
To not accept and acknowledge that is both dishonest and harmful to are own very existence to day.
Robert7: "I guess only in that "knowing there is no god" is just as unprovable as 'Knowing there is a god'."
That's what gets a lot of us atheists in trouble. Atheism is not a "belief" or a "knowing" that there is no God. It's a lack of belief in the idea of God. It might seem like I'm just playing with words, but it is an important distinction.
If I "believe there is no God," it implies that I have faith in a concept, just as Christians have faith in their concepts, and can be attacked as such -- hence the many statements by Christians about the atheist's "belief," "faith," "lifestyles," "doctrines."
When it comes to the subject of the existence of God, atheists don't have beliefs, faith, lifestyles (I never understood that one), or doctrines. They simply do not believe in the existence of God, based on the lack of empirical evidence.
If I "believe there is no God," it implies that I have faith in a concept...
Exactly. That's why it's silly to claim that Atheists claim to "know" or "believe" that there is no god.
They simply are unconvinced that there IS a god. They do not see reason enough to believe in god, or fairies.
Atheism is simply the logical default position even if there is no evidence either way.
(which for the record, I think there IS evidence against, at very least, a loving and interested god)
[inkling]
Atheist construct their beliefs of how what and why off the evidence of physical matter and are known place in natural law.
Natural law is and always will be the God of the universe.
Modern knowledge and understanding of the world we live in, easily overwhelms ancient understanding and knowledge of very long ago.
The difference between atheism or not is the acquiring and acceptance of that knowledge as unbridled truth.
The gods never really existed but human ignorance most certainly did.
Atheism is simply the logical default position even if there is no evidence either way.
(which for the record, I think there IS evidence against, at very least, a loving and interested god)
I should also add that I understand that some people DO see enough evidence to convince them
away from the default position, and those people are theists of various sorts. This is fine. I see
things they point to and remain unconvinced, but I can understand if they feel convinced.
However, these are often the same people that argue against Atheism by saying "you can't
prove it one way or the other".
This may be true, but the fact is that in the absence of proof, it is our intellectual
responsibility to side with the most compelling evidence, whatever we see that as being.
What I am saying is that "you can't prove either way" is a really lame argument, because
it is only true in two cases- one, there is no evidence whatsoever, or two, the evidence
is exactly evenly stacked on both sides.
In either case, I would suggest that Atheism is the reasonable default position.
The only reasonable argument against Atheism must be in the form of "this is the evidence
FOR the existence of a god."
Anything else is just helping the case for Atheism.
easy rider....why does it matter?......why not just let it go as an unknown thing in your life?......do you want a lable????............oompa
for me, evoloution is fine, but only if a creator started it and had some control or plan for it.......the universe is just too amazing for me to believe it was all chance......but as for any plans this creator had or has........i have no clue.....
