jump to last post 1-36 of 36 discussions (367 posts)

Is atheism a belief or a non-belief?

  1. 60
    augustine72posted 4 years ago

    Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?

    1. kess profile image59
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I can also say it as ;
      God is naught or naught is God.
      It's merely a matter of words and nothing more.

      Finally  it all boils down to the mindset one employ in approach to this life.

      Thus ultimately determine whether it's unbelief or belief.

      You can see either way one goes or even if he was to create other pairs of his own choosing it eventually boils down to the negative mindset which ultimately is the negative (unbelief).

    2. aka-dj profile image80
      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Either way, it's just another form of delusion!

      1. denkmuskel profile image79
        denkmuskelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you referring to atheism??? Sorry, if there was something to perceive that atheists do not you might be right. But as there isn't any sign of "Him" or any colleague I don't think they are.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You're heart is beating aint it?

          Sign number one.

          smile

    3. 0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A belief in the non-existence of God.  It doesn't even make any sense to me to say that you have a non-belief in something.  What exactly is a "non-belief?"  It's simply a belief that the thing in question doesn't exist.

      I have a non-belief in fairies and trolls.  See how weird this sounds?  I have a belief in their non-existence, aka I believe they do not exist.  Atheism makes the positive claim that God does not exist.

      Atheists who claim "I lack belief in the existence of a God" means they have a belief that God does not exist.  It's just playing a word game.  Or, if atheism is a "non-belief" in the existence of God, meaning there are no beliefs one way or the other about God at all, then agnosticism is the better alternative, since the individual would not have beliefs about God one way or the other.

      Either way, the first answer doesn't help the atheist.

      P.S. I'm as close to being an atheist as an individual can be without being one.  My hubs will show this.

      1. 60
        augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Now that is logical. But I wonder how many atheists will accept this.

      2. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ...Yet, everybody believes in something, no matter what that "something" is, unless, of course, you really are on hallucinogenics - as if a person was, anything is up for grabs, if ya will...

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is true.

    4. FlowOfThought profile image61
      FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. It is impossible to believe in the non existence of something. End of story.

    5. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is a'lo'ism non-belief in the existence of Lo or belief in the non-existence of Lo?

      PS: Lo is Jupiter's moon.

      1. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Both.

        Aloists in the former category would state: "I don't believe in the existence of Lo."

        Aloists in the latter category would state: "I believe that Lo doesn't exist."

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Irrespective of their beliefs Lo exists(or don't exist)!!
          Ps: Belief is the confidence we have, that a given statement is true!

          1. 0
            Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is actually the point of the first formulation: "I don't believe in the existence of Lo."

            When I am saying, essentially, "I do not accept as true the existence of Lo" I am not precluding the possibility of Lo's existence.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Precisely.
              So when somebody say they believe or not believe in god what they are saying in effect is that they don't believe or not believe that statement.
              Lo exists, whether I trust the scientists or not.
              Similarly god exist or not exist based on the reasoning, people who believe or not believe is just putting their trust on another people instead of using reasoning/critical thinking.

    6. MichaelGallinger profile image61
      MichaelGallingerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From what I think, its a belief in the non-existence of God

    7. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      99% of all self proclaimed atheists that I have met (including myself) define themselves as an atheist simply because they lack belief in a god.

      As do I, most of these atheists claim to be agnostic. It is rare to find an atheist who claims adomantly that there is no god. It happens, but they are in the minority. Gnosticism is not a logical position when on the topic of a god since neither way can be demonstrated to be true.

    8. edmob1 profile image61
      edmob1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is my understanding that Atheism is a rejection of the belief system. A Theism is a belief in something.

  2. 0
    ctbrown7posted 4 years ago

    It's neither.  Atheism is actually called denial.

    1. 0
      Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The OED2 partially agrees with you:

      "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God."

      Here are the definitions from the more relevant Princeton lexical database (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn):

      the doctrine or belief that there is no God

      a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

      1. denkmuskel profile image79
        denkmuskelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How about theists are in denial of the non-existence of a god?

  3. 0
    Chasukposted 4 years ago

    Really, it depends on the atheist. For me, it's the former. Some atheists subscribe to a more positive formulation, often referred to as "strong" atheism.

  4. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    This question comes up a lot. I'm curious why. As Chasuk said, it depends on the individual. Just as the religious individual has unique reasons for thinking as they do.

    I realize the religious would like to put it into a pretty package so they could fine tune a sales pitch, but I don't think that is going to happen.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Beautifully put.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Switch a couple words around, and you'll define science...

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          True. Switch a couple of words around and that applies to any way of thinking another group refuses to try to understand.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I dislike "refuses" but "thinking" is always nice.  big_smile

  5. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    The choice is in the mind of the person asking the question - I have no thoughts about what I might call myself because I don't believe in fairy stories. 

    I guess the person asking would believe in a god or they not be asking such stupid questions in the first place.

  6. mischeviousme profile image61
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

    Again...

    Nihilism is non-belief or a belief in nothing.

    Atheism is the rejection theological doctrines and or precepts.

    Theism is the absolute immersion into a doctrine, belief or religious sect.

    These are my definitions, if one doesn't agree, they should read a dictionary.

  7. 60
    augustine72posted 4 years ago

    I agree with kess. "It's merely a matter of words and nothing more."

    Why so much of disagreement on the meaning of atheism? If I were to aask a simple question "Does God exist?" what would an atheist answer? He would say "No". So does he not believe that God does not exist?

    1. mischeviousme profile image61
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The atheist answer would generally be "I don't know", stop putting words into the mouths of others. I'm not an atheist, but I really can't say that God exists either. I believe it is a conceptual, context thing and has nothing to with anything truly pertinent....

    2. pedrog profile image14
      pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, i guess the answer must be a question, "What god?", "What are the characteristics of this god?", after assessing the characteristics of that god one can make a decision.

      Imagine someone says his god is one particular mug, if i can see the mug and the persons around me can review and confirm my observation i have no reason to doubt that god, but if the person makes claims that the mug has some supernatural powers, well, i guess i have to remain skeptic until proof is shown.

  8. 60
    augustine72posted 4 years ago

    "The atheist answer would generally be 'I don't know'"

    Sorry but that is Agnosticism.

    1. mischeviousme profile image61
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are atheists bent on the idea, but they are not the majority. The assumption that they are strictly biased to God, is a judgement made with a great general overtone. My brother hangs out with an atheist community and I never heard them say no to that question. The only answer I've really ever gotten was "I really can't say".

    2. pedrog profile image14
      pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Atheism and agnosticism doesn't exclude one another, probably the great majority, like 95%, of atheists are agnostics:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The atheist is an "agnostic atheist" when they don't want to be an atheist but feel that the burden of proof to think otherwise, just isn't there...  A lot of "strong atheists" despise religion so much that they can't even see straight on the matter and refuse anything with the word "God" in it.

        I see what some of y'all are saying, but I really wished things would have just stayed "theist, agnostic or atheist."  I mean, why have so many additional titles?  I just don't understand...

        Oh, and yes, atheism is a belief whether they admit it or not...

        1. pedrog profile image14
          pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, the burden of proof is always in the one who makes the claim.

          Well, i despise religions and i reject all the claims in the supernatural or paranormal, of course i will change my mind if proof is given, but i suspect i will die before that happens.

          There are many additional titles because there are many different persons...

          I can understand that religious people have a narrow mindset, and they always tend to see all things as "beliefs", it is particularly difficult to argue with this kind of people, they simple don't follow the rules and don't accept facts, because it's their "belief", atheism is a belief in the same way not believing in Santa Claus is a belief, atheism is a belief in the same way not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief, but i think when someone speaks in belief it is related with faith, well, atheism has nothing to do with faith!

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            OMG!  You just related the mysteries of life and the creation of the cosmos with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!  Talk about being lame...  roll

            1. pedrog profile image14
              pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are not being fair, i related the belief in gods with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ...And your point is?

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You made it look like what is really was..

                  That's not fair to make them be truthful about the relationship...

                  smile

                2. pedrog profile image14
                  pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My point is that you were being dishonest, because i said nothing about the mysteries of life or the beginning of the universe...

                  I just compared the belief in gods with the belief in any other fairy tail, there is no difference between them...

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So, the Tooth Fairy shines such light?  LOL!

          2. 60
            augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Sure, the burden of proof is always in the one who makes the claim."

            Atheists are also making claims so this applies to you also.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image76
              Eaglekiwiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Good answer, but I am sure Atheists claim they have facts on their side.

              Hmmm.... they cant mean Science ,because even Christians believe in  Science (it defines Gods creation)...unless non-believers have figured out how to create something from nothing?

              (No, the dirt was already created) so you gotta start from scratch...

              Hmmm now about those facts?

              1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I wish that people would stop bringing the arguments to threads that have nothing to do with them.

                The Church blocked science, in fact in informed people that the world was flat and always would be. Even though long before Jesus, one of the great philosophers stated that it was round. Then, after the Church and Jesus, others began to make such claims and were called heretics and all their works were burned. Yet Christians believe in science? You expect me to believe that? I tell you what, I'll believe it when Christians can figure out the difference between fact and theory.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, Gawd...  I suppose you believe in the "theory of evolution," as well?  If so, get help, soon...

                2. 60
                  augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You bring up old stories of ignorant Church. It has been recorded in the Bible in a book that was written atleast 2000 BC that the earth is round. Some in the RC church ignorant of the Bible taught that the earth was flat. They wanted the control and that is why they taught the lies and even blocked science. But that is a different story. I though I will just put that in.

            2. pedrog profile image14
              pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What claim is being made in atheism?

              1. 60
                augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They claim that A God does not exist.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The claim is "god exists". Unless you can State what this 'god' thing is and explain rationally its presence, "there is nothing called God", is the default, not a positive claim. The onus on 'Proving' falls on the one who makes the positive claim.

                  1. 60
                    augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That 'there is nothing called God', is the default," is your claim. That it is the default is your claim.

  9. ackman1465 profile image60
    ackman1465posted 4 years ago

    I would liken this (question) to THIS question:  Is there such a "thing" as darkness? ... or is it (darkness) simply the absence of light?

    1. 60
      augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How is it similar? Could you explain?

      1. ackman1465 profile image60
        ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, augustine.... I won't bite for that.  My submittal should be self-explanatory... and if you don't see that, then I can't drill it in to your head any other way....

        1. 60
          augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Alright you would like to play it safe. I am fine with that. Let us see.

          Yes darkness is the absence of light. I agree. But when there is absence of light in a room there is presence of something. What is present is not a thing, however we still call whatever is present there "darkness".

          Another angle to it. What is light anyway? It is not a thing either!

          1. ackman1465 profile image60
            ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We agree.... some "things" aren't "things" after all.... only the consequences of "not (something else)"....   light/darkness, quenched/thirsty, white/black, sexuality/chastity.... .the list is extensive... and makes a fun "thinking game" to come up with others...

            "What is light, anyway?" is a great question.... and better minds that your's (maybe) and mine (certainly) have struggled with that "concept" for decades....  Remember "the ether?"   "We" couldn't get our hands around a "vacuum."

            1. 0
              Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Except that light _is_ a "thing," at least in the sense that it is capable of affecting unarguably existent things. It exerts pressure. It refracts. It has a measurable wavelength.

              1. ackman1465 profile image60
                ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think you are chipping at the edges of just the dilemma that I am referring to.... Is light a particle (photon) or a wave (only motion of other "things")?

                If you substitute "heat" for light and "cold" for darkness, don't you end up with a similar dilemma?

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What dilemma?  Do you live on Pluto?

                  1. ackman1465 profile image60
                    ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The "dilemma" is seeing/touching/knowing about something tangible, versus using a noun ("cold" or "darkness" ) for something that is intangible but which, in our lexicon, we speak of as if if WERE "something"......

    2. 60
      grandslamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dan,
      When you read your email you will see that darkness is the absence of ight as explained by A Einstein.

  10. scottcgruber profile image92
    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago

    All believers are also atheists, by definition. (Except UUs, perhaps.). To believe in Jehovah/YHWH, you must non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus. To believe in Odin, you must disbelieve in Shiva or Jehovah.

    Atheists just go one god further.

    1. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This is probably the best response to atheism I have seen on HubPages.
      Spot on, Scott.

      James

      1. scottcgruber profile image92
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks! I can't take credit, though - I heard it from Richard Dawkins...

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe I should mention I'm not surprized.

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image84
        ceciliabeltranposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        JAMES! how are you?

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Holy crap!  I'm not James, but how are you?
          I haven't talked to you in ages, it seems.  Yeah, remember me?  I'm the diverse being from the spaceship...  big_smile

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Shhhh!

            What is wrong with you?

            You want to be stuck here on earth like they did our fellow beings on saturn??

            Don't make me transport over there!

            Geeshhh... The humans are rubbing off on you....



            smile

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You say, "Geeshhh... The humans are rubbing off on you...."

              Well, why is it that the ones doing the "rubbing off" are not doing it right?
              I do have standards, ya know?  lol

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol lol

                What do you expect from something that thinks they advance without innovative design? They think they "generate" and "degenerate" both without any effort.. lol Maybe they'll figure out they are seperate processes one day.

                They are worse than space worms.

                smile

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yikes!  That's all I need right now, is galactic STDs!

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol lol

                    lol lol lol

                    Well.. some galatic STD's aren't so bad I hear..

                    If you don't mind an extra member.

                    wink

        2. jacharless profile image82
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          OMG! How are YOU?! L o n g time. Much to discuss...

    2. 60
      augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You said "to believe in Jehovah/YHWH, you must non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus." So that also means to non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus I must believe in Jehovah or someone else. So atheist also believes something to non-believe in God. Right?

      1. 0
        Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The account of atheism that Dawkins originated and scottcgruber shared is clever, but it is wrong. First, it is only applicable if one assumes monotheism. A monotheist -- a believer in one God -- automatically excludes belief in Quetzalcoatl (and all other Gods) by believing in Odin. An atheist believes in no gods. One cannot believe in one god only and no gods simultaneously.

        1. 60
          augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes you are logical

  11. sdvsnnxd profile image61
    sdvsnnxdposted 4 years ago

    Atheism is only a point of view, I am afraid, can not be regarded as a kind of belief.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You don't believe in your "points of view?"  They sell hallucinogenics, just down the road, eh?

    2. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So "believing" in evolution doesn't make it your "belief"???

      Am I missing something here? lol..

      1. FlowOfThought profile image61
        FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" there is a difference between, the bible says God exists, the evidence says that evolution is correct.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL..

          You must not know yet.. Let me help.

          Evolution is a "theory"

          Has no answer for the beginning of life, and missing links without number..

          They have less evidence than creationists have and draw lots of cartoons. It's called a sustaining circle.

          Please explain how the evidence says it is correct?

          Because it is impossible to do so.

          Need to do some more homework first next time.

          smile

          1. FlowOfThought profile image61
            FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You need to do your research, there are mountains of physical evidence proving evolution, and beyond the "bible says so" or I don't understand therefore "magic" arguments creationism has no legs to stand on.

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I know more than you about evolution I assure you, I don't back something I do not have full knowledge of.  I know its a theory, but so is gravity.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Come on down and show me then...  I have a "Hub" about it, as well...

              2. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Explanation of the the first replicating cell and it's origin then please.

                And you have no clue what I know so you are very bold to say you know more.

                Please provide your proof now. If there are indeed mountains of proof for the first cell.

                smile

          2. scottsalot profile image60
            scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Scientific theory is different than someones' "theory" of something. It's scientific theory, which is based on facts. If one puts the musical notes c,e,and g together, it becomes a "C" chord. That is a fact. Yet the procedure is called "music theory".

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It is actually "cosmic poetry," blah, blah!  lol

            2. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It still lacks foundation.

              The most important fact is how something 'begins'..

              You can't build something, on nothing..

              All the facts mean nothing if the "nothing" they built them on turns out to be "something"...

              Think?

              smile

              1. scottsalot profile image60
                scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That's pretty deep. But you're assuming that some one, or entity, needs to start something. Can't something just "happen"? Like the big bang (theory)?

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol..

                  That's my point man.

                  Does anything "just happen" or do we always find something "caused" the "effect"?

                  Of course we do. Wind causes waves. They don't just happen.

                  The sun produces light. It just happen? No, it's a chemical process called nuclear fusion emiting light.

                  When ripples form on top of a pond, even though you can't see what caused it, does that mean it just happened? No, the indirect evidence you see on the surface is the result of something below the surface called a fish. We know fish exist so we know what causes large ripples most of the time.

                  Now if everything else works this way, why do athiests think it's so intelligent to assume something "just happened" when that sounds like something a child tells it's mother?

                  There is nothing in the known existence of the universe that doesn't have a "cause" and they think it's any different with the universe itself?

                  I've been doing this a long time with non-believers and the longer I do it the more obvious it is to me God is real and the Bible is true.

                  They can't get past judging the people God used to write His Word to even consider it. If they don't review it in it's entirety and pick it apart, OF COURSE they aren't going to see anything in it.. lol

                  And yes, the Bang Theory is accepted by me.. If God created the Heavens and the Earth [universe] in 6 days, the explosion of activity would probably be immense.

                  Evolution and millions of years though? No way.

                  Volcanos, melting ice, climate changes.. Every time I see some secular scientists studying the earth I hear the SAME THING..

                  "The changes are much faster than we thought."

                  "Our estimates were no where near this large."

                  "Such massive changes over short time. It's unlike anything we've ever seen."

                  I nearly died laughing yesterday. I couldn't stop laughing with all their baffled expressions.. lol

                  If they weren't looking into a billion year pit they would quit being so baffled about large rapid changes.

                  Supposedly, as I haven't looked into it in a while [ I debate, then stop for awhile.. repeat ], they found a leg bone of a dino with MARROW in it still..

                  That puts evolution in it's grave forever......

                  I'll look for it too. If you are genuinely interested.

                  Just ask if you want it and I'll look again, cuz I aint searching for nothing.

                  smile

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Which means that the bones formed a protective covering over the marrow just like amber covered fossilized insects.  You might want to add that Woolly Mammoths have been found with the entire carcass preserved enough to eat.  Just saying.

                    You have your theories... based on a religious book and others have their theories based on scientific data.

                  2. scottsalot profile image60
                    scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This is contentious on so many levels. God used people to write his word, yet some of the books didn't make the cut; they was chosen by emperor Constantine, who identified Christianity as the perfect method of control. So, were those books sub-standard? If they were God's word, how could that be?

                    And science has proven carbon dating to be accurate. I concede that science is ever changing/improving, but that's what makes it flexible. Beliefs tend to be rigid.

                  3. scottsalot profile image60
                    scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Also, if I understand your line of reason, everything had to start somewhere. I submit this to you: when did God start? If your answer is he/she was always there, why would it be so hard to believe that everything else hasn't always been there? According to Krishna, there was never a time you didn't exist, and there will never be a time when you don't (channeling George Harrison).

  12. peanutroaster profile image79
    peanutroasterposted 4 years ago
    1. pedrog profile image14
      pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In a shitty Youtube video, wise words:

      "Rationality is always better than relig‭ion.
      Ideas are always preferable to beliefs.
      Conclusions are always worth more than dogmas."

  13. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x221/martyhoff/EvolutionvsCreationism.jpg

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      E=MC2 doesn't equal evolution, dear challenged one!  LOL!

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He believes cartoon pretenses = reality

        And he isn't going to get that Insane lol...

        btw, getitrite... get it right... it's a theory, unproven, and with no foundation, and countless problems.

        You complain about people believing in something without understanding, yet you don't have a clue about the details of what you're pushing.

        smile

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ah, that would explain all of his depictions and pictorial posts then...  lol

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe this is what he is trying to say..

            http://mccainvrsobama.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/atheism.jpg

          2. ackman1465 profile image60
            ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            vector, Insane:  Please look at peanutroaster's reference.  Look at it.... Then, after you've viewed it, tell me just WHAT do you have as "evidence" that Creation took place?????

            For purposes of this question, you should NOT consider that you may cite a book which was written some 200-400 years after the events, claimed therein, took place.... you MUST offer SCIENTIFIC proof of what you claim.

            "Scientific" is NOT allowed to be defined as "at odds with religious teachings" but MUST be accepted as "the scheme by which hypotheses are shown ("proven") to be accurate ("correct") because they can be seen, measured and verified....  AND that verification can be duplicated....

            P.S.  I'm STILL waiting for Jesus Christ to show his face in my neighborhood!!!!!

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Have ya looked at the sun yet?  LOL!

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe he doesn't know that the sun ins't a fire ball but a nuclear fusion power plant.

                I wonder how it got there?

                Oh yeah, from nothing.

                smile

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wouldn't consider gigatons of hydrogen to be "nothing"....

                  If you have ever seen a ball fall to the ground, you know about gravity.  It works on hydrogen, too, bringing it together to form a large ball of gas.  Being the simplest element possible there is a LOT of hydrogen in the universe.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, but the "theory" of evo says the universe exploded from "nothing"

                    All those gases came from somewhere. I understand how the sphere of gas works.

                    How the universe came into being and its cause is what I was aiming at indirectly.

                    smile

        2. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          OK!  Since you two mental giants are so awesome, I think we should cancel science, and all believe in magic.           

          http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u377/sophiesie/tumblr_lz7jk2VVvW1qb6t6wo1_500_large.gif

          1. pedrog profile image14
            pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I bet they subscribe the Stork Theory:

            http://gnuatheism.blogspot.com/2012/03/ … heory.html

            Legit as creationism...

          2. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, we already know you believe in magic..

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_fOORhFmbA6s/SJNAqq9f0AI/AAAAAAAABEo/56aMXlRQf5A/s1600/01AwcAX34POJIAAAABAAAAAAAAAAA-.jpg

            ::poof::

            smile

            1. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you assume that this is what I believe? Actually my stance is that I don't know what happened.

              It's much better than your beliefs...which causes you to constantly worry that some mythical savior and his father might send you to hell.

              Psychotic!

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "I don't know what happened, but God doesn't exist."

                -getitrite's position

                Again.......



                ::poof::


                smile

                1. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, stop the childish and premature assumptions.  I have not stated that God does not exist.  My stance is that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.

                  Furthermore, I think the god that you, personally, believe in shows a completely foolish, backward, and elementary thinking pattern regarding the unknown.

                  Hence, YOUR beliefs are childish, foolish, ridiculous, absurd...!

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Your God is just as imaginary as the other gods."

                    -getitrite

                    Thread: If there is a God, why would he care for christians alone?

                    You're getting silly sir.

                    If the others are imaginary, and so is mine.. What is left?

                    No God... Which is exactly what you've said before.

                    But I figured I'd use fresh material to be fair..

                    Lying is not nice.

                    Oh and uh...




                    ::poof::




                    smile

            2. pedrog profile image14
              pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Let's fix that:

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6411700_f248.jpg

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nope. Don't see any truth there.

                You have no conclusion for cause of the material universe.

                Evolution is atheism's claim to fame, and it says everything came from nothing.

                Wait, your picture doesn't even mention anything about the beginning of everything.

                And if they deny it because they don't have any evidence or follow any information whatsoever... well, that's just claiming "I prefer ignorance."

                Back to the drawing board?

                smile

                1. pedrog profile image14
                  pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you, Atheism doesn't make any claims about the beginning of the universe or beginning and evolution of life on earth we trust in science for that...

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Which was my entire point in my post.

                    Ignoring the subject doesn't make it go away...

                    smile

                2. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
                  Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The prefix of "A" comes from the Latin language and means "without". Hence, "A"theism means without theism.

                  I am an atheist and I am without belief in a god. The word only describes what is lacking (belief) and does not denote or require any belief in anything else.

                  You dont have to believe in evolution in order to not believe in a god. That would be silly.

                  He doesnt have to go back to the drawing board since he is 100% accurate.

                  You just dont like it when you have nothing to argue against.

                  P.S. The theory of evolution doesnt say anything about things comeing from nothing. It explains how life forms evolve. It doesnt say a single thing about the origin of anything at all. The only thing I know of that claims something came from nothing, is religion, you know, when god magicked the universe in to existence.

                  You might want to do some research and get some better arguments......

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    God is not nothing number one.

                    Number two, MY POST regarded the beginning of everything being the reason it's silly not to believe in God because everything in existence is complex and with design.

                    We extract designs from the world in which we live, therefore the world in which we live must have been designed.

                    How can you obtain a design from that which has no design?

                    And how can something which by nature holds design in it's very structure itself not have been designed?

                    He answered my post with what? A definition of atheism?

                    Yes, we know the claim "no God" as that is simply understood.

                    To ignore the latter subject of my post and reasoning and say, "we don't need that to 'not believe' is silly as everyone knows you obviously don't need anything to not believe in anything.

                    The point was the answer to the outcome of existence and the cause which "created" the effect.

                    Atheists believe in what then? Nothing about nothing?

                    Seriously?

                    And I need the better argument? lol

                    smile

                3. 0
                  AKA Winstonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Man is so insanely arrogant to think the universe is about nothing but him.  Where does the idea of causation stem?  I would venture it comes from our experiences as humans - but what experiences do we have concerning initial cause?  Why do we assume an initial cause is necessary?

                  We see life - it starts and stops.
                  We see machines - they are built and become nonfunctional.
                  We have never seen a beginning or an end to a universe - why do we think that what pertains to our measley lives and experiences has any bearing on an eternal universe?

                  We fit our interpretations of data and our cosmological notions into a box that is outlined by our biases - beginnings and ends - but there is nothing other than life and machinery to base that bias upon.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Name something in the earth's atmosphere without a cause for it's effect.

                    If you don't follow through with a response pertaining to my above statement, I will gladly leave it at this and post no further.

                    My point will have been proven effectively.

                    smile

                4. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Of course not.  It doesn't support your psychotic beliefs.



                  Your inability to disregard your presupposition is the real problem to the answer.



                  Nope.  The Theory of Evolution is totally separate from Atheism.  An atheist DOES NOT have to concern himself with Evolution at all to see that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god.  You just can't stop misrepresenting people. 



                  If everything did not come from nothing, then WHERE DID YOUR GOD GET THE MATERIAL TO CREATE EVERYTHING!  Oh!  He made it from nothing.



                  Yep, because you still have NOTHING, as usual.

                  1. 60
                    augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this



                    You may not know that when the theory of evolution was presented by Darwin the Atheistic scientists who were holding key positions then fought tooth and nail to promote it because they had now got an alternative to creation theory and with this theory they could promote atheism. Thanks to their effort today the theory of evolution is considered a scientific fact.

  14. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    Atheism is a lack of belief.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Of what?

      1. ackman1465 profile image60
        ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Insane Mundane:  I'm quite certain that you are trying to be "cute" with your submittals.... but, in this case, for example, the "answer" is so obvious that I simply MUST call you on it......

        Atheism is a lack of belief THAT THERE IS A GOD OR SOME "SUPREME BEING".....

        There, IM.... that's your "in what?".... now please go back to your cookies and milk, take your nap when your Mommy tells you to do so..... and wait until you have something ADULT to offer before putting any (more) of your inane comments on this real, adult thread!!!!

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So, you "believe" there is no God?  Your extra verbiage goes into the trash can, little guy... hmm

          1. FlowOfThought profile image61
            FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The definition of belief is: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You can't believe something doesn't exist.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So if I say big orange super rocks that make orange juice are in outer space..

                You have to believe it exists because you can't believe something doesn't exist?

                smile

                1. denkmuskel profile image79
                  denkmuskelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well as the laws of physics apply to the whole universe it is impossible for such a "rock" to produce orange-juice, no matter where. So there is no necessity again to believe such a thing. And augustine72 is right that it is not the atheists claiming something but the theists. They are seeing things and therefore would have to prove that what they see does not just exist in their imagination, atheists are not ignoring things as there never has been anything that could be ignored till today. By the way I've heard fabulous stories of the effect of LSD et al. where people talked to trees and swore they existed until they came "back". They were the only ones who have "seen" the talking tree. If they hadn't know they were on a trip, they would have had a hard time convincing the non-trippers of what they have experienced.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?

                    LSD?

                    The semantics were the topic, not the orange super rocks claim.

                    smile

              2. 60
                augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But is that not what atheists are trying to do?

            2. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, geez, now you're telling me that you "believe" in the dictionary...  LOL!

            3. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              belief (n) - Bing Dictionary
              be·lief [ bi lf ]   Audio player

                  acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
                  trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
                  something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true

              Where do you get your definitons from anyway?

              1. FlowOfThought profile image61
                FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The oxford dictionary, and even by that looser definition, you can't believe in the non existence of something.

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You can't believe that there is not a God?

                  Could you tell me what that phrase means now?

                  smile

                  1. FlowOfThought profile image61
                    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It means that the non-existence of something is something you can't "believe" in, not that you can't have a an opinion that god doesn't exist, I am merely answering the question. Why do you insist on turning this discussion into something it isn't?

                2. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this
          2. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol lol lol

            Oh dearrr..

            That's RICH!....


            lol..........................

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You can not believe in the dictionary, because it is immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, its just fact that it exists. You are throwing words around incorrectly. and really this should end the discussion on this thread, because I have 100%, no doubt answered the question. I hope that the OP reads this. Anyways, both of you can stop replying to me if you don't have anything real to say.

              1. ackman1465 profile image60
                ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                FOT:  I'll "join" you in ignoring any future submittals from those who really aren't intent on adding anything to this thread.  Seems they only want to "see their names in lights"!!!!!

              2. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That was Insane's comment hot shot..

                Are you lost?

                And enforcement may be necessary because I just might post where I see fit.

                smile

              3. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ha-ha-ha!  LOL!  lol

          3. ackman1465 profile image60
            ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You got it, IM.... The rest of the verbage is meant to "ask" you (or shame you) in to posting submittals that we could believe were actually made by an adult.....

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Are you suffering from "adult denial" or something? Why do you speak of such?

  15. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    I am not here to teach you, do your own research, your knowledge is not my problem, now, you have an innate inability to stay on topic with the thread, I will not be responding to you any longer, as long as it is off-topic.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I know plenty, and don't need instruction.

      You are unable to support your assertion because the basis is non-existent.

      And,

      Thank you.

      smile

  16. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    I'm just going to unfollow this, I have answered the question factually based on the actual definition of belief, I don't feel the need to deal with people who can't stay on topic.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your definition of belief is a definition of religion.

      If I believe a person is capable of something, then I have belief in them.

      If I believe this because I have had proof they are capable it does not mean that because I believe with proof that I have no belief in them.

      My belief is simply validated..

      A simple point to anything illogical there?

      1. FlowOfThought profile image61
        FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your belief in them is usually not susceptible to "immediate rigorous proof" and if it is, then it is no longer a belief, and it is just a fact that they can do whatever it is.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So evolution is a fact and not belief?

          Because I still haven't got the evidence for first replicating cell.

  17. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    I don't know why hub pages wont stop notifying me, but, all those definitions are the same, and all support what I am saying. Good job.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do ya believe?  LOL!

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What she doesn't know is that evolution isn't a fact but a belief.

        Which she clarified very well for me.

        smile

        1. FlowOfThought profile image61
          FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am not a she. You dumb bitch.

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That wasn't necessary. Your thumbnail includes long hair and half a face.

            I suggest you act like a civilized person.

            smile

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You'll post what you want, I'll respond how I want.

              1. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "suggest"

                And if you insist.

                smile

          2. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, cool...  Can we start calling each other a "bitch" on here?  Thanks!

            1. FlowOfThought profile image61
              FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh god tell your parents! someone said a cuss word. If you are going to ignore the topic and reference what I look like, without actually making sure you are correct in your assumption, then I am going to reply in a far from civil tone.

              1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Flow I wouldn't let these guys get to you. They make a habit of going into forums that have nothing to do with them and trying to cause trouble. I'd just let it go and walk away from it, no matter what, they will never listen anyway.

                1. FlowOfThought profile image61
                  FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You're right, I lost my head a bit. Sorry to anyone I offended, besides those two of course.

                2. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Nothing to do with us?

                  I believe that is sad you think we aren't equal human beings to be allowed to partake here.

                  And I am not intending to cause any trouble, but thanks for more pretenses.

                  I have been debating points, not just repeating, 'your wrong'...

                  If someone wishes not to debate with me or respond to my reply, they DO have the option.

                  And we ARE human beings with equal right to debate, discuss, or state opinions.

                  And I was very close to agreeing on a particular point before my honest mistake was met by a childish response.

                  But, hey.. we are whatever you say we are right?

                  smile

                  1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
                    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your not atheist and your not agnostic. The Original question was not for an opinion on basis of Christianity, or I'm sure it would've been placed under the Christian forums. So what purpose did you come here for if not to do some more preaching or trouble causing?

                    As for debating points, you have been debating semantics. This thread, like many others, has been directed off topic again.

                    I agree that we all have the equal right to debate, and that no one has to reply to you if they don't want to. However, this thread was aimed at atheists and agnostics, hence why it was placed under Atheism and Agnosticism. You are a Christian and you are very belligerent about it. No qualms with that, but this wasn't a thread directed at Christians. As a result, it is shoved completely off the course of the original question.

                    So again I ask, if your not here to preach and cause trouble, then what reason are you here?

              2. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Bitch?

  18. FlowOfThought profile image61
    FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago

    Truth not based on evidence, my lack of belief in god, is due to the evidence. You have a creative way of reading these definitions, I am reading them literally and applying them literally, which is what matters in this discussion.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is what you claim as evidence correct?

      First replicating cell is REQUIRED for it to be fact, therefore it is not proof.

      1. FlowOfThought profile image61
        FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, my opinion on evolution has nothing to do with my lack of faith in god actually, I was an Atheist before I understood the basics of evolution, there was a time where i actually rejected the theory entirely, and still did not believe in god.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" there is a difference between, the bible says God exists, the evidence says that evolution is correct."

          And,

          What does the evidence say for origin of the universe?

          And what is the evidence for your denial of a God then?

          smile

          1. FlowOfThought profile image61
            FlowOfThoughtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            For one, this is still off topic, but, why does everything have to be explained? Just because we aren't yet sure how the universe came to be, doesn't automatically mean the bible is correct. Also, by definition, you can not believe in the non-existence of anything. It is by definition a disbelief, or non-belief.

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Goodbye.

              smile

  19. jdflom profile image83
    jdflomposted 4 years ago

    It really just boils down to semantics. It could be two different, but similar meanings or they could mean the same -- depending on the person who states it.

    You could say you want a sandwich, or you don't not want a sandwich; either way, you're suggesting in the end, you desire a sandwich.

    Take that and apply it to atheism and beliefs... a non-belief in a god is nearly the same as the belief that god does not exist. They might have slightly different meanings per person based on the wording and context, because the first version explicitly states a non-belief, but in the second phrasing we're just turning that around and saying I believe there is no good -- therefore making it a belief.

    In the same sense that saying, "I don't not want a sandwich," would suggest I want a sandwich, but at the same time I could go without and be fine.
    Translated into more normal conversation, to say I don't not want a sandwich gives two options - "I do want a sandwich," or "I could take it or leave it," but leaves out the option, "I don't want one at all."

    Another example is saying "I am a non-conformist," vs. "I conform to going against the grain." Do they mean the same thing? Roughly, but depending on how the person takes it, in the second phrasing, a certain level on conformity is suggested.

    Subtle word choice; semantics; context; personal meaning. Know your audience so you know to be clear.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well said.

      Excellent post.

      smile

      1. jdflom profile image83
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you were referring to mine, thank you! smile

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I certainly was jdflom.

          And you're absolutely welcome.

          You deserve it, the post is awesome.

          smile

          1. jdflom profile image83
            jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I can't help but use sandwiches as a metaphor. It's not the first time I've done it and I will do it again in the future.

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL..

              Well they served the purpose well.

              And they made me hungry.

              smile

    2. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh my goodness. I don't know what your own personal beliefs are (or lack of beliefs), but that was absolutely the best answer this forum has seen.

      1. jdflom profile image83
        jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you.

    3. mischeviousme profile image61
      mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All things are conceptual, for we explain their meaning with words. But they are words none the less, just sounds we make in order to communicate with others of the same species. Words are labels, the illusion is that the labels truly mean anything.

      There is a crystalization of a concept, but only when that concept is in agreement with established norms. So then words surrounding a concept, are really only the workings of an individual observer.

    4. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you prefer bologna or peanut butter in between ya bread?  LOL!

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I want peanut butter. And I don't not want bologna.

        Got any jelly? hmm

        lolol

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dude, why'd you give me bologna??

          smile

  20. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    I guess the question I have here is why does it matter?  Why would an atheist care whether or not atheism is defined as a belief or not.  And the second question would be why on Earth would a theist care?  I can sort of see caring about the definition if you are an atheist but how would it concern a theist in any way shape or form?

    1. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, of course every forum on HubPages becomes a theological debate. It's like, unwritten HubPages law. Maybe it's written and I just don't know.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image81
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not saying that I don't add to the problem. smile Just saying that it happens so often, that maybe it is written somewhere and I"m just unaware.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL..

          Written in our genes is what it is.

          I like debating. (shhh... don't tell them, lol)

          I'm sure SOMEONE here agrees about themselves. LOL

          smile

    2. 60
      augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because if atheism is a belief then a question would arise "what is basis of that belief?"

      1. scottsalot profile image60
        scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of a belief. If someone blocks a punch, you wouldn't say they threw one. But I must say, this is an awesome question for a thread. Ya know, i went to St. Augustine's school in Oakland Ca.!

        Take care!

        1. 60
          augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are just playing with words. Everything is a rejection of something else.

          A block is also a form of throwing. You need to use as force if not more to block or you get hurt. Not a apt example.

  21. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    I was going to pass this stupid thread by - but I guess at least it provides one place where can find nearly all the total fundamentally challenged dimwits of hubpages.

  22. buycontent profile image60
    buycontentposted 4 years ago

    that's a good question. When someone says he's a theist, he believes in the existence of God. When he says he's an athiest, he believes that there's no God. Either way, its only your BELIEFs that make your God work or otherwise...

  23. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    The truth is, without the ability to prove one's opinion either way; atheism is as much a belief as is theism. But, most don't want it labeled that way so when I interact with an atheist, out of courtesy, I agree to let them label it however they feel most comfortable. The same as I do with the religious.

    1. 0
      Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I've never met an atheist who didn't understand that it was a belief. What did they think that it was? Some special classification of knowledge?

      I am not doubting that you have met these people, Emile, but I am flabbergasted that they exist.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, the truth is; they are mostly on hub pages. Real life atheists are usually more mellow and comfortable with their stance.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image81
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LoL. Real life atheists. That made me giggle. I'm not mocking you, it really made me giggle.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey, finding a live person who openly admits to atheism is a bit like hunting snipe in this area. Most say they are like me, agnostic. I see a clear line between the stances in my mind. You either accept that you can't know, or you claim non belief. Non belief is atheism by my definition. But, agnostic by a lot of others I've run across.

            1. mischeviousme profile image61
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Atheist just means non-theistitic/religious, it doesn't necessarily entail a belief or non-belief in a god...

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                by definition you may be right  .. however ,,  that is kinda like saying a profesional fisherman doesn't necessarily smell like fish/bait when he gets off his boat.

                1. 0
                  Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't see where your analogy is applicable at all.

                  1. Jerami profile image78
                    Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well,  I guess you could say that Theism is the structure in which a belief in god exists, Atheism is the oposit if theism.
                    Theism is based on the belief in a God
                    Is Atheism  based on the belief that the structure is wrong or that the basis for it is wrong?

                      Every fisherman I have known smells like fish when they get off the boat.
                      Every Atheist I have known believs there is No God to base their theism upon.

                2. mischeviousme profile image61
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If he's good... he won't. I'm a professional painter, I rarely get paint on myself. I am not however a professional speaker, my vocabulary is limited...

                  1. Jerami profile image78
                    Jeramiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I've ben a frofesional painter for most of my life, and every painter that worked for me, who didn;t get any paint on themselves were very slow painters.

                      I didn't get paid hourly for painting, I got paid per square foot.

                      I didn;t worry about getting a little paint on me.  I worried about how many walls got painted.

                      I think I'm getting off topic.

                  2. 0
                    Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Professional fisherman might not spell like fish, but professional fishmongers do. Maybe Jerami was referring to professional fishmongers.

            2. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So I would like to know what your definition of god is.
              Before saying whether an apple exist or not, before answering you cannot know to comment on its existence, one should know what an apple is!

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The point was, that is how I see the answer. It doesn't imply that this is the way you would see it. Nor did it imply that I am interested in a protracted debate that will culminate in us being back at the point we started. I know where your argument lies. I don't agree with it because I haven't noticed what I consider to be a valid argument. I will continue to read your posts to others, in hopes that you might adequately clarify your position. If such a time comes, I'll be interested in discussing it.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If somebody tell you Lo exist, I assume your first question will be, what this Lo is, before offering your opinion.
                  My position is very clear, we know all these exist and no human being in his history has seen matter spontaneously appearing or disappearing, hence we have no reason to assume a beginning or creation. Also time by definition is a concept which denotes motion, hence again we cannot assume any beginning.
                  As there is no beginning there is need of creation and hence no creator.(god is supposed to be a creator). Logic also preclude creator, for if we take the premise everything need creator then based on the premise the creator will also need to be created ad infinitum, which will be a logical contradiction.
                  If something exist there is only two options either it was always there or it was created(any form). If creation is impossible, then by default it was always there, eternal(time as a concept is making it more valid.)

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Many Eastern beliefs don't see the need to separate the Universe and God. I.e. the Universe itself is Divine, but not anything like the Western idea of "God." God isn't actually the best word to use, because when translated into English, it has a very finite meaning.

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry. Saying something has always been there is a cop out. I prefer 'we don't know' as opposed to accepting silly conclusions.

                  3. 60
                    augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Your logic is lop sided.

                    "... hence we have no reason to assume a beginning or creation."

                    Nor do we have any reason to assume there was no beginning. Since we have no reason to assume a beginning you assumed we did not have a beginning. You are then proceeding on that assumption. So the statement "As there is no beginning" is only an assumption and the conclusion you draw is wrong.

                    "...if we take the premise everything need creator...."

                    Your premise has an error. Everything physical need a creator. Now try to work your logic.

                    "If creation is impossible"

                    Again an erroneous assumption.

  24. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    You did bring up an interesting point though.

      Can an Atheist be one and believe in God?
    Is it God they don't believe in or is it the presentation of that god that they have arguement with?

    1. jdflom profile image83
      jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The very definition of the word atheist means to deny the existence of a god or gods.

      a (prefix) = negate
      theist = belief in a god or gods.

      So, no, a proclaimed Atheist cannot believe in god, else he/she is not an Atheist.

  25. skinsman82000 profile image84
    skinsman82000posted 4 years ago

    I personally "believe" that when you end up with a certainty on any side it's a belief.  There is no 100% proof either way, so unless you say "I don't know," it's a belief system.  The only problem is when either side spends their collective time pushing their beliefs or non-beliefs on anyone else.  Neither side should do it.

    1. scottsalot profile image60
      scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hear, hear. Like George Carlins' 11th commandment:

      "Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself!"

    2. jdflom profile image83
      jdflomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's really just an exercise in word play...
      One could definitely argue that it's a belief to deny the existence of god. If one were to say, "I believe god does not exist," they are validating a belief, but if they said, "I don't believe in god," it's the language that suggests a lack of any belief.

      Again, just word play, context, personal opinion... Poh-tay-toe, Poh-taw-toe.

      1. scottsalot profile image60
        scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        An insomniac+an agnostic+ a dyslexic= someone who lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.

    3. 0
      jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://cectic.com/comics/039.png

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If it makes you feel better to pretend that people agree with you....how are you different from the theist that claims an atheist is a theist in denial?

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Theist and atheist are both fools.

          Theist believe a magical being created universe, while atheists believe a magical singularity self created.
          Let as examine.
          Theist believe god exists.
          Atheist do not believe god exists.
          The key word here is belief, And belief is defined as the confidence we have in a statement. So they have confidence in that particular statement, but the statement is made by someone else, so in effect they are trusting that someone else.
          You believe/don't believe sun exists, sun exists. And sun exist is a fact.
          If you are blind I can tell you about science and explain to you rationally what sun does, which can make you understand what sun is, if you are an otherwise normal human being.
          Similarly, since no human being have seen or heard god, can anybody explain rationally what this god thing can do? If not there is no god. And the existence of god has nothing to do with belief!!

          1. 60
            augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You do not understand a lot of things but the example of the sun you gave was excellent.

            Sun exist and it is a fact. What one believes about its existence does not really affect the fact. I would equate the blind man to atheists. You can explain all you want to them and they can feel the heat. But they refuse to believe that there is a big ball up in the sky. They refuse because no one can proove to them that a big ball of fire is up there. Their problem is one of their sense is not working.

            They can sit around not believing that a ball does not exist. But that does not change the fact.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Proof is an opinion, the only question is whether you can explain rationally.
              Define 'exist' then you'll understand which are concepts and which are objects.

            2. mischeviousme profile image61
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It does exist, what your brain makes of it is the illusion.

            3. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever, so you stoop to insulting the people who are smarter than you are, by suggesting that they are SLOW. This is the problem with your delusion.  For some reason, you think that you are given the right to arrogantly and blatantly insult others who don't share your psychotic beliefs.



              Then, by your logic, there is evidence that the following exist, but you just sit around not believing:

              Pink Unicorn
              Cyclops
              Rumplestiltskin
              Peter Pan
              Darth Vader
              Mermaids
              Thor
              Allah
              Superman
              Klingons
              Medusa

              1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But Thor and Superman ARE real, dammit! You just don't know it! But I've met Thor personally. smile

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And Wonderwoman thinks I'm hott.

                  She can give a killer back massage too.

                  smile

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image81
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I bet Medusa's are better as long as you don't look her in the eye! yikes

              2. 60
                augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First I do not believe that I have insulted anyone. If I quote the exact sentence which contains the insult.

                You have given me a list and said that by my logic they exist. Weather they exist. Weather they do or they don't does not affect me in any way. But God is is different story.

                Man has a spirit. That spirit is encased in the body. After death the encasement is gone but you still will exist. You will feel the same way minus the body for eternity. So God matters. But you will sweep it away calling it delusional. What I am saying is what ever you call it or whatever you believe fact is fact. We are all going to die one day and know the truth then. But it will too late then.

                1. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Saying that ONE OF THE ATHEIST'S SENSES IS NOT WORKING, is an OUTRIGHT insult!  Or are you just too holy to recognize your transgressions?



                  What a radically prejudiced way of thinking!  That is an absolute double standard. The question is do you believe that these other characters exist?  If not, why? 



                  Before going forward, I'm gonna have to stop, and ask you to submit valid, irrefutable evidence of this claim.



                  Evidence, please!



                  I can't just believe your words, especially since they sound completely absurd.  EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!



                  I can't see how something that has no evidence supporting its existence MATTERS.  Could you explain how that could be anything other than delusional?



                  Of course we are going to die, but the dead know nothing.  And you can dispense with the subtle threats.  Those only work on the weak and fearful.

                  1. 60
                    augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me clarify. Every one is born with one sense working. Only God can get that working for us. It is not the atheists alone who have this disability but we all have this.



                    Ok I will answer that straight. No I do not believe that they exist. I have not even given a thought about their existence because there are no claims they exist. 



                    Let me give you an example. Suppose you found a stone and you lick it and  find that it is sweet. You will say it is sweet. Can you give irrefutable proof that it tastes sweet? Can you make anyone know that it is sweet by your evidences? No. While the fact is that it is sweet you will not be able to make anyone believe that it is sweet. One can know the truth only by tasting it themselves.  Similarly you cannot prove that man has a spirit. But you can know when the spirit that is there in you become active.



                    Let me show you something. When someone says that you will still feel the same way after death you do not accept because there are no evidences. But you say "the dead know nothing" and believe this even thought this also does not have evidences. Why do you believe that the dead knows nothing when there are no evidences for this?

                    Man has a spirit and and after death it will still live. But you will know this only when your spirit becomes active.

  26. luckykarma profile image61
    luckykarmaposted 4 years ago

    Thankyou Tammy for all your advice, now I will stop worrying. But I now have trouble finding out how to submit a hub for the contest, every time I go in and put the name of the hub and choose a catergory it wipes out and starts all over again, where does one write "Writing Contest" as suggested in the rules to put in the TAG line? Gosh I wish they'd add diagrams with instructions or am I the only dumb one on this site?

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol, you aren't dumb lucky!

      Once you do it the first time it'll be cakework the next go around.

      No one know's how to do things on the first attempt.

      And the wipe out thing might be your browser.

      Do a google search with "submit hubpages writing contest" and see what you get.

      Someone may have wrote a hub or article elsewhere with instructions.

      Good luck!

      smile

      1. scottsalot profile image60
        scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Vector-
        I'm still waiting for a reply from yesterdays questions:
        If you are so hung up on when everything started, when did God start.
        Also, if the Bible is the word of God, why were many books not included?

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol, Scott, Scott, Scott.. You're alright man.


          First question needs clarification. Are you asking where God came from?

          He was, is, and always will be. That is His answer. If God is eternal and has no end, why in the world would he have a beginning?

          Don't get mushy on me. This is where eternity is absolutely proven, but we don't understand it's operations exactly. We are after all, humans. There are much less significant things we don't know.


          What was included were the books that agreed with each other in their entirety. And there are many specific criteria I haven't memorized which they used in order to know what is and isn't.

          All I need to do is read what is there, and I can tell. If you look at it without criticism, then things start popping out at you. And you can SEE! lol, that is why amazing grace says, I once was lost and blind, but now I'm found and SEE. wink

          It isn't some jedi mind trick secret to seeing it.. It's putting down your defenses against lies down long enough to realize it's pure and true. If you think this, that, or the other might be lies, then you'll pick it apart before anything makes sense and that's all you'll see is lies. [that aren't there]

          God is not a mindless power, like the sun... If that were so, why would something based purely on numbers and material structure include emotions in it's creation?

          The sun has power, but is not alive. Therefore it has no emotion.

          Alternatively, God is alive. And certainly cares about His creation. Otherwise why 'give' life? Giving is doing good, and we all know that it is a pleasurable feeling to give to our children and see them happy.

          Money isn't worth jack if you have no one to share it with.

          God has more than money. He has life to give, and gives it freely because it brings Him pleasure to see His creation happy, thankful, and loving towards Him for the good He's done.

          Yes, I added. He wants you to know this though.

          Agree or not, I must tell you.

          You understand..

          smile

          1. scottsalot profile image60
            scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            i do understand, bro, and you're alright too! But at the same time, I have to think about the way I deal w/ my kids; and that is in a pragmatic way. The way I have (tried ) to influence my kids, is that their natural, inherent instinct is to be GOOD.  There are no threats. Kids naturally know how to be good; and instead of threatening them with punishment, that's what should be nurtured.

            The certainty of it all is what bothers me.

            1. 60
              augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The natural, inherent instinct of children is NOT to be GOOD but BAD. I may sound stupid but that is the truth. They easily begin to lie and be stubborn and to cheat without anyone teaching them. You need to teach the child to be good.

              1. scottsalot profile image60
                scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I disagree, at least with my kids. I (respectfully) ask when you last dealt with one of your own? From my personal experience, they don't lie about anything. That's the time you enforce it. If your children's instinct was to be bad, I would look inward, not at children in general; after all, they were born without sin (am I right?).

                1. 60
                  augustine72posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Children are born without sin but are inclined to sin. Are your children perfect? Have you ever scolded them for anything at all? Have you ever corrected them? No as a parent you have to constantly teach the right thing to your child and guide them in the right way.

                  1. vector7 profile image60
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We are all born with sin augustine.

                    Romans 5:12

                    And they certainly do need direction on right and wrong.

                    Otherwise schools wouldn't have discipline systems and strategies.

                    Even adults need direction, let alone children. If they didn't we wouldn't need law enforcement to patrol the streets.

                    smile

                  2. scottsalot profile image60
                    scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, not by any means are they perfect, and yes, I scold them often. I guess what I mean is that I find children to be naturally honest, but learn bad habits. I definitely don't think it is one's instinct to be bad. Bad behavior is learned. Most people know what is right and what is wrong (what they choose to do is a different matter). Nurturing ones' natural instincts is more positive (to me) than threatening them with damnation, scaring them into submission.

              2. vector7 profile image60
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I must agree augustine!

                My little cousin is a BRAT! I love her to death, but she lies and tries to be sneaky alllllll the time. And she is so MEANN..

                Her mother CERTAINLY DID NOT teach her to be that way.

                Some children may be worse than others but I've also seen plenty of other kids as well in the same boat doing the same things.

                smile

          2. scottsalot profile image60
            scottsalotposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Speaking of kids, mine are stirring, so I better get my azz upstairs. Goodnight to all of you; I hope we can continue tomorrow where we left off.

            Take care all!

      2. luckykarma profile image61
        luckykarmaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Vector, Whew! glad I'm not dumb!.....will keep trying.

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol. Of course your not.

          Learn something new every day.

          Tomorrow you'll be writing a hub on it to help another poor soul that needs to know what you had to learn today.

          God bless lucky!

          smile

  27. lorlie6 profile image87
    lorlie6posted 4 years ago

    I imagine it could be called a 'belief' system. It is, after all, a belief in the non-existence of any God.

  28. amithak50 profile image62
    amithak50posted 4 years ago

    Well,I don't like to be a Atheist ,I believe in God and I think we should believe  in that too

    1. pedrog profile image14
      pedrogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What god are you talking about?

      And why do you think you should believe in it?

  29. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
    EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago

    Science is philosophy. A look at the history of science and philosophy shows the same great minds. Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras were all great scientists, but they were also great philosophers. They believed that the two were the same thing. I think people are trying to redefine philosophy into something spiritual, but it's not.

    1. vector7 profile image60
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      philosophy (n) - Bing Dictionary
      phi·los·o·phy [ fi lóssəfee ]   Audio player

          examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
          school of thought: a particular system of thought or doctrine
          guiding or underlying principles: a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge

      Philosophy is not limited to the physical proof.

      It includes thoughts and concepts as well.

      Philosophy is not easily placed in a box, especially not one labelled science.

      smile

      1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
        EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As I said, trying to redefine. As with everything else, it seems to be ok to take what it is for a little while, and then turn into something totally different just because we can.

        Just to be clear, the actual meaning of the word philosophy comes from philo which means love and sophy or sophos. Sophy was the Goddess of wisdom and sophos means the wise. So the word literally translates to "love of wisdom" or "love of the wise".

        1. vector7 profile image60
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, and you called it science.

          I didn't re-define anything.

          I posted the definition, which is the definition agreed upon by the world and scholars as well.

          I am aware of it's meaning, definition, origins, and implications. I am a philosopher.

          Just to be clear, you're making things elementary that are not so.

          smile

          1. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
            EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Things are always elementary. People just wish their worlds to be more complex then what they are. Hence you get definitions of words that do not relate to the words themselves at all. The first person to use the term Philosopher was Pythagoras. Yes, I said it INVOLVED science, not was science. Pythagoras believed that wisdom took a combination of knowledge and experience. Since we know this man helped pave the way for modern science, and we know that he believed wisdom was at least partially gained through knowledge, it's safe to say that wisdom involves science. This would mean that philosophy involves science.

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Yes, I said it INVOLVED science, not was science."

              -EinderDarkwolf

              "Science is philosophy."

              -EinderDarkwolf

              And no, everything is not elementary.

              smile

  30. mischeviousme profile image61
    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago

    The imagination can create machines to move mountains, but there is no way one can produce a god/God.

  31. steveamy profile image60
    steveamyposted 4 years ago

    and how many angel can dance on the head of a pin ??

  32. mattforte profile image93
    mattforteposted 4 years ago

    Lol so much discussion over something so simple.

    Do you believe in god? Yes? Then you follow a believe in god.

    Do you insist god does not exist? Yes? Then you believe god does not exist. (It is belief, because you can not prove it to be fact)

    Do you think there may be a god, or gods, but don't believe in what organized religions teach? Then you believe there is, or might be, something out there.

    If you have an opinion on *anything* that can not be proven as fact, then you have a belief.
    I do not *believe* that the christian "god" exists. This is just as much a belief as anything else, because that sentence can be re-worded. "I believe god does not exist."

    This entire thread is simply a question of semantics. Belief is nothing more than a word. This word can be defined by other words, which can be defined by other words. I "love" my woman, and I "love" my mom. They obviously aren't the same thing, but they are the same word. And that is all they will ever be - words....which will never be anything more than a means for human beings to communicate to each other. Not divine symbols with divine meaning.

    I believe this thread gives me a headache.

    1. 0
      usedbuckettrucksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Many atheists believe in only what science tells them. If there was evidence of God, they would believe it. This is why the scientific communit is by and large atheist.

      1. vector7 profile image60
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe you mean:

        "If there were [scientific] evidence...etc, etc"

        And a entire world with designed structure and order doesn't pop up without effort from something...

        Which I personally hold as evidence, irregardless if it is denied. Fingerprints are still fingerprints..

        smile

  33. 60
    deeachposted 4 years ago

    I would rather say belief in the non-existence of God.

  34. 0
    jomineposted 4 years ago

    No, I'm in a medical college, so have to buy other books.

  35. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Atheism is a belief. It's adherants are just as likely to believe in the many theories with no personal ability to prove or disprove any of them, which means they believe much of what they believe on faith. Faith in a genius, faith in science or faith in man. Who says that a supreme entity must be paranormal. On this planet mankind itself is the definition of paranormal. We stand alone, outside of nature, outside of the "norm". We not only stand alone outside of nature, but in direct opposition to it. Numero uno may be so far removed from our human concepts, we can't immediately say that an ultimate lifeform is paranormal or not...after all, we can't even perceive our own nature.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image81
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting.

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
        Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting, although highly questionnable and very disputed.

    2. EinderDarkwolf profile image60
      EinderDarkwolfposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Druid Dude I have to say you remind me of Gnostics. Just wanted to let you know that.

    3. Jesus was a hippy profile image61
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If atheism is a belief as you say, then what is the belief? Theism is belief in a god, what is atheism a belief in?

      Since gnosticism means "with knowledge" and agnosticsm means "without knowledge" the letter "A" being prefixed defining the "without" part, why does atheism not mean "without belief in a god" when theism means "with belief in a god"?

      This is just basic language derived from latin.

      I would like to see how you explain your claim of atheism being a belief.

      1. 0
        jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Belief is the confidence in a statement.
        So Theists believe in priests(that is they trust the priests or believe the statements of priests are true).
        Atheists believe in scientists.
        Contrary will be,
        Theists do not believe in scientists
        atheists do not believe in priests.
        Both are beliefs.

  36. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    You can rate everything ,,  from zero  to  ten ....


        zero meaning not enough to count

       and ten being ......  TTTOooooo much

        nobody should be supprised!

 
working