Originally posted by howardgeeYes, that's always puzzled me. Is God really supposed to have two arms and two legs etc.?
How do you explain the fact that a supposedly super-intelligent God made human beings in his own image who evolved to ask questions as dumb as yours?
And does He eat? Go to the Bathroom? Listen to the Radio?
Originally posted by BowmannYes, He does listen to the radio, mostly radio 4, He never misses 'The Archers' or 'I'm Sorry, I Haven't a Clue', quite like 'Loose Ends' as well
Yes, that's always puzzled me. Is God really supposed to have two arms and two legs etc.?
And does He eat? Go to the Bathroom? Listen to the Radio?
i am not sure if i am atheist or not, because i don't believe there is a god, but i don't let it slip out of context and totally deny it. But, on the other hand i don't blame something on this hypothetical "god" every time i don't understand how something works. Just because we can't explain how the universe was created doesn't mean there isn't a very real explanation for it. On the other hand, if you want to know about how air and life were made, read a damn book, air is thoroughly explained(3 states of matter), and scientists are hot on the topic of how life was created.
Another thing to say, ask yourself this question:
If i can believe that God was not created, and has always been here, or "insert opinion here", then why do i totally block out the possibility that the universe has always been here, or was created by ANOTHER means?
1 edit
Originally posted by xm1092I'm a complete lay person seeking answers here, but understand the universe has always been here as part of an ever evolving system of matter, ...rocks gas heat cold etc constantly interact to keep it changing and alive. We are part of the universe as part of wider string therory. ...quarks are to atoms as planets are to stars as stars to solar system etc. Just because we don't know the ends of the therory doesn't give the opertunity to suppose a deity started the string somewhere. If you take out the deity idea things are clearer.
i am not sure if i am atheist or not, because i don't believe there is a god, but i don't let it slip out of context and totally deny it. But, on the other hand i don't blame something on this hypothetical "god" every time i don't und ...[text shortened]... he universe has always been here, or was created by ANOTHER means?
Originally posted by rwingettGood for you. The idea of atheism on its most shallow level can
As fun as that may sound, it opens you up to having to share the burden of proof with the theist. Plus, even though you can demonstrate that the much vaunted "omnivax" deity is a logically contradictory concept, you can't prove that there are no gods of any type. Demonstrating that a belief is not justified does not prove it to be false.
I think I'm ...[text shortened]... nists), but claiming to know that there is no god is one claim I am very careful never to make.
be nothing more than another religion. The point here is
Atheism has many shades just as religion has many shades.
So you can have a situation where Atheism and Agnostics meet,
almost.
Originally posted by sonhouseAtheism can only be construed as a religion by people who have no idea what atheism is, or those who want to paint it in a bad light. Even strong atheism (claiming to know with certainty that god does not exist) cannot be construed as a religion in any substantive way.
Good for you. The idea of atheism on its most shallow level can
be nothing more than another religion. The point here is
Atheism has many shades just as religion has many shades.
So you can have a situation where Atheism and Agnostics meet,
almost.
But atheism does have a few shades to it (but perhaps not many), with the term 'agnostic atheism' sometimes being substituted for 'weak atheism'.
Originally posted by rwingettI use the term religion in the context of an unprovable tenet, it
Atheism can only be construed as a religion by people who have no idea what atheism is, or those who want to paint it in a bad light. Even strong atheism (claiming to know with certainty that god does not exist) cannot be construed as a religion in any substantive way.
But atheism does have a few shades to it (but perhaps not many), with the term 'agnostic atheism' sometimes being substituted for 'weak atheism'.
is a belief system, whether you avow or disavow a god.
Even if a being who has many powers comes down to earth and
kicks butt and people start to worship it, doesn't prove its a real
god. There could be more just like it or more powerful ones in some
sort of food chain of the gods. So the absence of some god
revealing itsself is a good sign we are being either ignored or
quarantined, just as well if true in my opinion. If we are being
quarantined we will figure it out in due time assuming we grow
as a civilization instead of flopping and reverting to caveman status.
Originally posted by rwingettHold on. Is one a strong atheist if one claims to know that God does not exist, or if one claims to know with certainty that God does not exist? I claim to know that God does not exist, but I do not claim that I know this with certainty. I claim to know my phone number and address as well, but I do not know these things with certainty.
Atheism can only be construed as a religion by people who have no idea what atheism is, or those who want to paint it in a bad light. Even strong atheism (claiming to know with certainty that god does not exist) cannot be construed as a religion in any substantive way.
But atheism does have a few shades to it (but perhaps not many), with the term 'agnostic atheism' sometimes being substituted for 'weak atheism'.
Originally posted by bbarrIsn't "know" an absolute?
Hold on. Is one a strong atheist if one claims to know that God does not exist, or if one claims to know with certainty that God does not exist? I claim to know that God does not exist, but I do not claim that I know this with certainty. I claim to know my phone number and address as well, but I do not know these things with certainty.