01 Apr '05 03:38>
As I have said, not only in my post above, but also in debate with you in other threads several times; specifically the one where you agreed to my definition of atheism, Atheism is a denial based on a lack of evidence[/b], not on any other reason, personal or otherwise. When evidence is provided that proves god's existence I will happily admit I am wrong.[/b]
There is plenty of evidence. God would explain the evidence better than anything else, yet you don't admit you're wrong. You should amend that promise.
The term Atheist has nothing to do with the various theories on the creation of the universe, save the possibility of god being involved in them as it precludes the belief in this god.
God needing to be involved in the creation is the proof you desire. To preclude Him out of hand prevents you from getting the proof you desire.
So in other words, yes I can claim to be an atheist with no opinion on the origins how the universe came to be. I deny god for one reason and one reason only that there is no emprical proof that he exists, none, not one bit. You can counter claims with the possibilities of his existence based on what ifs and why nots, but the matter of fact is there is no data to support your positive claim. My claim is not reliant on anything other than the lack of proof. No personal reasons are involved whatsoever.
There is plenty of evidence (proof). The data is there, but because you reject the idea of God out of hand, you are forced to accept less simple and less appropriate explanations. If you allowed for the possiblity that maybe the proof you desire has yet to be discovered, and that God may exist, you may be able to look at evidence more objectively.
My atheism is not to spite you Darfius and I am tired of fighting with you, time and again you fail to read what I have written and pay attention to what I am saying. You believe in something for which there is no proof, I am not willing to do so. What in my stance could possibly suggest what you have written above?
Of course I read what you are saying. It just makes little sense. I believe in something that has more evidence than atheism, and the proof is provided with the acceptance of Jesus Christ, as I have said several times. What you aren't willing to do is allow for the supernatural to be a hypothesis, which, as I've said before, is quite illogical.
There is plenty of evidence. God would explain the evidence better than anything else, yet you don't admit you're wrong. You should amend that promise.
The term Atheist has nothing to do with the various theories on the creation of the universe, save the possibility of god being involved in them as it precludes the belief in this god.
God needing to be involved in the creation is the proof you desire. To preclude Him out of hand prevents you from getting the proof you desire.
So in other words, yes I can claim to be an atheist with no opinion on the origins how the universe came to be. I deny god for one reason and one reason only that there is no emprical proof that he exists, none, not one bit. You can counter claims with the possibilities of his existence based on what ifs and why nots, but the matter of fact is there is no data to support your positive claim. My claim is not reliant on anything other than the lack of proof. No personal reasons are involved whatsoever.
There is plenty of evidence (proof). The data is there, but because you reject the idea of God out of hand, you are forced to accept less simple and less appropriate explanations. If you allowed for the possiblity that maybe the proof you desire has yet to be discovered, and that God may exist, you may be able to look at evidence more objectively.
My atheism is not to spite you Darfius and I am tired of fighting with you, time and again you fail to read what I have written and pay attention to what I am saying. You believe in something for which there is no proof, I am not willing to do so. What in my stance could possibly suggest what you have written above?
Of course I read what you are saying. It just makes little sense. I believe in something that has more evidence than atheism, and the proof is provided with the acceptance of Jesus Christ, as I have said several times. What you aren't willing to do is allow for the supernatural to be a hypothesis, which, as I've said before, is quite illogical.