Just wondering: what would you call someone who commanded his followers to commit genocide and take virginal girls are sex slaves?
What difference does it make what I'd call him? If you don't believe in God, then why are you hatin' on Him?
I always love the "atheism isn't a belief" crowd. Have atheists proven that there is no God? If you say "yes" you're delusional. If you say "no" then atheism is a belief. It's that simple. As to the rest of your post...ha. You speak of "odds" and yet don't understand how they work. The odds that life could randomly form are beyond astronomincal. The odds that one DNA strand formed for a simple, single celled organism is something like 4.80x10^50 or 1 in 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Do you understand how great of a number that is? Have you ever learned the second law of thermodynamics? If you have you would know that life is impossible if you go by the laws of physics. Yet it does exist.
Life doesn't simply exist, but it is incessantly adapting and thriving because of simple will. That itself can't be explained by simple science.
Amusing. Are you going to chase Russel's Teapot as well? Atheism is not a belief system that requires that evidence be presented to disprove the existence of God. Atheism is a belief system that is dependent on the lack of evidence to prove that there is a God. I used to be an atheist, I am not much of an atheist these days, however my point being at least I understand atheism enough to avoid falling into the pitfalls of intellectual bankruptcy. As for the last bit of your post, you are using the Argument of Incredibility Fallacy, and a blatant misunderstanding of thermodynamics. The laws of physics [obviously] do not exclude the possibility of life, nor do they exclude the possibility of life originating. So.. yeah. Fail.
Actually.... no. Life adapts through the demands of the environment. Natural selection. "Simple will" is not a factor.
No he's using simple probability. People are convicted on DNA evidence, which is never 100% certain, but 99 point several 9's certainty.
He is using a logical fallacy, Argument of Incredibility, a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance Again, I suggest a cheap education in a Critical Thinking textbook.
Moving the goal posts? Logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goal_posts "The will to live" is explainable by science.
be like saying a Christian hates the Sun cause they don't believe in the Sun God, they believe in a Son God .
I can't hate on the concept of a fictional being? I am required to like or be indifferent to all fictional creations? I'm sorry but I just can't cheer for Lord Voldemort...or God.
No, it's actually this simple: Also, no one is saying that life formed "randomly." It formed due to the laws of chemistry and so on, just as it functions today by the same principles.
I'm curious about what made you "not much of an atheist" now, and what you'd actually call yourself today?
I am much more of an agnostic who likes the idea of non-centralized spirituality that is based on personal experience rather than appealing to a hierarchical social construct to tell me what to believe. Much of what I believe can be reduced to a single statement with very Buddhist leanings, "We are all eternal, all this pain is an illusion." - Parabola There may be something after this life, they may not be. However, to cling to beliefs that are obviously false in the preservation of faith is robbing yourself of knowledge. I haven't a problem with religion given that is does not contradict observations. This forum is unfortunately chock full of people who will deny the very basis of reality to preserve their beliefs. Some even going to the extent of ignoring blatant contradictions in supposedly "holy texts", fallacies, and philosophical landmines in the act of preserving their beliefs. That being said, atheism is not hard to understand. In fact, its extraordinarily easy to understand. Those who make false statements about atheism and continue to do so after being corrected are either trolls looking for a confrontation or simply too ignorant to continue a constructive discussion. Which is why I am often a condescending dick in three posts.
Alles klar. Buddhism does seem to be among the most philosophical and sensible of "religions." Should it even be considered a religion?
Perhaps you should invest in a more quality education that also teaches probability and legal concepts.
