The Folly of Atheism, part 2

That is because it is real proof.

 

Personal insult, you lose!

 

Personnel insult you lose!

 

I could look at an eclipse and believe that a dragon was eating the sun then go around banging pans thinking I was scaring it away or I could use the scientific method and discover it has nothing to do with dragons.

 

Every English dictionary I know of gives different definitions of the words, "atheist", and, "agnostic" from those you have provided. But, no matter. I don't feel like arguing about this anymore. No one is going to convince anyone of anything in this thread, in all likelihood, and certainly it never was my intention to 'convince' anyone of anything anyway.

I made the mistake of thinking that I might gain a better understanding of what atheists 'believe', even though they purport to believe in nothing beyond the empirical observation that 'the universe exists... it has always existed...." Sadly, then, there is nothing additional for me to learn about atheism while it is situated in a one-dimensional vacuum like that, so, au revoir....

 

Well there is the thing, there is nothing else to learn about atheism other than it is a lack of belief in gods. Other than that there is no unifying worldview.

Definition of atheism
: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

 

In an earlier post today, you said, "Atheism is simply the condition of being without an idea of god that is not simply somebody's assertion.(Bill Cooke)". This Bill Cooke? Link: https://infidels.org/library/modern/bill_cooke/ .

Don't bother to reply... I should have known better in the first place than to have wandered into an "axe-fight" like this thread has turned out to be.... I came to ask questions while gaining understanding from the resultant intelligent answers, and not to 'evangelize', or to "win" anything.... The settled opinion of the atheists in this thread seems to be, "The universe simply exists. It has simply always existed... (period, the end)." Got it.

So, onward!

 

Maybe the point is that atheism doesn't have a prescribed set of tenets like religions have.

I don't understand your "vacuum" comment. To me, ascribing those things we don't understand to a god for which there is no evidence just isn't satisfying.

When someone doesn't know something, I'd rather they say, "I don't know" than say "God did it."

BTW: It's pretty common for those of all persuasions to believe that there was a beginning point to our universe.

 

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful interaction on this topic.

Have a nice day!

 

Ironic coming from someone too baffled to be able to differentiate between facts and opinions.

 

Imaginary "real proof"?

The level of absurdity just went off the charts!

 

Damn, there are no dragons? I'm devastated.

 

Here you go...

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

That should help you in your quest.

 

I looked at your posting history, I doubt very much that you came here with intent to understand atheism and every response you were given by atheists was met with guarded but, typical religious responses.

 

I am an atheist, I lack belief.

Your quest to understand what atheism is is over.

 

Yes this Bill Cooke, https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002NPCI5A/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I offered his explanation because it IMHO best explains what an atheist is. The more formal definition is from the dictionary the fakers appear to put most store in. However neither contradict each other.

With regards to what created the universe there is no universal idea across atheism, it would all depend on which individual you ask. I find the works of Laurence Krauss to be interesting and informative. I would not pretend to be intelligent enough to give a real scientific answer or critique on the latest scientific ideas. It is certainly not an area of expertise for me, others here and certainly Krauss are better able. Going back to the big bang is enough for me until scientific knowledge improves. I do not know, is a legitimate answer IMHO.

I was curious for you to show which parts were created, but either you won't or cant do so.

 

And no evidence is no evidence. And you have presented no evidence except ignorance.

 

Don't worry, you can still believe in dragons because no dragon athiest can prove there are no dragons.

 

At least I understand the concept of 2+2....

 

Thanks for admitting I am correct.

 

I have presented evidence that you choose to ignore.

 

Interesting... all in all, you may be the most intelligent person who has posted in this thread. You don't bloviate, or 'give yourself airs', or put others down with snotty, little one-liners and unfounded pronouncements masquerading as intellect. Indeed, you seem to take a more rational, balanced approach to the topic than "My way or the highway!". Thus, while we may never agree about God, or, god, or whomever, or whatever, at least you have an open mind, and I can appreciate that.

Full disclosure: After spending a number of years of my long life in 'being' everything from an atheist, an agnostic, a Methodist, a Baptist, a bumbling, wanna-be 'magician', a Hindu, a Buddhist, and, finally, a Roman Catholic, I've settled on being a believing Christian-without-a-church. I'll leave it at that because I don't want to be accused of trying to 'evangelize' anyone... that never was my purpose in this thread.

God, as I see it, created (through whatever methods and using whatever time-frames God chose) the entire physical universe. You asked a civil question without any 'fish hooks' in it, so, I've given a simple, civil answer in response. All the best to you....

"The stars are not for man." Karellen, character in "Childhood's End", Arthur C. Clarke

 

Only in your opinion!

 

Yet another absurd non sequitur!