The problem is many atheists think that theirs isn't a belief and peddle atheism as the antithesis and/or solution to a belief system. However atheism is a belief, so as much as it seems like a cool, shiny new answer; it's not at all. Want to rebel? Go Pastafarian or go home.





Also, just because one accepts evolution does not mean they have to abandon all belief in divinity. Lets keep in mind, while most religious literature likes to say that the planet was assembled in a very brief time-span, it's a translation of script written many years before the idea of eons even existed. Which is possibly just a translation of previous text or even divine word, assuming you opt to believe in divine intervention. Even if we do go by the largely accepted biblical terms, would a divine being really take the time to explain to his scribes that the earth really is round, one of billions in the vastness of a vaccum and many millions of years old? Likely not. He/she/it/noodle is going to break it down in terms that these people will comprehend so to make the goal of universal acceptance that much easier.







I, personally, believe in some assemblance of divinity and after-life.

I also accept the scientific proof of evolution. You can have both, that's the beauty of "belief," it's what you personally opt to accept

 

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. I don't believe in anything. I know it's more plausible, based on the laws (not theories) of physics, that the big bang was the start of everything and not that an omnipotent being created everything. I don't believe in the big bang.

 

I'm kinda beyond having an opinion any more. This argument, along with climate change, has just had so many plausibly intelligent answers that I can never personally fact check entirely, that I have to kind of ignore the grande heirarchy of belief and just deal with what I actually see in my day to day life.



Given that, over the past few months I have been researching islam, buddhism, mysticism, light and dark witchcraft, and rosicrucianism to gain some fresh perspectives. Again, there are intelligent people from each of these disciplines with good morsels of insight. I don't know enough about any of them to really take a stand here, although I do enjoy lots of the buddhist principles. They are beautifully personal and, well, real/immediately provable.

 

Atheism is a belief, like it or not. Whether you just opt to believe that there is no omnipotent force(s) or place faith in the natural sciences; there is no such thing as a lack of belief. The closest possible ideology is agnosticism which is anything from apathy to the idea of divinity, to the pastafarian. Until that is understood and we can mutually respect each-others ideals, the the debate can not even begin.

 

You're confusing Atheism with belief in science. Atheism is NOT believing in a divine force or "God". It is NOT believing in science. I don't know if current science is correct. I don't believe or not believe in the big bang. I do know that I don't believe in any God, being or intelligent force that created everything.

 

If the Bible passes the peer review process and gets published in a respected scientific journal I might start taking it seriously. Until then, no.



I don't know what there is or isn't. I don't believe that there is a god or gods or that there are not beings that pass as gods to some.



I do know that without a doubt the Judeo-Christian God, if real, is a giant a**hole. If he exists I will intentionally not follow him because of massive douchebaggery even if he shows up and reveals himself I have no interest in following someone like that. I would however then accept his existence, if that helps. Until then, enjoy following a mythical bully who enjoys torture and genocide.



If there are "gods", I suspect they're the Annunaki or similar beings. Advanced aliens that baffled our early ancestors as well as enslaved them.

 

Don't confuse the justification with the statement. Lack of a belief is still a belief.

It may not be organized in a system, but it's still a personal feeling that some is true.



You said it yourself, your belief is that there is no divine omnipotence out there. That's still a personal belief. You will understand this. Atheism isn't a lack of belief, it's a belief that divinity does not exist. Having no belief is closer to apathy, it would mean that you have no strong feeling either way. It sounds like you're confusing organization with structure.

 

Normally I'd agree with you Floyd, however I heard an interesting idea about this that I have trouble shaking.

Holding the bible up to scientific scrutiny usually ends in tears, right?

That is because the bible isn't a scientific publication. It was conceived in a time when godliness = The Standard To Judge Things By.

If you consider the reverse situation: scientific thought, or peer reviewing a paper, isn't 'godly'. So, in 1200AD, such a technique would be ridiculed in the same way as the bible is today.



In that sense, I don't think humanity's IQ has significantly increased in the past 1000 years or so. Scientific thought is certainly newer, but not necessarily better. It, like most other schools of thought before it, simply validates itself only.

 

You're trying to say that "nothing" is "something" and it simply isn't. Nothing can't be something because nothing is no thing.

 

No, I'm telling you that believing that there is no higher power is a belief. It's an inarguable fact.

That's why it's called this ^^