Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheists often hold science and reason as the ways of finding the truth. Currently there is no evidence for how the universe began which makes the logical position to consider it currently unknown. This isn't indicative of divine intervention though. If you look at history, the most probable explanation is a currently unknown natural source.
with no evidence we all each hold a belief of how it started. saying you think it was an unk nown natural source is a belief
Again, you are one of many who continue to misuse the words.
Atheists DO believe. They POSITIVELY believe that there is NO GOD.
AGNOSTICS do not believe there is a god. They also do not believe that there is NOT a god. Agnostics hold the neutral position. Atheists do not.
This is the misconception that many theists have. They label all atheists as gnostic atheists when in fact most atheists are agnostic atheists. Agnostic atheism isn't a form of agnosticism.
This is the misconception that many theists have. They label all atheists as gnostic atheists when in fact most atheists are agnostic atheists. Agnostic atheism isn't a form of agnosticism.
No, but it is a form ot atheism. "I believe there is no god, because the existance of god cannot be proven."
with no evidence we all each hold a belief of how it started. saying you think it was an unk nown natural source is a belief
I said the most probable explanation is a currently unknown natural source. People have always used gods to explain away what was currently unexplained, yet the answer has always been a natural source which was previously unknown. An example of this is how people used to say thunder was caused by Thor, although now we have a natural explanation for it.
I said the most probable explanation is a currently unknown natural source. People have always used gods to explain away what was currently unexplained, yet the answer has always been a natural source which was previously unknown. An example of this is how people used to say thunder was caused by Thor, although now we have a natural explanation for it.
the fact you have an expanation shows a belief in that explanation
the fact you have an expanation shows a belief in that explanation
You are anxious to lable everything a "belief" as if it's on level footing with religious belief. You are wasting your time becaue that's now how it works.
Atheists often hold science and reason as the ways of finding the truth. Currently there is no evidence for how the universe began which makes the logical position to consider it currently unknown. This isn't indicative of divine intervention though. If you look at history, the most probable explanation is a currently unknown natural source.
If you go back far enough I assume there just won't be a natural origin (although from the origin onwards things can easily have evolved the way they have on cause and effect alone). Even in the case of multiple serial universes as proposed by the big bang /crunch theory, one might still ask where did whatever was there first (energy/matter) come from? An alternative to the physical approach might be the Indian way of thinking that everything is just an illusion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
