My question is...what does a "typical" atheist believe in? (as far as where everything came from)
There is no such thing as a "typical" atheist. The only quality necessary to be considered an atheist is a "no" to the question: "do you believe in a god/s?". Sure, there are things a lot of atheists agree on, but since there is no central dogma to atheism, none of that matters as far as atheism is concerned.
The bottom line is, there is no better theory of how the universe came to be that has any bearing in reality than a Creator.
Could you rephrase this? It sounds as though you are saying a creator is the only logical "theory" for the beginning of this universe. Is this what you are saying?
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
that it is no more illogical than any other theory.
Contrary to theist belief, logic is not in the eye of the beholder. You see, we have data on our side, whereas those who think a creator dun it have....belief? Faith? Occams Razor dictates yours to be rather illogical regardless if science says "we don't yet know". "I don't know" is a far shot more logical than positing a sky fairy did it, what with there not being a single spot of evidence for this "creator".
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
As you can see, outward signs of emotion, based on real or imagined experience, constitute evidence...of something.
Yes, evidence that you have a functioning brain. While such things may be satisfactory evidence for yourself, they fail to be satisfactory evidence for anyone else that doesn't quite think as you do. This, I think, is a good qualification for evidence: does it stand up to scrutiny outside of your own imagination? So, the evidence you provide is a fair shade different from what I, and would dare say the scientific community, would consider evidence.
For example: I was watching some forensic show last night with my fiance. There was a woman who was raped and they had found the "perp". She swore up and down he was the guy AND he fit the description. When they ran the DNA test, he was not a match. When she found this out, she STILL believed him to be guilty. So much so, that she admitted to purchasing a gun and waiting outside his house with intent to kill (why she didn't get jail time or something is beyond me). 10 years goes by and they found a guy who committed another, similar, crime. He was a DNA match for the first crime.
What does this tell us about personal belief and testimony compared to scientific data? Personal testimony and belief is fucking worthless for anyone but the individual with said testimony and belief.
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
My point was that she still believed him to be the perp even with evidence to the contrary. Theists still believe in this creator with no evidence either way. As I said before, Occams Razor dictates the creator to be an unnecessary entity.
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
So once again we have Buzsaw posting a definition of a word while having zero working knowledge of said word nor addressing the bit he quoted. (here's a hint: do you see the word evolution in the definition? Does your response carry the requested explanatory power?)
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
Oh sweet dick sucking christ, answer the god damn question already. YOU made a claim. YOU need to back it up. Stop acting like a whiny 4 year old.
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
The biological term, biopoesis appears to support the contention that bio-genesis is a prerequisite to life, which, of course would be a prerequisite to evolution.
No....It is synonymous with abiogenesis which has zilch to do with evolution other than being a possibility for how life arose on earth. Try again. Might I suggest reading about the subject as opposed to copying and pasting the definition of words? That way you will get a working knowledge of how these words are used as opposed to parroting the definition and still not understanding them.
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
Just a cotton pickin' minute..... Why (and when) did you all of a sudden change to talking about biogenesis? You realize that the A in Abiogensis makes a distinct difference in the word, right?
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
Would you like to take this time to clarify your position on the matter?
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
So your position is that abiogenesis IS a prerequesite for biological evolution and without abiogenesis, biological evolution is not possible? Is that correct?
"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins
™ Version 4.2
(1)
