Summations Only

No, I don't call everyone who believes in the Big Bang an atheist. I even accept the Big Bang, though I wonder about the parts of the theory that seem to indicate an early expansion far faster than the speed of light. That makes me wonder which answer scientists will find, rather than doubting the theory as a whole. So for me to say that would make me an atheist. That is why I added the other two parts of my statement, to eliminate the religious believers who accepted the big bang. I have always tried to be thoughtful, respectful toward everyone, and admit when I am wrong. Please don't treat me like a simpleton.

Again thanks for your thoughtful detailed answers. You have answered my questions and I accept your reasoning

If I wrote that Benjamin Franklin supports my point, where would you read in all his writings to find the quote I was thinking of. It could be a looooong search. That is why scientists give quotes so others can quickly look up the quote and decide for themselves. It is only common courtesy to give the quote. I noticed that you condemned me for not knowing about the Hebrew methods of studying the Bible, then talked to another who had studied Hebrew more than me who also hadn't heard of those methods. Please don't be so quick to condemn.

I differentiated between what other people seriously believe in, and what other people write for fun. If people seriously believe it now, or in the past, such as believing in Ganesh now or Zeus 2,000 years ago, I have one response. Fantasy ideas such as Sauron or Lord Voldemort get a different response. Some ideas are in the middle ground. Which group should Santa Claus be in?

Thanks. I am looking at the quotes. I had skimmed the quotes and saw the focus on getting rid of religion in some of the positions. Since the science behind evolution doesn't in any way prove atheism, I wondered about that part of the quotes, and focused in on that aspect of the discussion. I need to read more to understand the war within Atheism. Thanks again

What war within atheism?{ABE}Never mind, I read the OP again, I was an idiot.Edited by Huntard, : Added {ABE} bit

---

I hunt for the truth

Not only do I believe that, I am part of the Terran Confederacy bent on the annihilation of the Zerg, and their false god called "Overmind". lol

You are right and wrong. Rahvin seems to be an Agnostic Atheist.The term Gnostic simply means:
1 pertaining to knowledge
2 possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.Obviously the addition of 'a' creates the inverse definition:
1 a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.In this case Rahvin would appear to be an agnostic atheist in that Rahvin claims an absence of knowledge on the fact and that our capability of gaining knowledge is limited by our experience. This then leads to atheism, in that a lack of knowledge of god's existence, would lead to a lack of belief in god(s).You already stated you understand now what atheism is, so I won't go into the whole explanation on theism, and it's inverse atheism. Really it comes down to an understanding of the terms, and having an open mind to another's stated position.A Christian telling an atheist what he/she believes always kind of made me laugh a little. It's kind of like a hair stylist telling a bald man he has blond hair.Edited by Michamus, : typos

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

Atheism and agnosticism have little to do with one another. An Agnostic Atheist? That's a contradiction in terms. That's like saying someone is an Agnostic Theist. It makes no sense. No, that would simply make him an agnostic. An atheist simply declares they don't believe in God(s). An agnostic simply says that they don't possess the knowledge to either deny or declare a belief in the supernatural. It can, but it could also go in the other direction too.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

In some ways, I found the Wikipedia article on methodological naturalism vs metaphysical naturalism a better, more coherent starting point. Then I read through these more polemic articles and understand what they were saying. I fully accept methodological naturalism. as the way to teach science. In the Wikipedia article, I saw, "Currently, proponents of intelligent design argue that the naturalist conception of reality is not needed in order to do science. Their general criticism is that insisting that the natural world is a closed system of inviolable laws independent of theism or supernatural intervention will cause science to come to incorrect conclusions and inappropriately exclude research that claims to include such ideas.[12]" I don't have a problem with them doing the research that includes the ideas of theism. I disagree with the ID idea that treating the natural world as a closed system will cause science to conclude that there is no God. This gets back to the point I originally made. Science can't prove atheism. I see your point that Atheism is not an organized religion, but whether you say the idea that there is no god is a philosophical idea or an individual belief, it has nothing to do with science. Thus I disagree with those who wikipedia labels more metaphysical naturalists. I would go to the "ends of the earth" to defend your right to believe in metaphysical naturalism, and to even teach it. I would oppose just as vigorously those who would insist on imposing metaphysical naturalism on everyone. That is why I originally challenged you by calling Atheism a religion (which I was wrong to do) and a belief (and I agree, it is not an organized set of beliefs but more of a philosophy.) It just is not scientifically provable.

Nothing in this realm is scientifically provable. You cannot prove the existence or non-existence of a god. I am not sure what the point of your comment is. Please elaborate.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since atheism is not arrived at from a scientific perspective, why would one need to "prove" it?You have now seen the fallacy in your earlier position:Atheism is not a religion.
Atheism is not a belief.Now, you seem to be trying to use the scientific perspective to argue that athiesm is still not anything provable within the standards of science.Since atheism is the rejection of theism, and theism is a belief in the supernatural, since science deals with ONLY the natural, it removes itself from the equation. In other words, you don't need science to prove atheism anymore than you need science to prove a-unicorn-ism/a-fairy-ism/a-astrology-ism/etc.Atheism proves itself on it's own.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Well said. Mmmmmmmmm, don't agree with this. Atheism is incapable of proving itself. It may be the more logical deduction based on inference and a lack of evidence, but not provable in any kind of classical sense.You can't disprove God if God in fact does not exist, just like you can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, if it in fact does not exist.That's circular.

---

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

Thanks, hydro. But wouldn't you agree that atheism proves itself on it's own without the need of science? - I mean simply as a philosophical PoV - (incorporating all known methods of inquiry, including deductive reasoning)- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. I see where you're comign from (you don't need science to arrive at atheism), but "proof" is too strong a word around here. Proof is for mathematics.I think that basic atheism is the default position (even knowing absolutely nothing, there is no reason to assume the existence of something like a deity), and teh degree of certitude that no deities exist increases as additional methods of inquiry find no evidence of their existence.I tend to see it as an asymptote (as I do with basically everything else, like evolution). As we continue to look and find nothing, the probability of the existence of a deity gets closer and closer to zero (just as with evolution, where as we get more and more evidence supporting its accuracy, the likelihood that we've modeled reality with perfect accuracy approaches 1) but never actually reaches it.I see the likelihood of any deity existing as the same as any other unfalsifiable mythical or fictional entity - so close to zero as making little difference. I acknowledge that there is a chance that I'm wrong, but I wouldn't buy that lottery ticket. That's not proof, but it's as close to proof as is possible.