Lachean

So far we're in agreement. Although it almost seems that you're saying the natural explanation is more complex than the supernatural one, which I think is a falsification of occums razor, if that is in fact your position (I'm not clear.)

I happen to thing suggesting a deity was responsible adds a much higher level on complexity, one that the theists don't even address.

This is where you lost me. How do you base the claim that our freedom of thought so to speak, is attributable to a deity?

__________________
At the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom--at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country--you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

aquapub

We're talking about the existence/non-existence of God and which religions assert what.

Your parents being the immediate source of your creation is completely irrelevant to that.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

aquapub

You're the only one merely repeating that you are right about what Atheism asserts. I have provided sourced material on it...twice.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

aquapub

Fair enough. I have to get going though. Be back later tonight.

__________________
http://www.patrioticunderground.com/

Felicity

That is the answer that both religion AND science accept as far as our current ability to know allows.

Religion uses that to explain the existence of God, and science uses that to explain the existence of the natural world at all.

dragonslayer

Your assessment of being a Moslem is interesting. It is obviously pure bigotry and iqnorance. You can order a Koran from Amazon and then you can read it.

I don't know why you obviously hate Moslems so much. Yet, that is your decision and perogative. Have fun hating. I know a lot of right winger seem to enjoy hating. What else can you hate, how about Democrats, Conservatives, the poor, Americans, Blacks, the French, the Italians, the Chinese, Mexicans, Venezuelans, Russians, the Welsh, the Scotts, the English. Wow I have opened up world of possibilities of people for you to hate. Have fun.

Lachean

Where do you get this stuff? Atheism makes no attempt at all to answer such questions.

Actually I addressed it in post 134.

Actually, that is what is being addressed here. Because I am an atheist, in that I don't believe in a god. Most atheists believe as I do, you have a differing definition, one that doesn't care to make the distinction, and you lump both groups together.

My point is getting you to understand that your label doesn't apply to the community, and more importantly, these semantics don't matter. For the sake of argument we can use your definitions, or just say "people who don't believe that there is a god" and "people who say there is no god" just to proceed.

Someone obviously can't follow conversation. Which is remarkable considering you insist on putting all your "points" into individual posts, instead of one point by point rebuttal.

Heres how the conversation went:
I said "Micro - Our parents conceived us."
You said "Atheism does not assert that man was put on this Earth because our parents conceived us. Our parents conceiving us happens after man's existence happens."
I explained that "Second of all, I SAID MICRO, as in our individual reasons for being here, which is our parents."

Then you proceeded by calling my point irrelevant, then confusing the conversation with "the (non)existence of god" when we were obviously talking about the atheist's answers to your questions.

I used the word MICRO because I was talking about our individual reason for having been put here. I used that term because there was also a macro answer. Do I have to define micro and macro for you too, because I am going to assume all this went over your head (again.)

Saying that you did a google search isn't providing a source. How about you try citing the OED or Webster, then saying that you've cited a source for your definition. Not that it would matter, I've already conceded your bull**** semantic argument just for the sake of moving forward, now address the point.

I don't claim to speak for atheists, but your label doesn't represent what Atheists actually believe (or should I say, disbelieve.) I would rather you either use more accurate working (strong vs weak atheism for example) or stop lumping people who think different things into the same group. Its hard to talk about my position when you either misrepresent it, or tell me that I'm not an atheist.

See ya then, perhaps when you return you wont be so hung up on the semantics, and actually discuss where we disagree.

For example; How are you going to resolve your failure to address the distinction between "I dont believe" and "I believe there is no." Are you going to continue to lump these two under the same word, or are you saying that the former are agnostics?

If so, why must I be obligated to be an agnostic about the multitude of things that don't exist (fairy tales, gods, flying spaghetti monsters, easter bunnies, celestial teapots?)

And also, by that same token; Are you an atheist in respect to every other god? Or are you an agnostic, by your definition? How about leprechauns? Are you an a-unicornist?

__________________
At the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom--at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country--you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

tecoyah

I do not make such a claim, but rather the opposite. My belief is that this "Freedom of Thought", is there for anyone to use, but faith in a God removes the incentive to use it.

Lachean

Then we have no quarrels between us on the matter.

__________________
At the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom--at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country--you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

dragonslayer

Thanks, you made my point. Not believing in God, or not believing in God is a matter choice. Tis the same when choosing the many versions of God and creeds that abound in our world.