definitions

Just the fact that you feel 'great' proves the existence of God. Evolution has no need for 'great' when 'satisfactorily' or 'good' will do.
May you one day feel 'Bliss'.

 

again, i think you should tell every prominent atheist that they are not really atheist because you are unwilling to really understand anything.

when a journalist introduces dawkins as an atheist, you should write him a letter telling him you are bad with skills related to the dictionary and that because dawkins doesnt deny that god could exist then he isnt an atheist.

when joe scarborogh introduces christopher hitchens on his show as a "atheist author", you should call in and say that one time you read half of one entry on dictionary.com

i feel like you should do a better job of reminding people about how poor you are at understanding this.

 

i do enjoy a nice mock and/or jeer.

but in fairness to me, i have explained myself multiple times. an atheist is merely a person who doesnt believe in myths. it doesnt matter if those are modern myths like alien abduction or christianity or god , or ancient myths like the greek gods.

this understanding of what an atheist is, it is not something new or my personal definition. it is the common view, held by virtually everyone who understands the issue, including all the currently famous atheists.

there is tendency for people to enjoy claiming to be agnostic, because of the misconceptions i have discussed in this thread. this leads to quotes like this:

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have."

- isaac asimov

what asimov is saying is the basis of this thread. he is pointing out that according to the flawed definition, he is agnostic. of course he isnt claiming to have knowledge that god doesnt exist. that is whay the definition is flawed, and why asimov hesitated.

and again, as i have said a hundred times, the falw in the defintio is more clear when you use the term agnostic with respect to other things that are clearly unfalsfifiable, but obviously not true. like you are not agnostic with respect to the idea that paula abdul is god. you are pretty damn sure that she is not. not certain, but sure enough to say that you are an atheist with respect to her being a deity.

so the vaguenes of the word certainty is the problem. there is a difference between mathmatical absolute certainty, and asimov's certainty. he isnt sure, but in his words:

"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - asimov

so asimov has come around and understood my definition, and flaws of the half-dictionary understanding that red uses.

lets end this post with a mildly related quote:

I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. - Douglas Adams

 

incorrect. the literate folks are the exact ones that agree with me. in fact the people's encyclopedia, wikipedia, mentions this issue i am discussing in the first sentence:

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]



they even have a little diagram to help folks like you.



even a nice little article for little fellas that dont like to listen to martin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

i used to, but i have since learned that you actually believe in a creator of some sort, my mistake.

 

if you say so. i think it is important topic. many of the problems in the world today are caused by irrational faith. it affects everything. if people stopped believing in "holy" lands or eternal life, it would really help out.

also i think an enormous amount of people simply havent really considered the idea that faith isnt necessary.