I don’t think that I was creating anything at all but pointing out that the question itself created the point of view that traveled with the solar system (that, being, a question devoted to the revolution of Sun and Earth and which revolved around which). That’s, at least, how I saw it.
Now please explain me - what does it have to do with believing in things?
Great, another syntax problem. Even when you are NOT accepting something as true, then you HAVE TO take some other standpoint (unless a. you instantly forget the thing you’ve been told; b. you’ve never heard of that thing). And I’m am sure that most, if not all, Atheists are aware of the idea of God. If someone doesn’t accept something as true, then the possible alternatives could be either accepting it as false, or accepting it as an unknown. I’m sure that a great deal of people when talk about Atheists think about people who simple refuse the idea of God rather than people who are indecisive. Anyway, any formal classifications like that between Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism are bullshit, people use a colloquial meaning despite all of that. When a colloquial meaning is used by a large group of people, in time it becomes a formal meaning, you should remember that.
Lol, but it is. When you are driving a car, the world is moving RELATIVE to you, that’s the whole point.
The frames of reference exist for, I don’t know, almost 400 years? For all this time there were many people who were clearly smarter than you or me and somehow none of them described reference frames as bullshit, so what, they were all wrong?
Hahaha, very funny indeed. I don’t know if you noticed, but BrAndi responded the way I expected, so maybe it is you who just can’t understand something here?
You know what else is silly? That according to Theory of Relativity a train can be shorter than a tunnel, and at the same time (time, hmmm…) the tunnel could be shorter that this train, but in another frame of reference. But Einstein was just talking bullshit, right??? I’ll tell you something. The fact that it doesn’t seam to pass a common sense doesn’t mean that it’s bullshit. You just have to think on a different level of abstraction.
Simple. Belief is defined as the acceptance of something as true. Using what I know about the characteristics of “cat”, I believe that the picture I posted is a picture of a cat. I also know that it’s a picture of a cat.
Not really, no. Taking a standpoint is not the same thing as believing.
No. If you have knowledge of driving, does that mean that you’re driving regardless of whether you’re behind the wheel of a car or not?
Not really. If the answer to the following question is anything other than “Yes”, then you’re an atheist:
“Do you believe in a deity?”
Answer that question with anything other than being in the affirmative and you’re an atheist. BY DEFINITION.
Well, on my defense I can say that I was saying it with a blinked eye - probability function - no, seriously? What I was having in mind is that everything you know, every single bit, should be perceived with different level of certainty, and not taking ANYTHING for granted. In my opinion, this is truly scientific attitude. See the last research that tries to debunk the Big Bang theory: Science News. As for me, this theory is also reasonable. This is the reason why I’ve never said that I believe in Big Bang (though I still think that this is a very good theory).
I think it is the best explanation for the origins of the universe that we have at this time.
Do you read? This doesn’t debunk the Big Bang Theory. It supports it. It simply states that our Big Bang is only one of many. This theory simply puts forward that we can see the evidence of previous universes in microwave background radiation.
I still don’t see a connection with my example but let’s just leave that. Let me ask you another question instead. What do you understand by “true”? And the second one - don’t you think that this image of a cat is some form of an abstraction?
That what I wrote was a logical implication from an idea, that you have to accept something. If you don’t agree with this, you obviously won’t agree with the conclusion.
This definition of Atheism is correct, but as long there are people who use this word the way I described the other definitions are also valid - you just cannot formalize everything, language is something vivid that is constantly changing, you cannot expect people to follow some strict language rules and claim that only this is right what was written in a dictionary - language is an “unwritten” social agreement.
But it’s different from the original interpretation of the Big Bang theory.
I agree, but it doesn’t mean that this have to be the way things have happened in the beginning. There are to many unknowns. For example, what if laws of physics have changed over time? Then all the prediction are worth nothing.
You didn’t call it different, you called it a refutation. You claim that this is much easier to believe. Why? You seem eager to believe in anything that doesn’t require an explanation.
“Who created God? It doesn’t matter. I don’t have to think about it. It stretches to infinity. Where did the universe come from? I don’t have to think about it. It keeps being reborn forever into infinity.”
Your example asked if a color that is neither black nor white is “black or white”. The answer is “neither”.
Through all possible tests and predictions, if the conclusions always follow from those, then it’s true.
True, the picture I posted is just a bunch of differently colored pixels, but what they make up when put together is a picture of a cat, by the definition of said words (“picture”, “cat”, etc).
You have to drive SOMETHING. Right?
Fine. Beach potato chair, from soda potholder speaker. Tree! But cheese tangled ticket cat walks pool rain.
Know what I said? They’re all English words. If we can’t agree on the definitions of words, then we might as well be speaking gibberish. Atheism is defined as the LACK of something…namely the belief in a deity. If something is asymmetrical, it doesn’t mean that it’s got some symmetry. If something is atypical, it doesn’t mean that it’s got some typicality. It’s the LACK of symmetry/typicality just like atheism is the LACK of theism (belief in a deity).
Why is this so hard to understand?
Well, that definition is not absolute. According to Wikipedia:
That is, there are two accepted definitions, depending on the context. To discuss which definition is “better” is a waste of time. Definition is just definition, it does not change the truth or your affirmations, just the way you choose to express it. So, whenever you want to discuss with someone about atheism and there is risk of confusion, define it precisely or use the terms “weak atheism” or “strong atheism” or alike.
Definition is a personal opinion, and the reason you accept any given definition is the language used by people you know.
Well, to me, atheism is a two part word. “Theism” is the belief in a deity; monotheism being the belief in a single deity, polytheism being the belief in multiple deities, and so forth. Atheism, meanwhile, is simply the lack of a belief in a deity, by definition.
The problem arises when people’s own personal prejudices get involved and the definitions get distorted (atheism = immoral, for example) and leads to lumping atheists in with mass murderers like Pol Pot and Mao, and becomes synonymous with anti-religion. Which it isn’t. Pol Pot and Mao were atheists but they were also men. Are we to lump all men in with these mass murderers? No, of course not. But I’ve seen it happen too often with atheism.
That’s not to say that atheists can’t be anti-religious. That’d be silly to suggest but anti-religion is not atheism any more than “man” is atheism simply because I happen to be male and atheist.
My question, guga, is that if atheism becomes falsely defined as synonymous with “anti-religion” does my being an atheist suddenly morph into anti-religion?
This is why I like the scale that I first saw Richard Dawkins use. Atheism 1-10 basically. He claims he’s a 9. I’m more of an 8 myself.
To qualify, 1 would be a blind belief in God in spite of evidence, with 10 being the blind denial of God in spite of evidence, with 5 being completely undecided, or agnostic.
It’s just that the point of rotation is inside of the sun.
That and the fact there are other planets, all of which rotate around a point inside of the Sun.
Oh, there you go.
Like inside of it. Same with all the other planetary rotations. Listen, just because we’re finding existence of planets through star-wobble doesn’t mean it’s a significant effect.
Where the Sun goes, we go. Around it. It sits there barely flinching. We’re orbiting.
Agnosticism is not a midpoint between atheism and theism. It’s on a different scale altogether. You have the theism scale (dealing with belief) and you have the gnosticism scale (dealing with knowledge).
For me, I have not seen any evidence whatsoever for any deities of any sort. I don’t know if any exist and until I get some evidence, I’m not going to believe. Agnostic atheism. I’m about 7. ( 
)
If you’re “undecided”, that means that you don’t actively believe, therefore, atheist. Trying to shoehorn agnosticism into the theism line is a fool’s errand. You either believe or you don’t.
But, back on topic. I still haven’t seen a single solitary shred of evidence whatsoever for “creation”. What gives, folks?
I knew using that word was going to get me into trouble… lol
But point taken.
No, it doesn’t, you are right about that, and you have all the reasons in the world to be mad when someone associates the two things. That is exactly the reason why it is important to define the terms precisely.
Now, since most people that consider themselves atheists are not anti-religion and don’t like that confusion, it is unreasonable and very prejudicial to define atheism as being anti-religion, so it is important to separate the concepts, like you said in your post. Otherwise people will think that everyone that consider themselves as atheists hate all theists.
However, whether atheism means weak or strong atheism is a controversial subject, and, in the current state of the world, that impeaches the possibility of creating an absolute definition. Even in math there are lots of terms which vary in definition depending on who is using them. Perhaps that will change when the society is more evolved 
I could only find a scale of 1-7 on Wikipedia. In the 1-7 scale, I’m between 2.5 and 3.
On that scale, I’m about 6.5.
To me, “God” and every other deity known to man is just an invention of man and, therefore, comes with the associated prejudices and biases of man. I saw a bumper sticker that said something like “Isn’t it amazing that God seems to hate what you hate?”
Is there a deity out there? I don’t know. What would be the characteristics of a “deity” anyway? Didn’t Arthur C. Clarke posit that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from “magic”? Are you sure that Ardra isn’t just a “flim flam man”? How can you be sure?
Could be I’m just remembering incorrectly. I first saw it at his UC Berkley speech, I believe. I’ll have to watch it again and see if he uses 7 or 10.
Dawkins discussed it in detail in The God Delusion.
Think I’m probably a 6.9, leaning towards 7.