6 bitch i stay open minded motherfucker
but really i just don’t like believing anything with that kind of certainty so no one can brag if i’m wrong
Don’t worry, Fancy Pants (and Burbinator). 7 is a thousand times better than 1 
Definition can be personal, but that particular one is not accurate, because it doesn’t encompass all possible uses of the word. You don’t reject what you aren’t aware of. If a human doesn’t know of any god(s), and doesn’t believe in them, that makes the person an atheist, but without knowledge of the existence of anything to reject, nothing is rejected. You can’t reject Christianity if you don’t know of it.
i don’t like such strong conviction from either side, to be honest.
2+2=4. Maybe.
5 if rats are involved
If you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about then I love you.
I missed long walls of texts
if it is about any world religion. I’m 7. If it is about “God”. I’m 6.
So I pasted a link to a random article without reading a full story, a big deal. The idea was to show that physical concepts change all the time, it’s probably just a matter of time before Big Bang Theory will be replaced with something else. Look back in time and see how many there was erroneous theories - anybody has heard of the aether?
It’s funny, because previously I’ve said that I don’t believe in anything (you could say I’m an empiricist). Secondly, I didn’t say that one theory is more likely than the other, I said that they seam equally likely (i.e. theory that says that Universe started existed in the Big Bang and the theory that Universe is being constantly reborn).
Exactly. And for me being completely certain that something is true of false is like calling gray color “black”. A dark gray can look almost like black, but it’s not it.
Hmmm, but sometime tests are inconclusive. I was rather thinking that “true” describes something that reflects reality or describes an abstract idea.
Well, it’s a cat, because an author of this picture wanted it to be a cat, so it represents an idea of it, just as if I draw a picture of a cat with all it’s characteristic features. Now imagine that a good artist created a perfect imitation of a cat and then took a picture of it. Then I would asked whether it’s a cat on that picture. I think the answer should be yes, even though the photographer didn’t take a picture of a real cat. My point is that it’s quite a delicate subject when it comes to calling something true or false. That’s why I think that there is a huge difference between describing reality and abstract ideas.
No, it’s completely different. When you speak, you try to represent an idea with words, but when you speak gibberish, behind these words there is no idea at all. The purpose of a language is to pass ideas/thoughts, so anyone using it should take an effort to be properly understood - for example, physicians should not use advanced medical terms when talking with their patients. Sometime misunderstanding happens, but that’s normal and it’s not a reason to treat a dictionary like some kind of a final revelation.
Because you simple are wrong at this issue, i.e. to think that only your point of view is right.
No sane atheist would ever be a 7. The very logic that creates atheism means that to completely reject an unproved concept with no evidence against it would be wrong.
I know there is no god as much as I know there are no fairies living in any forests. “I know there is no God…”
Actually, that’s the thing about theories, even when part of it is proven wrong, usually it can be changed or adapted to take in the new information to make it more precise. IE aether was replaced by vacuum, but it didn’t exactly ruin our ideas on the ability of light to travel from the sun to earth without this luminiferous aether.
Strangely enough in some ways religion has been doing this as well, but in the opposite direction. Starting with a more clear, concise idea, and making it more broad and vague as to not conflict with today’s more modern ideas in science and morality.
Words are just symbolism for thoughts and ideas yes, but the conciseness of words is important. A physician using layman’s terms to describe an intricate thought loses most of its exact meaning.
That’s correct, but in everyday life you don’t need such a formalism.
No. Words have meanings. True, there’s no such thing as PURE black, but what you posted (something with an RGB value greater than 0,0,0) was not black, as the word is defined.
And sometimes the tests are conclusive.
No. It’s because it’s a photograph of a cat.
If you have any evidence that the provided picture is an artistic representation of a cat (using paint, colored pencils or something), then provide it.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities. It isn’t an active belief. I do not believe.
How many different ways should I type this?
Are there atheists that believe that there is no God? Sure. But that is irrelevant from atheism. Are there men that believe in God? Sure. But their masculinity is irrelevant from theism. For the same reason.
Just as there are atheists that are against religion, being against religion isn’t atheistic.
My computer speakers are red. Why are they red? Because the wavelengths of visual light being reflected from them are in the red portions of the visual portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. That’s the definition of “red”.
If you want my computer speakers to be blue, you’re going to have to validate why you believe it to be so when every test possible shows that they are red.
Not really. It doesn’t take any faith to reject the existence of something that does not have a single solitary shred of evidence. Just as there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a pot of gold is at the end of a rainbow but there’s loads of evidence that, one: rainbows don’t have “ends” and two: that rainbows don’t actually exist where they appear to exist (that they are positioned via the positions of the sun, rain, and, most importantly, the observer), it takes absolutely no faith to reject the possibility of the pots of gold.
So, if you want people like me to believe that they do exist, you’re going to have to find some way to subsume the current evidence.
–
No, you know there is no Christian God. However, the existence of an all powerful being at some point in the history of the universe, probably towards the beginning, is a remote possibility, and thus must be included in your rating. There is no evidence against such a being, so to dismiss it would be equal to saying you know there is a God.
It’s as much a possibility as me having a flying pig, you can’t prove that I don’t have it but there’s no reason to believe it.
And saying you know there is no Christian god is the same as saying you know there is no god, you can’t prove or disprove either.
But the Christian God is riddled with such incredible logical fallacies that its existence is next to impossible. However, considering that we have no clue how the universe started, we are forced to accept there is the possibility of a all powerful creator. Its as logical as saying nothing exploded into everything. I personally believe there is another solution, but nevertheless I and any other logical thinking person am forced to admit that there is a chance of something different, and that chance means there can be no certainty.
Why?