Interesting theory? It's science genius. See Falsifiability. 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. The term "testability" is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.' You can disprove the theory that cows speak English by observing cows. Your posts are beyond absurd. Can you keep up?
It's PRIMARY DEFINITION is the disbelief in the existance of a deity. Wikipedia on agnostic atheists "Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity" So atheism means a disbelief in the existence of a deity, and agnostic atheism means not having a belief in the existence of any deity....in other words, agnostic atheism is atheism. Get it now?
lol ok smart guy, clearly the cow thing was an extreme example to prove a point. My other one was true though. Let's focus on that, shall we. So you think it's a faith based position to claim the world wasn't created a couple days ago?
You're not grasping this at all. *Sigh* If you made that assertion (the earth was created a couple days ago) it would be an illogical one that is REFUTABLE and FALSIFIABLE (by evidence of our being here already {I could show you a newspaper from last month}, along with countless other pieces of evidence) so NO it wouldn't be a FAITH BASED POSITION! It would simply be a false statement/theory that can be dis-proven easily with known scientific methods. It doesn't take FAITH just a lack of information or LOGIC to make that mistake. Just as you couldn't have a FAITH BASED POSITION on the cows because there is the ability to test and observe and REFUTE that claim. You cannot REFUTE if a GOD DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST. IT IS COMPLETELY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE. Understand now? Spend some money and take a junior college science course because I honestly cannot teach you and debate with you simultaneously.
It would NOT be refutable. Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A common christian theory is that the world was created 6,000 years ago in a mature state. It's impossible to disprove, cuz you don't know if everything that we think was here before then was simply planted by god to make the earth appear to have been made in a mature state. He could have done the same thing last tuesday. There is NO WAY to prove that the earth wasn't created in a mature state last tuesday, or 6,000 years ago. Just as there is NO WAY to prove that there is no god. It's the EXACT same thing.
the point is whatever agnostic atheists are does not matter because this thread is discussing atheism as it is defined as being a faith based position, which it is. if you have a problem with atheism being as closed minded and faith based as theism, perhaps you should begin to identify as agnostic, which is a term to describe people who believe it is impossible to be entirely sure about the existence of a deity and so withhold taking a position as is the case with both atheists and theists.
Yes it would be. You said your theory is the earth was made a couple days ago. I could show you a newspaper from last month. Refuted. Nice try pulling up all that other shit after the fact to try to make your point stick but it was a sloppy bait and switch and anyone who can read can see what you where trying to do. Lol at your logic fail once again.
LOL. Well, for someone that's so smart, apparently "being created in a mature state" went over your head. To repeat myself, many christians believe the earth was created in a mature state. God created it to APPEAR much older than it actually was. Dinosaur bones were ALREADY IN THE EARTH when the world was created 6,000 years ago. If you were to find them on the day of creation, that would "prove" that the earth was older, but god made it in a mature state and planted the bones there. God could have done the same thing with the newspaper from last month. Do you understand now, smart guy?
here's my .02 cents. anyone who makes a big enough claim, to dismiss a god or to assign a god(s) is on the same level of thought. it would take more proof for me to read through before i ever believed there is no such thing as a god. i probably still wouldn't believe it. just like i will never believe in a certain religions god until i've seen him with my own eyes. i'd like to believe something higher is out there, but, i will not use modern religion to substitute for my lack of understanding.
You realize how absurd it would be to say that 'god' created something that already existed (because you've been experiencing it) correct? If you are speaking of the Christians theory of the whole 6000 years ago thing then YES that is a FAITH BASED POSITION as it ISN'T refutable. Everyone who was alive and experiencing reality last month and last year will be able to refute the whole 'the day is a couple days old' theory. Observation is one of the cornerstones of science and if you have eye witnesses there is nothing better. That idea is as absurd as the cow post. You obviously are still having trouble comprehending this.
Dude. Stop with the condescending attitude. Do you think anyone thinks your smart because you talk down to others? lol. God could have planted those memories in your head. You can't refute that. God could have just created the world yesterday and all memories of the past were planted there by god. Do you understand now, oh genius of the stoners?
None of this is logical or scientific as 'god's' existence is faith based. Can't you see how broken your logic is? This is absurd. Well I guess god did it. Obviously you cannot be reasoned with. Have fun with the whole 'I'm right because, god.' thing. That will surely convince a lot of people of the merit of your argument.
Ok, so you say if something is not refutable and you don't believe in it than it's a faith position. You CANNOT refute that the world was created yesterday and all memories and evidence of existence prior to it were simply planted there. It's IMPOSSIBLE to refute. Therefore, by YOUR OWN POST, believing that the earth wasn't created yesterday is a faith based position. It's called consistancy, maybe you should try it. Or maybe when you get to be as smart as you are you don't have to be consistant anymore?
Just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's real. Like I said, ANYTHING could be true. Believing in something because it could be true is silly, so if my proving that god COULD exist causes people to believe that he does existance then they are silly and weak minded.
What?! We would never have understood advanced things if we didn't think outside the box. We had to ponder things to get electricity among other things. Gnostic Atheism and Agnostic Atheism. Shuuuudd'up. Don't argue with it just because you don't understand it.
Who cares if it IS a faith based position. I'm not defending that position, you seem to be. Why are you trying to PROVE that it is faith based is my question. It is, there you are, very true that since you cannot test it or prove it then it has ZERO scientific merit. Its an absurd claim, that was my main point, it was absurd as your cow example which was easily refuted. Whether you believe in something or not has nothing to do with it's scientific merit. Only if it is falsifiable/refutable or not. If it is not, then it is a faith based position not a scientific one. The point was that atheism and theism are both faith based positions. All theories about the earth being created are faith based. This was merely a distraction to the original point.
Wait! I'm confused If you are saying that it would be ridiculous to believe in god simply because it's a possibility, then I would have to be in agreement with you.. I'll have to go back through your posts.. Sorry, I'm extremely high and I don't even remember what I'm talking about right now