(12-05-2012 08:45 AM)Rahn127 Wrote: [color=#66f]dxnguyen89[/color]
- I don't for one minute think you are an atheist. You don't seem to have the slightest idea what the word means.
Atheism isn't a set of beliefs that you can adopt at your fork in the road. It's not a counter belief system. Simply put, it's non-belief.
People of a religious faith make a claim about the nature of reality. Those in the religion believe this claim to be true without the support of any evidence.
Having faith that something is true without any evidence is the worst thing you can do in decision making. Gullibility is not something one should strive for.
We call ourselves atheist because we don't believe that sufficient evidence has been presented to show that this claim about a god is true.
If there was a word for people who don't believe in bigfoot or pink unicorns or general outlandish bullshit, then I suppose SKEPTIC would do nicely.
There could be a bigfoot community hiding out in the forests and mountains of the Rockies.
Lots of footprint casts have been made, a few blurry pics and videos, but as far as I know, not one hair sample, not one dead body or skeletal remains have ever been discovered. I'm not saying that bigfoot isn't real. I'm saying that until sufficient evidence is presented, I'm not going to believe it. I'm not going to waste my time with it. Not going to waste my time thinking about it or praying to some bigfoot altar with someone collecting 10% of my yearly income that will go toward some bigfoot charity fund that helps displaced bigfeet find a new home.
The same applies to a believe in a god or gods.
Until a time comes when sufficient evidence is presented that such a being exists, I'm going to go on living my life with the morals and ethics instilled in me by my parents and from my own conscious consideration of the consequences of my actions.
Did you come to the same fork in the road when it comes to pink unicorns ? or was that one not much of a brain teaser ?
One last thing - The law of the conservation of matter is a LAW and thus has tons of supporting evidence to back it up. You know that sciencey stuff.
Did you read all of Dxnguyen89's posts? I don't think there's enough there to make such an accusation.
And the "law" of the conservation of matter is a "law" because humans gave it that title, not because it is inviolable. While there are some things that "have tons of supporting evidence", they are still questionable... everything in science is. Consider the "law" of non-contradiction
and what Schrodinger's Cat did to it... it gave a counter-example (the cat can be both alive and not alive, both mutually exclusive states) that we can find realized evidence of in particle physics (specifically in the copenhagen interpretation).