It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by IamBoon
It’s not, it is someone who doesn’t believe that god exists.
BECAUSE THE VERY TERM ATHEIST POSTULATES A VIEW ON A SUBJECT THAT IS UNPROVABLE AND A POSSIBILITY OF UNCERTAINTY>
I know... so what is your problem with my previous posts?
You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.
wouldn't the safest "bet" be to choose to believe in the existence of god?
Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by faceoff85
wouldn't the safest "bet" be to choose to believe in the existence of god?
he said it was 50\50.. so why is it a safer "bet" to choose deism? What does that mean?
The only way out for you on this would be to say "I dont know"
Originally posted by eight bits
You can be an atheist without believing gods do not exist.
No. English has had a word for that since the 19th Century, agnostic.
The alternative to using the word is to use some phrase instead. "Negative" is a long-winded way of saying "not." The phrase "negative explicit atheist" says that its referent is not an explicit atheist.
Quite so. A non-Catholic isn't a Catholic, either.
Since your only attested instance for the usage is Wikipedia, it is unsurpising that negative explicit atheist isn't a standard usage. Then again, it is awkward, vague, misleading, and when applied to agnostics, marginally ad hominem. Those features, too, assure us that the solecist character of the usage is something that is likely to persist.
I am agnostic. I am not any kind of atheist. Non-atheist isn't a kind of atheist any more than non-Catholic is a kind of Catholic.
That is what I'm saying just not in the case of the christian god or other named gods because I have sufficient evidence against their existence, at least as described.
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by IamBoon
It didn’t make sense.
[edit on 30-7-2010 by Mike_A]
Unless your evidence is so conclusive that no christian on earth can disagree, it is still based on belief/faith..
Originally posted by Daniem
reply to post by IamBoon
"Yes my 3 week year old son believes that no gods exist."
RIDICULOUS.. just absurd..
Lack of empirical evidence can only bring you so far as to say that the probability of God existing is slim, but you cannot know God does not exist from that alone. So, if you don't know God does not exist, then that means you believe He doesn't exist.
Think of it as having cancer (the human condition of aging and dying) At this moment a human can do 2 things... go to the hospital and TRY to get cured (no guarantees given) Or just stay at home and wait until you die... (certainty)
Think of it as having cancer (the human condition of aging and dying) At this moment a human can do 2 things... go to the hospital and TRY to get cured (no guarantees given) Or just stay at home and wait until you die... (certainty)