American Atheists' David Silverman Bill O'Reilly Behind the Scenes, Says David Pakman is Atheist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- --David Silverman, President of American Atheists, discusses Bill O'Reilly playing an on-air character very different from the real Bill O'Reilly, debates with David Pakman about whether he is actually atheist, and much more.
--On the Bonus Show Gabrielle Giffords gets brain injury treatment that troops deserve, Brazil looks to add happiness to its constitution, AOL buys the Huffington Post, Black Eyed Peas political statements, more.
The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman
www.davidpakman...
www.davidpakman...
/ davidpakmanshow
/ davidpakmanshow
feeds.feedburne...
24/7 Voicemail Line & Studio Number: (219)-2DAVIDP
Broadcast on February 7, 2011 Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/... David's Instagram: / david.pakman --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
5 years ago you could have gone and seen christopher hitchens for 20 bucks. damn, missed it. By the time I had first learned of the man's existence a few years back he was already gone.
David you are an Atheist.
exact same story for me. I always queried how the hell man was made from dirt and a boat filled with a pair of every damn species got onto a boat. Life makes perfect sense when viewed scientifically.
So Bill O'Reilly is not stupid and/or ignorant; is playing a part to the susceptible. Ergo: Bill is Pravda.
The notion of the absolute power of this individual human enlightenment process:
People just want To Know. To Know. That is the absolute power of the individual human enlightenment process. It drives people to seek answers, don’t you think?.
One of my notions was: This individual human enlightenment process was a continuum that could be graphed, that it could be explained rationally, that it could be explained using reason and logic reasonably and logically, and that it could be scientifically proof tested.
[Right now I can think of no reason as to why I considered this notion early on, but there it was. In my research I found a lot of people not using reason and logic reasonably and logically, when push-came-to-shove regarding their ‘beliefs’, on both sides.]
One of my notions was: All of these wise people, the venerated and respected ‘seers’, throughout all human history, have been trying to explain it and have not quite been able to do that. [It's obvious, the current world conditions make it abundantly clear.]
One of my notions was: All men and women are created equal, the world of humans just acts as if that's not the case . [Must be because wise people have been talking about that concept throughout human history.]
One of my notions was: If all men and all women are created equal, why can't we all find a way to just get along? [One of the big questions, if not the biggest, to be raised throughout human history... don't you think?]
One of my notions was: To get the theists and atheists to be able to agree on something. [Silly rabbit, Trix [tricks] are for kids... and so too the theist-atheist schism… childish… unseemly…]
One of my notions was: I must rise above the internecine squabble if I am to go in search of an answer to my question about the power of the individual human enlightenment process. [ And so I did, and what do you know, the answer was right there, all along.]
Almost everyone born on this planet gets a genius quality brain, how much of it you utilize is a free will choice entirely yours to make…
Find out who, what, where, when, why, and how.
The who, of course, is you.
The what is your individual human enlightenment.
The where is not in your head, it is in your heart.
The when is now, or at least, pretty darn soon.
The why is because your head stopped corroborating its decisions with your heart at some point in your life and now you don't know how to reawaken those skills.
The how, of course, is by joining the happier project
Sincerely, stephenkirby 92115 12:10 am pdt
Conscience-ness Recovery and Retention Center
the happier project
1cnrrc@gmail.com
I watched this video a while back and the exact same thing happened at the end both times: I get the giggles because David seems to get them after saying "very good" to Lewis quitting Hebrew school...
My point is that, from a philosophical point of view, its easy to say youre an atheist, but with modern scientific thinking, even Richard Dawkins isnt completely atheist, because being completely atheist is being unscientific. Thats why new definitions are a bit shifted. Like in Dawkin's scale, "spectrum of theistic probability", one can still consider the possibility of some god, and be a 'de facto atheist'. People who considered themselves believers find themselves there as de facto atheists.
The great difference is that in modern times, epistemology has changed since philosophy. Long ago, atheist 'didnt believe' and agnostics 'kind off and not necessarily in the christ'. Ever heard of falsifiability? Its part of the methodology of science, that its impossible to refute that an untestable god exists. The most antitheists you can think of cant deny god to a 100% because the hypothesis simply wont allow empirical refutation. We are not kids 'believing' or not, science isnt philosophy.
@historicalogicalness There are not "2 sides". One person makes a claim... Ghosts exist. The other person says "show me". Ghost guy says, "I can't", so the other guy says "Well until you do, I don't believe you." That is atheism. Life on other planets same thing. Someone makes a claim, and we decide to accept their position or we don't. If we don't then we by definition do not believe that claim. No one is saying its not possible, but until the evidence is offered why accept the claim?
If you're a Christian, you are an Atheist to the Hindu Gods, Allah, Wiccan Deities, the Roman Gods, etc. So technically, everyone's an Atheist to some degree due to religions deities being largely exclusive.
However, most often it's not used in that way, and is instead used to define a lack of belief in any God.
First off, David Pakman is a boss. Secondly, I'm an Atheist and I think that David Pakman is on the verge of Agnosticism, but he's still an Atheist. He believes in something higher than him (Agnostic), but doesn't consider it a deity or "god" (Atheist).
In fact, the best answer might be to say that we dont need to give an explanation. Because then bill would be saying that god is the default position when you dont have an answer. Which is basicly flat out admitting that god is an argument from ignorance.
Then you should've known that I implied that... Plus, I did say he was on the verge of both... So... We should be agreeing with each other....... Why aren't we agreeing with each other?
Oh... Well, shit. I made a boo boo. I meant to say "Believes there may be something higher than him." Spiritually, of course. My bad. Thanks for the pointing that out.
If I had no conscience, I could exploit the religious and be rich. Atheist is not a religion, shouldn't disturb you.
I cannot believe even today people so not understand the distiction between Atheism and Agnostism, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Gnostism lends itself to knowledge and Theism to belief.
In my case i am an Agnostic Atheist.
In Bills case I would say he is a Gnostic Theist, but you can be any mix of the two. Ive met them all.
I think the host of this show is an Agnostic Theist, someone that does not know but wants/does belief in a higher power.
Simple.
Agnosticism is a belief on the claim of knowledge; not an 'I dunno' mentality. A *Gnosic* atheist would claim knowledge on whether or not a god exists; and agnostic atheist would, by definition, claim that it's impossible to know.
All definitions aside; there's 0 reason to assume magic as the cause. Only people who believe in magic would.
And there's no reason to assume *that* exists either.
It's really not a position of authority to claim that religious stuff is all total bunk :P
Short definitions: Gnostic = to know something for sure, Agnostic = to not know/supportive of not knowing something/skeptic. Atheist simply means a person who disbelieves in deities. One can be an agnostic and an atheist. I am an atheist because I don't believe in god(s), but I am agnostic: a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty -- because we cannot prove a negative. It is not possible.
unfortunately, since so many people have his opinion on what "agnostic" means, they're starting to change the meaning of the word. The worst part of it is, most of them don't call themselves atheists because they don't like the connotation of the word/they want to be perceived as "open-minded" and "freethinking". Personally, irl, I would probably say I am a nonbeliever/I don't believe in God. If you would consider yourself a nonbeliver, you're an atheist.
"An atheist doesn't call what is beyond his intelligence & knowledge a "god", he views it as a place to explore and learn; not worship or pray to."- Me
David Pakman has a completely different idea. "god" is just a term, a title. But, being an atheist means to not believe in "gods" not the higher power he imagines. Because such an "higher power" would simply another civilization. It's like the chinese worshipping japan as a "god". While we know they aren't "gods" but simply another civilization. That still makes you an atheist, unless you have a deeply religious and bizarre relationship with such a concept.
@Fordi
... which is what I suspect Pakman means when he says, "I don't really feel like I'm an atheist."
When Silverman says "atheist" he means "anyone who does not believe in a god"; which I believe accurately describes Pakman. When Packman says "atheist", he means "anyone who rejects a deity", which is right if we're talking about contextual atheism (I'm an atheist with regards to Zeus), or antithesm (no gods exist).
It's a disagreement in terms, but not substance.
On the "atheist v agnostic" thing: Theism is belief in a god; atheism is lack of said belief. Similarly gnosticism is knowledge of the supernatural, while agnosticism is lack of said knowledge (and practically, understanding that such knowledge is unobtainable). They're not mutually exclusive, and simply not believing in any gods makes you an atheist, by definition.
The term that a lot of vocal atheists wrongly eschew, but describes specific rejection of one or more gods is "antitheist".
@robvlob I don't think that one could deny that The Lord has spoken to someone. It is written that a good tree will bear good fruit and a bad tree will bear bad fruit. If evil actions are the results of a persons relationship with God then there should be reason for doubt. The vast majority of the time a person is called upon by God the results are good.
I do not have any problem with Agnostics or Atheists, most of my friends fall into these 2 categories.
@okieoneshinobi "Undeniable truth" So noone can deny the truthfulness of a persons claim that god has spoken to them? I highly doubt that when mothers kill there babies because they claim god has spoken to them to do so there wouldn't be loads of people denying here sanity and the truth of it. Myself I'm not so much trying to push my beliefs onto people to deconvert them(atheists don't have a 1stPeter 3:15)just trying to get them to think and understand my position rationally not emotionally.
@robvlob i think the thing that you are missing is that most Atheists have called out to God with no answer, and many theists have God answer them with undeniable truth. Where the problem comes in is when we try to push our beliefs onto a heart that is unwilling to listen. One could make the same case against agnostics since for the most part they are unwilling to listen, since either way they are unwilling and afraid to accept a God or lack there of.
@barkingwater2000
Nah. There are popping up communities here and there. The problem is, it's like a club for non-stamp collectors. The one things that's sure to unite us, is a disbelief in gods. Then most after that agree on a wide range of other subjects, but that's not a certainty. Watch most Scandinavian politics. That's basically an atheist platform, in the sense that religious arguments doesn't matter, only secular ones does.
@kazooga1234 You're 100% certain santa don't exist and you think you can prove this using beliefs? There wouldn't be much of a debate about science VS religion if it where not for religion feeling it as such a threat especially to creation gods namely the god of Islam Christianity Judaism. God has been defined although not always clearly there has to be a definition of god otherwise you could not claim to be an atheist.
I hope you have at least acknowledged we are diff levels of atheists.
@kazooga1234 Okay the word GOD has been defined and has a meaning otherwise the word atheist theist theos deist etc would be meaningless non words. You make a claim of 100% certainty there is no god. You are asserting a truth while truths exist without knowledge, knowledge is required for the truth to be known IE. not solely a belief. Also after the knowledge of a truth is acquired and that truth is accepted the belief of the truth is no longer necessary and redundant.
(cont)Strong atheists are making a positive assertion that needs to be justified IE 100% gods do not exist. Therefore you have a burden of proof. Myself as a weak atheist I am not making a positive claim of 100% certainty therefore I have no burden of proof. I am disbelieving a claim where someone with a burden of proof has failed to show that proof.
Its just intellectually honest to acknowledge its impossible to know for certain an extraordinary claim like a god is false.
(cont) Theos means God. Theist means belief in a god(s) It has never meant simply GOD. A means without therefore atheist means without belief in god.
The closest thing to your definition is atheos which means without god but if you think that is the correct definition of atheist then a theist would be theos which in would mean they are a god.
By definition you're a strong,positive, hard or gnostic atheist what ever term you wish to use myself I'm a weak, soft negative, or agnostic atheist.
@kazooga1234 The Gnostics where a religious group in antiquity that believed spiritual knowledge and/or of god was attainable. Gnosis means knowledge. definition(other than the description of the religious people of the religious movement with the same name) a gnostic is someone who claims to have knowledge of gods existence/non existence. Just because one says its impossible to know with absolute certainty there is no god does not mean they believe in and have a god
@kazooga1234 Again I'll explain Gnosticism agnosticism deals with knowledge atheism theism deals with belief one can know it is impossible to know for certain there is no gods but also not believe in them.
The theists trap question "How can you know for certain god doesn't exist" acknowledging that its impossible to prove that kind of negative doesn't automatically make you not an atheist. look up atheism there are levels in atheism weak/soft/negative/agnostic to strong/hard/positive/gnostic
@kazooga1234 I'm at a loss here I guess you will continue to use your own definitions of the words regardless of how many people try to led you to an understanding of the correct definitions.
I really don't understand how anyone could logically think they know (you say believe) with 100% certainty that something that has not been defined(what you say) doesn't exist.
Ill make up a word and not define it then you tell me if you believe in it or not wehnus do you believe/disbelieve in wehnuses?
@kazooga1234 "theist means that its a person that believe100% there is a god" Right its a belief(I'd have to disagree with the 100% some believe but have doubts and visa versa) that's where your getting it wrong your equating belief with knowledge and/or truths. Theo doesn't mean god it is a name that derives from Greek word for god theos.
A is the Greek letter alpha used as a prefix it means without(Google Greek prefixes)
theist a belief in god(s) therefore atheist would mean without belief
@kazooga1234 This is where you keep getting it wrong
theos means god, theism means belief in god
atheos means without god, atheism means without belief in god
theism doesn't mean "god" if so a theist wouldn't be a believer in god but a god themselves.
Being intellectually honest I understand there is no way to know with 100% certainty there is no god(s) just like I can't know for certain any mythological creature don't exist but I believe they are highly improbable. IE agnostic W/O belief
@kazooga1234 theos the Greek word for god is the root for theism which means belief in at least one god. The Greek A is a negation IE. Atheos means without god/godless which is the root for atheism which the A negates the meaning of theism IE without belief in god(s).
Gnosticism means knowledge of.
Agnosticism is without knowledge IE without knowledge of gods existence.
An agnostic atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god(s) but isn't absolutely certain god(s) don't exist.
@montsyblackmadonna Thank Dog! I thought for a second I was going to spend an eternity with child molesters, murderers, rapists, and bigots. Now that I know I am going to Hell, I am very happy. I get to spend eternity will all my friends, loving family, rockin' musicians, thoughtful poets, brilliant scientists, and many of the master painters and sculptors throughout history. I'm stoked!!!
@Yanma How many times would you have to flip heads on a coin to know the game was rigged? 20, or 200, or 2,000, or 2,000,000. I can assure that the any one event that has happened has less of a chance than that, and when you start to put it all together the probability becomes impossible in the 2.5-4 billion years we have been around for. Even in the 13.75 billion years since the big Bang multiplied by the finite number of stars, the chance is too small.
@SmogHouseTradingCo (cont) with the impossible probabilities of the path that life has taken on this planet. Like I said it was the path of evolution that made me realize the nature and presence of God. When you put it all together it leaves little doubt of a creator or divine will. You could say that you could just roll the dice enough times and come up with what has happened here, but I really think that oversimplifies the amazing miracle that is life and that is you.
@SmogHouseTradingCo (cont.) is ridiculously small or impossible. The fact that mammals were around since before the dinosaurs but it was not until after the evolution of the plant that all dinos were destroyed both land and sea, but somehow birds and mammals survived. The fact that life evolved here on a binary planet, but apparently nowhere else in the known universe. The fact that every mass extinction happened at such a perfect time to usher in a new era. I could go on and on forever ...
@SmogHouseTradingCo I think you really oversimplify things. Morality cannot be described through the genetic code, neither can differences in personality, this is clearly seen in differences in twins. Our thought process and self awareness is not in the DNA. The deliberateness of evolution, and the timing of events leaves little doubt of God. Such as it has been observed that inland seas can empty with an undersea earth quake but the chances of it happening while Moses is on the the other end..
@okieoneshinobi I can accept that you have your own view, again if god answers your prayers I am not going to question your reality, but I have to disagree with the will to survive. Think about a sifter, do the materials that have passed the mesh have a will to become small? Life is similar, our universe creates a situation where nothing recreates itself until the matter can meet a natural sifter.
@okieoneshinobi Well there are organisms that are not trying to replicate. One could argue that mitochondria, which is a very ancient form of life, were horrible at living, and thety are. Put some mitochondria in any substrate and it can't exist, but we have hijacked them to do the one thing they do for us, we happen to have taken them along for the ride. Another is the phospholipid bilayer, it probably existed before the organism that began using it and eventually building their own.
@SmogHouseTradingCo I think this is the base of the disagreement we have. I believe that all life has the will to survive and grow/reproduce. I also believe that this will predated the "spark" of life. This is a chicken or the egg kind of argument and really can't be proven. I have had people argue that primitive life does not want to live. It seems silly to me to think that just because a creature does not have a brain to think that it does not want to live, but it is a valid viewpoint.
@okieoneshinobi The will to survive is caused by evolution, there are organisms without that will, most have ceased to exist. Matter doesn't have a will to become life, it just will given certain circumstances that are not that extreme. A will to exist not only defies morality, it's fundamental to evolution that it not be divine. Things that try to survive will survive, you can't win unless you play.
@kazooga1234 "you cant even think its possible", sure sounds like a religion to me. Have you read the bible for at least its worth as a history book. Have you listened to Jesus' teachings with an open mind for what they are worth. If you are some how afraid of these things then it is a religion. Most Atheists do not realize that they are just as close minded as many theists. It is this blind faith in a lack of a God that makes it a religion.
@kazooga1234 Look, the word you're trying to describe as atheism is antitheism. That means no god. Atheism means ungodly, we define it as "a disbelief in the existence of deity", there is no mention of god because we didn't want deists being atheists and so newborns would be atheist, not theist until they say no, so unless you want people to mistake you for a deist you'll finally agree with the rest of the world... Admit you're wrong and you get a cookie.
@okieoneshinobi I will agree that the improbability is astounding, but it makes complete sense objectively. Evolution has gone as anyone would expect it to without a god, its made mistakes and kept completely absurd mechanics because it had no creator. I disagree with you there, however I am not about to state I know your reality better than you, if god does answer your prayers, but will only state that it is very easy for someone to perceive things like religion when they are not there.
@SmogHouseTradingCo Also my own personal relationship with the Creator isn't something that can be quantified with words. This is one reason I almost never discount another humans relationship with the creator. Also I feel that the doubts of the atheists have bought me closer to God even though that is not what you try to do. I believe that someday it will be science that proves the existence of God, and religious people should embrace science.
@SmogHouseTradingCo Interesting view that a vacuum is matter and antimatter. Like 0 being 1-1. As far as religion, religion and God are two very different things. Religion is how man uses God to control other men, not absolutely but it is often used this way.
What made me understand that there is a God is the path this planet and evolution has taken. The enormous improbability of my own existence. Also the fact that God, the Creator answers my prayers.
@kazooga1234 "In early ancient Greek, the adjective atheos meant "godless". It was first used as a term of censure roughly meaning "ungodly" or "impious"" - Nothing about not believing in god, more for someone who did not sacrifice enough or something similar. We do not speak greek, so it does not mean this for us. We define it as
"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" - No god mentioned since we wanted to cover deism. You are wrong.
@okieoneshinobi but I agree that this alone does not disprove god, it merely is the foundations of a different theory which can be proven by the sum of all its parts. This theory defeats religion because it debunks all of the religious claims, that matter must come from something, life cannot come from matter, and I can continue and prove morality comes from life. This line of reason does not need god to function, in fact god creates some paradoxes having it involved.
@okieoneshinobi Energy and matter are pretty much interchangable, I don't think the difference will affect this topic. If energy is matter, and a vacuum is matter and antimatter, than matter from nothing is quite possible and actually needs to occur exactly like it did for the theory to be correct, which it is. So matter or energy does not need to be created, it's already there, nothing is like the number 0, for ages we didn't have one 0, we do now.
@SmogHouseTradingCo I don't believe that God has ever actually broken the rules of the Universe. Just showing the steps that it has taken for us to get here hardly disproves a divine will. I guess the real question is: Is Matter energy or is Energy Matter? To have a real creation,which I am sure is possible, you would need to create matter or energy without either being present. Einsteins E=MC^2 shows that the two are interchangeable.
@kazooga1234 That has nothing to do with what the creators of the word atheism meant to say or how we have adopted it. Atheism was a word to refer to people who did not accept the western european ideologies. We have now adopted it to anyone who does not believe in a deity, a deity is now defined as "the rank or essential nature of a god or supreme being". ESSENTIAL NATURE OF GOD is a key part of that sentence because it is not simply "a god". You are wrong and are confusing Greek for English...
@kazooga1234 All right, I don't know how to word this any differently. Atheist originally meant someone who doesn't agree with western religion, it changed to any of the 3 major religions. It then meant any religion, then any god. It's jumbled around untill 1577-1800 where it has finally fiound its place as a belief in no deity since deism is no longer a synonym for theism. The word atheist was created before theism. How else can I prove I know more of this than you?
@SmogHouseTradingCo A laser is energy and energy is matter, some light matter was turned into a more complex form of matter. Could you give me a link for Dr Solotov, all I found was a dermatologist. Even the creation story from the Bible God doesn't just snap his fingers and all of creation is there. It is a deliberate step by step process that was so difficult that even the creator had to rest after.
@okieoneshinobi Okay 1, so a vacuum, which is "nothing" can create matter. Dr. Solotov has done this with a very powerful laser, so if we humans can create something from nothing why must it be a god? Onto 2, life has been proven to be caused by evolution and geologists can prove that primitive life could for from what was left from the big bang, which Solotov proves is not a large feat like the theory of god requires. So it is proven that life can come from nothing right?
@okieoneshinobi Alright, so the mere fact that you do not buy into one ideology can disprove your theory. There have been billions of people on earth with personal versions of ideologies, and claiming you are right and they are all wrong is akin to claiming to know the speed of light before Einstein, many people claimed to, only one did. You are right, time is merely the relation matter together, the big bang is proven, but expansion rates and the value of dark energy are unknown unfortunately.
@SmogHouseTradingCo 4 the creator cares for all life, not just human life. We may be the apex of his design so far, but we are here to serve a purpose. We must ask ourselves what all life has in common. We all want to live, grow, spread, reproduce. This combined will is part of God and is the driving force. We are here to protect life from certain doom, by spreading life to other planets. God loves all his creation, but it is somewhat up to us to finish his design.
@SmogHouseTradingCo 2 Life is more of a pull than a push. The will to survive came before life began. It was through studying evolution that I came to know God and our purpose here. The will to survive is part of God.
3 There is nothing ion our genetic code that makes morality. It is mostly programmed in the womb. It is part of what we need in order to fulfill the will of the creator.
@SmogHouseTradingCo I don't really buy into one ideology. 1 I actually believe that it has always been here and the creation of time was created both future and past. Evidence of the Big Bang disputes this and shows some creation story. I have some objections with the Big Bang creation theory. I really do not know how the creation of matter happened, but I do believe it was a deliberate step by step process. Also without matter time does not exist according to Hawkins.
@okieoneshinobi I need to know your version, Just answer a few questions and I can get to the proving(pls dont take offense, I just use logical thinking). Where do you believe matter comes from? Where do you think life and humans come from? Where do you think morality comes from? If you think someone or something consciously created us do you believe they care for us? That's all i need.
@kazooga1234 All right, I'm going to give a very abstract analogy but I hope it helps your understanding. You have a math equation, and you want to find out from people on the street what their reaction to the equation is by testing them. There are 4 ways people can react, people can get the equation right(atheist), people can get it wrong(theist), people will give up (agnostic) and people will not take the test (apatheist). If you ask anyone who knows, they will tell you apatheists are atheists
@kazooga1234 No need to get angry. You "hard core" atheists are silly since you hold your belief in an absence of a creator at least as seriously as the most devout Christian. You are definitely entitled to your belief. I respect that an think that it is important for you Atheists to point out when fruitloops on the theist side get out of hand. Either way God loves Atheists and Theists alike, so it is not for me to judge. I am 100% sure there is no Santa, does that mean I don't get any presents
@kazooga1234 ".....is a belief in a higher power." that would be deist.
The word god is defined as generally a supernatural being who is in some ruler and/or creator of the universe in part or as a whole. Without even this basic definition there wouldn't be necessary the words atheist deist theist etc. God(s) can be defined individually.
@BrightonContrarian10 Yeah that's the case some of the time other times people choose that term because of the ignorance of others about what atheism means. They just want to avoid the confrontation or just don't want to repeat themselves countless times to those ignoramuses who don't want to accept there is a definition other than their biased definition of atheism.
@Yanma I understand that some people don't want to believe in a God, and nothing I can say will convince them. Soon as we explore the Universe we will find a complete absence of life except for our tiny planet because just to have life is a one in a trillion chance, and multiplied by all the one in a billion chances to get here, becomes irrationally improbable.
@Yanma How is my time line off. Apparently you don't know the coarse of evolution. I am actually quite knowledgeable on the subject having read several books on it. The point I am making is that any number of events were a one in a billion or one in a trillion chance. Any one can be explained by chance or dumb luck but when you put them together, there just isn't enough time.
@SmogHouseTradingCo (Errors in writing) "evolution of the plant" I meant evolution of the flower. The flower is essential for all mammal life to have evolved to where we are. Without it we have no fruits vegetables or grasses. All flowering plants come from a common ancestor at the end of the Cretaceous period. In other words the dinosaurs never saw a flower or ate a fruit.
@kazooga1234 Your trying to quantify something conceptual, stop using percents. Theist means you believe there is a deity. Believe is a sufficient word that you don't have to bring in percents where they do not belong. The only quantitative value theism has is the amount of brain that dedicates itself to remembering theistic views, no percents.
@SmogHouseTradingCo I can admit that if there were no God, man would create one. I do not believe in a bearded being in the sky or even a being in a traditional sense, but there is a divine will. A will to survive that we all share. A collective consciousness. I cannot say that this is all of God, but it is part of God.
@kazooga1234 Why do you care what the definition of atheist is? It is just like when I go to a bible study and people tell me I am not a Christian. Definitions of words change depending on who's using them. A dictionary is only a reference so that we can communicate what we mean to someone who never heard the word before.
@okieoneshinobi The anti matter came from nowhere, the mass was tripled. This is extraordinarily important. they sort of blew up an electron, they allowed an anti electron to meet its counterpart under precise conditions creating even more from the nothing. It was not just an exploding electron and we found smaller components, it was matter being formed from an action.
@SmogHouseTradingCo Even if there was no God. Life is important and together it has a combined will. I believe this will is part of God and predates the beginning of life. Even Jesus said God is the God of the living NOT the God of the dead. The first thing God told man was was to spread and rule. Something can be learned from these teachings.
People should stop misusing the term agnostic. It does not refer to a kind of attenuated atheism. The term means "no knowledge, no knowing" and was coined by Thomas Huxley who believed that the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities was neither in practice nor in principle a problem solvable by the human mind.
the facts is the World is Dying and if you think that is no one controlling these things your are blind, God is showing his power to everyone so everyone can believe that he is GOD, The Lord Said Heaven and Earth shall Pass Away but my words shall never pass away..
there are no real christians, jews or muslim or others who beleive in god totally. they have to know that their religion is based on their environment. you are what you eat as far as food is concerned. yuo are what you grow up into as far as religion is concerned.
@kazooga1234 I really shouldn't get technical here, but this is a problem that I have with the atheist argument I often hear. Belief in the lack of God is a belief, and therefor is a religion. Just the fact that you are up at 2:00 AM shows that you are serious about your Atheist religion.
@kazooga1234 No it's not kid, believing in nature is not making you a theist or an agnostic... You can believe in more than this world quite easily without becoming an agnostic. Say you believe this is just a virtual reality like Hawkings does, he is no agnostic or theist...
@kazooga1234 I guess there is some logic in that statement. And since I am 100% sure of the existence of God I should respect your 100% belief of an absence of a creator or divine will. The truth is the truth whether we believe it or not. Our beliefs have no bearing on the truth.
@kazooga1234 A means without, THEOS means god, THEISM is belief in one or multiple gods. What are you if you've grown up in the jungle and never even heard about gods? You're an atheist, because you're not a theist, because you don't even know what a god is.
It all makes sense, you don't get to where Bill is by being dumb. He must know what makes good television. I reckon a lot of TV personalities play a well-honed persona, it's like I've heard Simon Cowell is much nicer in real life.
ha, David Silverman and I have the same "how I became an atheist" story, only my family were lazy Catholics instead. I completely believe that Bill O'Reilly is a fictional character. He and Glenn Beck both. I wish they'd both move on to some other role...
both sides of the atheist argument are pointless. If one person said there is life on another planet somewhere, and another said there wasn't, neither could prove or disprove whether there is unless they went to every single planet in the universe.
@okieoneshinobi When you mix matter and antimatter you get a vacuum. This is why there is such a strong reaction between the two and how you can create antimatter from a vacuum. The big bang proves it does not need a conscious creator since it uses nothing.
@Alex4uall Yes,that is right. Thank you for pointing that out to me because I have heard the whole " you're an atheist too " jazz and I guess I never thought about it the way that you put it. Very good point.
@evansentranced What bothers me is that even if they're just rolls... people believe all that crap is true and will use their arguments and logic to live their lives... it just seems so wrong at so many levels :-/
@jimtrueblue99
Yeah.. I'm agnostic toward the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Zeus, Thor..
In fact agnosticism is most often a "self imposed characterization" between believing and not believing in god. Kind of a mourning transition.
@garveya1 Don't put words in my mouth.You mocker and scoffer !
Hush Up and Obey the Lord Thy God,who made you and put you on this earth to Obey his standards,and bring honor and glory to his name.
@kazooga1234 So you look at Atheism as a religion where even to ponder the existence of God is blasphemy. Even I as a very religious person often test my faith by putting it to the scrutiny of Atheists.
@kazooga1234 David is not agnostic, he clearly stated he does not believe in a god... He simply believes we could be in a virtual reality, like Stephen Hawkings does and Hawkings is no agnostic...
@okieoneshinobi There is no god, I can prove it... At the very least I can prove your version of god wrong... You do not know what atheism is. There is no god, a duck is a duck and the emperor is naked...
You have your definitions right on. If only we could have an honest discussion with these definitions as the template we might find there are more agnostic atheists then we even knew.
David did a good work on the O'Reilly show. I wonder why many of these shows are always arranged like executions, one atheist and 5 fundamentalists fighting and screaming against him
@SmogHouseTradingCo Also the Top particle quark, from what I understand visiting Fermilab has the approximate mass of Gold. This is "created" by blowing up an electron in a vacuum.
So Bill O'reilly is like Athenewins, he has a persona that he uses to gain attention!
Although i suspect that not unlike Athene he and the persona are not entirely separate.
@okieoneshinobi Well kind of. As an atheist I don't believe in any of the gods dreamed up by man. As an agnostic I acknowledge that I do not know that a god(s) do not exist.
@SmogHouseTradingCo generally speaking I do not ask Atheists to prove an absence of God, but since you insisted on proving the absence of "MY VERSION" of God, please go on.