Yup, atheism is not a religion. Its an Ideology, just like religion, only on the opposite side of the fence.
| Aura7541 said: LMAO. You're just making conclusions and just trying to make up facts to support it. And it's carbonate, not carbonite. Two entirely different ionic compounds and you just proved that you know nothing about earth science nor chemistry. I stopped reading when you tried to use the fact that the Earth's crust is composed of silica and aluminum (not alumina). That's the composition of modern Earth's crust, not Hadean Earth's crust. Huge, huuuuggge difference. You haven't shown any proof that disproves the theories mentioned nor many other supporting theories. The burden of proof is on you because atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the rejection of believing in a god of gods without gathering facts first. What's even worse was that you copy and pasted a sentence from Wikipedia and did not do that for the sentences after that. You knew that you were wrong so you hoped that no one would catch your sneaky attempt and man, were you caught with your pants down! You should read these (and at their entirety! No cherry picking that one sentence that seemingly fits your "argument"!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment |
Alumina is Al2O3
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxide
That would be pretty wierd for aluminium not to become a compound chemical with such abundance of oxygen and water. Yes i was typing fast and said carbonite which is actually not a different ionic compound like you said it doesn't exist. Ionic carbon is called carbanions.
Anyways what i am saying is for the right circumstances earth has to have an iron core for a magnetic field to protect the rna thats created, which means most of the iron is already in the center of the planet. And earth has to have enough mass to have an atmosphere, look at mars barely less massive then earth yet doesn't have enough mass to have a meaningful atmosphere or enough pressure on its core to start it up to create a magnetic field. So hence by the time earth was ready to create life earth was almost 100% its current mass and chemical makeup. Early earth models show carbon dioxide and nitrogen create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. So that is why i left out the next paragraph because anyone who can do deductive reason can figure out there wasn't much iron around for ammino acids to cling to.
And again i am not saying life arising on earth is impossible just highly improbable. I would love for someone to find conclusive evidence that life arose on Earth that would be awesome.
Athiesm reject something without proof. Hence why it needs belief and faith hence why it is a religion.
The burden of proof should be on anyone who wants the truth that is why athiesm is a religion as well because they don't seek the truth through science but on faith.
Also i would watch out what you read on wiki since anyone can write on there or change it... Bad source
I think some people need to understand that we Atheist do not reject any god at all, we simply find no signs to its existence. Rejecting something would imply believing it exist, and that is the opposite of an Atheistic world view.
Everyone are Atheists in some areas. As far as I know, no one believes every myth ever created in the world, therefore we assume most gods doesn't exist. We take an Atheistic point of view on most myths, true Atheists simply realize that there is no proof of the existence of ANY god.
Soriku said:
Atheists reject gods out of lack of proof. It's on you to prove this god of yours exists. If there is no compelling evidence, there is no reason to believe this. In the same way that without compelling evidence for unicorns, vampires, and leprechauns, there's no reason to believe in them. Atheism is not a religion. You don't even seem to understand the defintion of religion that you posted above. Stop being simple-minded already. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. Don't change the burden of proof to fit your needs Your last sentence is hilarious. You're telling him to watch out what he reads on Wiki while posting Wikipedia articles yourself. |
well he reads alot of wiki so why not include it if he sees it as a good source.
The burden of proof is still on those who want the truth no matter what you say that doesn't change.
| Puppyroach said: I think some people need to understand that we Atheist do not reject any god at all, we simply find no signs to its existence. Rejecting something would imply believing it exist, and that is the opposite of an Atheistic world view. Everyone are Atheists in some areas. As far as I know, no one believes every myth ever created in the world, therefore we assume most gods doesn't exist. We take an Atheistic point of view on most myths, true Atheists simply realize that there is no proof of the existence of ANY god. |
Atheist means no gods if you believe in a god you are thiest.
I think you might be agnostic not atheist because you sound more that way. Which is a very good scientific approach.
Without agnostics we would still believe in a flat world, universe centered earth, four magic elements ect.
Rawrerer said:
Atheist means no gods if you believe in a god you are thiest. I think you might be agnostic not atheist because you sound more that way. Which is a very good scientific approach. Without agnostics we would still believe in a flat world, universe centered earth, four magic elements ect. |
No, I would rather say it means "none belief in a diety". It is not necessarily a god but also spirits or other being for which we have no proof. Rejecting something still implies its existence, which would only mean a person is an angry theist, not an Atheist :). I hardly even use the word religion anymore, myths is a more fitting word for it, just like Greek mythology and the likes.
| LemonSlice said: Atheist children don't have imagination confirmed. Poor kids. |
Nah, there's no need to fill infant minds with bullsh*t in order to make them imaginative. In fact I'd even say that it would be rather counterproductive.
Puppyroach said:
No, I would rather say it means "none belief in a diety". It is not necessarily a god but also spirits or other being for which we have no proof. Rejecting something still implies its existence, which would only mean a person is an angry theist, not an Atheist :). I hardly even use the word religion anymore, myths is a more fitting word for it, just like Greek mythology and the likes. |
So lets do an experiment puppyroach if God came down to just you and said "Hey man I exist!" You were the only one that seen him heard him and
he was gone just as fast as he came. You have no imperical scientific evidence. What would you believe?
a. You were drugged
b. You are schizophrenic
c. someone has created a holographic projections.
d. God exists.
what is your answer?
Rawrerer said:
So lets do an experiment puppyroach if God came down to just you and said "Hey man I exist!" You were the only one that seen him heard him and he was gone just as fast as he came. You have no imperical scientific evidence. What would you believe? a. You were drugged b. You are schizophrenic c. someone has created a holographic projections. d. God exists. what is your answer? |
I would probably suffer some kind of mental disorder but wouldn't know it because I was suffering from it. But yeah, that would be the most probable explanation. However, if we somehow could prove the existence of a god, wouldn't that god become part of science and no longer supernatural?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
