Sure, if you want to make up your own definition. Or, we can take a look at the actual definition: "The theory or belief that God does not exist." "the doctrine that there is no deity" "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." That is a far cry from saying "there is no way of really knowing". But carry on in your bashing of those with a set of beliefs or religion.
it would not be attributable to evolution. it doesn't work that way. for humans to emerge under different environmental circumstances there would have to be some sort of 'human template' already in place, implying design.
Then those atheists are morons, claiming to be something they aren't. But don't take my word for it. Let's see what Webster and other dictionaries think...
There aren't that many templates that work, though. Not only is it likely, the universe is so huge it's reasonable to expect an exact duplicate of YOU out there somewhere. Edit - assuming there is life out there at all.
if you want to argue over semantics of atheist/agnostic it's not a very interesting topic. in practice people who call themselves atheists generally allow for the possibility that some form of higher power exists, since they don't claim to know everything. that is my position, the position of dawkins, harris etc. what we do claim is that the evidence theists present does not constitute a good reason to believe in god. that's what these threads are about.
they're morons because they don't agree with your definition of atheism as necessarily "strong"? that's pretty shallow of you.
if the universe is infinite (not just large) and there have been infinite trials for evolution, you would expect there to have been INFINITE duplicates of me that have existed or will exist. even so it would be effectively impossible for 2 sets of homo sapiens to run into each other.
The distance separating us from even the nearest star makes finding life anywhere but in our solar system unlikely. But that's a different thing than finding just one other homo sapien life form out there.
So you're actually agnostic. Gotcha. It's much hipper to claim you're "atheist". It sounds much cooler.
It's silly to hold people to some dictionary defined set of beliefs. You'd find a wide range of views by people who identified themselves as atheist, Catholic or Buddhist. You sound like some religious authority needlessly pinning labels on people.
Did you read this and many other religious-related threads on this board? Have a read. It will be clear who is "needlessly pinning labels on people". Hell, read the first post in the thread:
No, the hypocrites in these threads are what get annoying. Silly question, but they seem pretty cool. Why do you ask?
It is just amusing to me to read one set of people, claiming they don't have beliefs, bashing on another group of people because they do have beliefs... when in reality, atheism is a belief system. It is stupidity and hypocritical.
I like to bash people irregardless of their beliefs. It just seems more fair that way. You have funny shaped ears by the way.
If you're going to bash me, at least speak the language at a reasonable level. It makes you look sillier than having mis-shaped ears!
