Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

Technically, heat IS motion, just on a molecular scale.

 

I completely agree that other rules govern the universe and our very existence. But a rule is a rule and cannot contradict. And as the saying goes; if you cut off the head, you kill the snake. And I see a very apparent contradiction here. This is the main reason why I question Atheism as a belief.

I didn't take it as an insult.

This is not "winning". I don't understand why people think of this as an absolute. I am questioning that Atheism is not a sound belief. I think I have provided evidence to support this claim so far. Hell, I haven't even gotten anything substantial regarding living organisms cannot be created without other living organisms. We are still on my first two arguments.

Just wait until I give my next three later tonight.

 

Sorry -- I didn't mean to sound snarky, I hadn't Googled it either! My guess (and it's just a guess) is that agnostic theists, in general, just call themselves by whatever faith they have chosen, with the additional caveat that they admit imperfect knowledge of Truth.

 

But you can see even in this thread the amount of confusion on the actual definition. And in some cases; even you haven't discounted that God can exist. But look at many others in here that think it is impossible for God to exist. There has been no evidence that undeniably supports this belief.

 

LOL the lack of belief is a belief.

 

So the absence of a hat is also a form of wearing a hat?

 

No believing there is no hat on my head is the absence of the hat.

 

Touché! Why can't you say you like my hat?

[video=metacafe;an-Azeb4n27thbb4n/far_and_away_1992_joseph_and_shannon_fight_part_3/]http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Azeb4n27thbb4n/far_and_away_1992_joseph_and_shannon_fight_part_3/[/video]

 

The Blazers not winning means that they are winning!

 

You are missing the point. You are missing that there is evidence that the Blazers aren't winning because we have recorded history, video documentation, and personal account of the existence the Blazers are losing. Not even close to the same principle. But I do like your angle though.

 

See my response on Tango.

 

Not the point. The absence of something is simply an absence. Nothing more, nothing less. Do you believe in trolls? If not, do you identify as an "atrollist" and carry around solid evidence with you at all times that there are no trolls, so that when trollists confront you, you are able to quickly and efficiently prove the absence of trolls? Or do you just simply not believe they exist and leave it at that? What about pillywiggins? You know, flower fairies? I bet you didn't even know that you didn't believe in them, did you? But now you do -- does that mean that I have just turned you into an apillywigginist if you lack belief in them?

The absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief. No more, no less.

 

You proved my point. Because an atheist has been presented different variations of "God" and they refuse to believe "God" exists. It's not like the "idea" of God(s) haven't ever crossed their mind. In fact, I suspect most have had the existence of God pass their mind. Look at all the threads supporting this.

So your "absence of belief in something is just the absence of belief" isn't logical.

EDIT: Oops I meant to say not logical when it comes to the existence of God.

 

I would venture to surmise, though, that most people have at least wondered about how humanity got here in the first place. To me, it's a much more critical topic/issue than, say, the existence of pillywiggins. Or, is it that easy to simply dismiss the equation of our beginnings?

Appears that it's simply been boiled down here to 2 camps: A) Life (in some form or another) has always existed......or B) Life has been created through "some" form of intelligent design function.

Am I incorrect in these conclusions?