₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
because he can not either come to be nor cease to be...

Really? Hmm.

vaxx:
then if we should attempt it...the whole purpose of science and philosophy will be meaningless...in science there are some establish theory you don't query again.... The cell theory, theory of relatively...any attempt to further investigate this theory will be impossible...no need to question it again...it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be true...

That's not so. Einstein needn't have bothered. Newton worked pretty well. But he did, so Relativity appeared.

Arrogance is the only reason we would think we know it all. There's always so much more we don't know yet. Laziness, is an insufficient reason to stop.

vaxx:
Same thing with the topic at hand. As a beliver , the first causer is an establish concept for the believer(mind you, the believer is not working with science alone)...A believer is working with three major importance of knowledge which is our senses, experiences and perception.... All this evidence can be rely own.........


The premises might not be scientifically verifiable, but it is not a problem with logic..

.

Claiming I believe something hardly shows I have exhausted the topic. Let me illustrate.

If I sat in the living room and said, "I believe it is raining outside". You could ask, " are you sure?" And if I'm not, I can get off the chair and look out the window to check.

Say, the window has frosted glass so I can't see out well, I may return and say, "I think so" , to which you may ask, " Are you sure".

So I get up again, go out the door and rain pours on my head. I would return and say, "It is raining outside, damn it! It effing pissed down on my head, and if you don't bloody believe me, go out and check!"

I am afraid the believer is just making things up. The believer doesn't really have a clue.

Is it not raining outside?

vaxx:
He must be necessary..

Why?

Josephjnr:
Belief is different from awareness. Belief as seen in my dictionary is "Mental acceptance of a claim as likely true." Please, revisit your write up.

Can't. Op is not the writer. I however accept the difference you point out.

Awareness is the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events. More broadly, it is the state of being conscious of something.

vaxx:
The external cause is not the same with physical universe, therefore it is not limited to the theory of the physical universe which demand a cause to have a causer .. It is the first causer, therefore every other cause depend on him..


Long chain of infinite explanation is useless, it will render the whole philosophical explanation useless...

Every question you know has a potential of infinite explanation.... You should know..so arguing from that angle is terrible to natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy .


If you can't put natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy in a box ,why are you putting external cause in a box...

Natural philosophy explain that the universe was sparked by the big bang.why don't you question the caused and likewise question the cause of the caused if big bang has a caused...you will realised doing so will make the theory called big bang useless..



As a I said who is the external cause Or what should we call it

It may be useless. It may be terrible. But that doesn't mean one should deny the fact or run away from it if it is true.

"I lack belief in a god."
by Matt Slick

The statement, "I lack belief in a god," is a common position of atheists.  In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns.  In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God.  To them, it is a non-issue.  Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it.  You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you.  You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between.  But you cannot return to a lack of belief position if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief.  Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.

Let's pick a baby that has no awareness of the concept of invisible pink unicorns.  Later in life, when the baby is mature and is introduced to the concept, he either accepts the existence of invisible pink unicorns, rejects them as a ridiculous notion, chuckles about it and dismisses it, becomes unsure about them, holds off judgment until later, etc. Either way, he develops a position on the concept of invisible pink unicorns.  He has to do something with the concept once he's been exposed to it.  He doesn't continue in a lack-of-belief or lack-of-awareness state of mind because the fact is, some sort of intellectual action must occur regarding it.  He cannot become unaffected by the concept.

Nevertheless, some might say that to hold off judgment until later is to be "atheistic" concerning pink unicorns and therefore support the atheist position of "lack of belief."  But as I said earlier, after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment.  In other words, a position is taken.  This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness.  To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.  This is agnosticism--not atheism.  It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered.  This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this.  Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think?  Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility?  Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity?  Would you request evidence for it?  Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl?  Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.  Thus we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it.  We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical.  It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection.  It is our nature to do this.  We don't do nothing with information.

Is my cat an atheist?
Animals lack belief in God.  Are they atheistic?  Should we include atheists, infants, plants, rocks, water, and air in the category of atheism since they too lack belief in God?  Of course not.

I had a cat named Punchface (it's a long story).  Punchface was a beautiful cat with long white hair and powder blue eyes.  He was very smart--even brilliant.  He could play tag, fetch, hide and seek, catch mice with Olympian skill, and enjoy an evening watching Star Trek with me.  I would completely defend the fact that he had quite a personality.  As brilliant as my cat was, he lacked belief in God.  I could have sat him down, looked him in the eye and said, "Punch, there is something I have to talk to you about.  It's God.  You see, God is the being that created the universe and everything in it--including you and me."  Of course, after I would say this, Punch would probably say, "meow," and go chase a piece of air-born lint.  He had no concept whatsoever of God.  Does that mean my dear cat Punchface was an atheist?  Of course not.  He was only a cat even if he is a brilliant one.

Nevertheless, the atheist will assert that the position of "lack of belief" relates only to sentient beings.  This would be a necessary position given that cats cannot be atheistic; that is, they can't make a choice to accept or deny God's existence.  Therefore, the atheist should amend his statement and say something like, "As a person, I lack belief," or "I have decided to lack belief in God," or "Lacking belief in God is a position for sentient beings only."  This would negate my cat as being included since to describe an atheistic position as simply "lacking belief" is too broad.

So what is this position of lack of belief really about?
In my opinion, lack of belief is really an attempt by atheists to avoid facing and defending the problems in their atheistic position.  You see, if they say they have no position by saying they lack belief, then their position is not open to attack and examination; and they can quietly remain atheists.

The problem for atheists, however, is that atheism is coming under more serious attack by Christians and others who recognize its problems and are exposing them.  Without a doubt, there are far more people in the world who believe in God (or a god) than don't, and more and more Christians are tackling atheism as an untenable position.  If the majority believe, that doesn't make it right; but the increase in examination of atheism has made it more difficult for atheists to defend their position.  This also explains why atheists, it seems, are becoming more aggressive in their attacks on theism in its different forms.  There is an intellectual battle being waged, and both defensive and offensive measures are being taken on both sides.  In the end, the truth will be known and atheism will become extinct.


Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry © Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2017

ScepticalPyrrho:
I couldn't agree more.

Haha..

Lol. Thanks for making me laugh. You rock!

DeSepiero:
You're not wrong with your position that Nigeria is already secular, but thats by dedinition. We're still heavily religious.

I ask, how secular is Nigeria?

With Sharia in some northern states;
Government promoting and in some cases sponsoring religious activities and assemblies (eg Prayers);
Public primary and secondary schools conducting religious devotions every morning before commencing classes;
Government subsizing forex for pilgrimage;
Churches and mosques littered everywhere and often disturbing public peace with loud speakers positioned on the streets;
Even religion influences choice candidates for sensitive posts eg President and vice president.

How much legislations are there in the constitution that promotes secularism?

I get you, but that's federal democracy for you. If the majority of us in a state worship zog and want to impose the worship of zog on ourselves, it is our democratic right, why shouldn't we be allowed to?

Nigerians are religious as individuals, and are at a stage where our gods rule supreme in every sphere of our lives.

budaatum:
As societies open up and access to information increases people become acquainted with other gods. Eventually, people realise that their god is not the only god and their god loses value over time. It is then that secularism comes about.
.
.
.

An increase in awareness will decrease the influence of gods.

A long time ago, sometime in the 1970s the family had one Bible or Quran it belonged to daddy, and god help any child who touched it. The Quran was in Arabic and people had to learn that language in order to read it.

One day Bibles were given to every student in a baptist secondary school in Lagos, but all the muslims didn't want theirs so the Christians could go home with 10 Bibles if they wanted.

In the 90s, 12 year olds had their own Bibles and the Quran was available in other languages so anyone could read it.

Today, everyone has Bibles and Qurans on their phones, and they are even disputing whether it is the word of god!

Lets wait another few years or so, and people will discover more books and their eyes will further open. They will see more and god will be no more important to them than Zeus and Osiris.

I doubt you would give the words of Adeboye the same weight you'd give a member of his congregation if they differ when it comes to the nature of God. So why try to give equal weight to Hawkins and Dawkins, people you yourself present as the gurus of atheism and who don't make claim for the existence of elves and fairies etc, with random people on the web, and then claim their opinion defines atheism?

My response is below.

budaatum:
There is no argument that many people believe in whatever they like and are called atheist or call themselves atheist or believe they are atheists. The definition of atheist is the issue here. As in what is an atheist.

If I call myself god, I am deifying myself. Say, buda, you are mad, please, atheist or not.

If I claim there is a creator of the universe, but there is no god, intelligent people would snigger. Any argument on the issue would be about definitions, same as what Allah people have with Yahweh. They would not be claiming there is no god, but which god is the real god. The same difference is that between those who claim 'aliens are the creator' and 'Yahweh is the creator'. The atheist is claiming not only that Yahweh and the alien creator are not gods, but that they don't exist regardless of whether you call them gods or not.

An 'atheist' who acknowledges the existence of a creator but just doesn't believe it, hasn't quite figured out their belief yet. That's like believing the million pounds in my pocket is not there. If they claim it too strongly, I'm sure we wouldn't mind taking the million pounds off them. They refused to acknowledge they had it. They wouldn't miss it.

Claiming the atheist acknowledges the existence of a creator but just doesn't believe it, is probably worse. They have a million pounds. We claim they haven't, regardless of what they make may think. Then we take it off them! I have found this akin to setting up of a straw man just so we may mug them. What follows such statements proves my point:

Atheism Unwise And Potentially Dangerous

Atheism And Terrorism; Annihilation in The Quest For Atheistic Domination

Atheist Murderers(past/present) And The Murderous Tendencies Of Todays Atheists.

Some things have been deified. The atheist is claiming those deified things (the stone, the wind, Jesus Christ, the holy spirit, gods) are not deities, and some of them (angels, devils, fairies, the holy spirit, gods) do not even exist. The atheist does not accept the deification of things, nor the existence of deities or fairies, or ghosts, extra terrestrials, spirits, elves, angels, etc. If they do claim to be atheists, and claim these things exist, please subject them to the same arguments they use to disprove the existence of god, and ask them why it does not disprove the existence of fairies etc.

It like when we ask those who claim everything is created, and by a creator, what created god! We hold them in contempt for their acrobatic dishonesty!

ScepticalPyrrho:
Anyone who assumes otherwise would have to prove their knowledge.

Prove that there is no creator? Is is not sufficient that there is no evidence for one? I haven't come across one and no evidence exists to prove that there is one. Those who claim there is a creator may believe there is one, but their assertion carries as much spending power as the imaginary million pounds I plan to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari with.

Originakalokalo:
I decided not to have anything to do with them.

But Our God is a merciful God who wants everyone to be saved.

My dear Originakalokalo,

You pondered this issue awhile before posting. Thought came into your head as you went about your daily business. Some supported your held view, and some so contradicted it to the point of disturbing you. Then you posted this thread to convince the atheists, or so you thought, but really, to lay out your thoughts for you to see. Now you have done so, you have something to look back on.

With this thread, know that you took mud, spat on it and have rubbed it in your own eyes. The amount of scrutiny you apply when you look back will be the sole limit, or extent, to which you see.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I think it should help sincere religionists on NL to understand our position a little better.

We're atheist when they tell stories about their various deities. And when they talk about the possibility of the universe originating from an intelligent being, we are agnostic to this claims.

Some are!

DeSepiero:
Religious intolerance is one of the many problems facing Nigeria today. We often see cases where certain groups of people feel that their religion is superior to the other, or that theirs is true while the other is false. In extreme cases, groups resort to violence in a bid to make their point (e.g Boko Haram, Religious conflicts in Kaduna etc).

In Nigeria, government has always promoted religious activities in one way or the other. Also many conflicts in the country since its inception have had some sort of religious bearing.

Religious tolerance involve our ability to accept, respect and coexist peacefully with other individuals of different religious inclinations.

Do you think secularism holds some prospects in proffering solutions to this problem?

Your honest and civil inputs will be valuable

Cc: Seun , johnydon22, budaatum, kingebukasblog, OtemAtum, Dalaman, Felixomor,
HopefulLandlord, THT80, Vaxx

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries (the attainment of such is termed secularity). One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.

Secularism is a function of education. By this I mean that an increase of the knowledge that people have, increases secularism. It is my opinion that most people who believe their god is the only god, do so because that is the only god that they know. As societies open up and access to information increases people become acquainted with other gods. Eventually, people realise that their god is not the only god and their god loses value over time. It is then that secularism comes about.

It can also come about due to equilibrium in the existing religions, whereby no religion is more powerful than any other so it is agreed that none would be imposed.

That said, Nigeria is already secular. Nobody proposes a bill in the house on religious grounds. You can't however ask people not to pray or get inspiration from their god about a proposed bill, and some may or may chose not to support a bill because of the religion of the bill proposer. An increase in awareness will decrease the influence of gods.

P.s. A pastor is the current vice president of Nigeria but I do not see him ruling the nation with god said.

THT80:
What answer does atheism provide on the question of how to treat others? On what foundation does atheism base it's moral values on?

Not that I'm arguing that atheism teaches morality, but imagine the home of an atheist family, mum, dad, two brothers, two sisters, a dog, a cat and a budgie. They live in the village called Atheville

Mum and dad live together, had sex to give birth to these children. They both work for an employer to earn money to pay rent and feed their family. The brothers and sisters live in the house eat parents food and care for the dog, cat and budgie. Sometimes they visit their grandparents.

Now, please, if you would, describe how this family would treat each other.

THT80:
Is this really all you can muster as a response to my argument? Really?

First, it's really silly of you to authoritatively assert that atheists are better behaved than Christians because you don't have any analytical or statistical evidence whatsoever.

I do beg your pardon, but you set the standard by stating "The Moral Dilemma That Makes Atheism Unwise And Potentially Dangerous". There was no "analytical or statistical evidence" in what followed!

Can't help thinking perhaps the following is closer to describing you op.

THT80:
Again you are displaying a staggering degree of naivety and an extremely disappointing inability to argue sensibly and coherently.

JackBizzle:
From what you have said, you are a 6 on the dakwings scale of 7. This means that you're an agnostic atheist.

You, just like budaatum know that "creator" and "god" are not the same thing. So, you are agnostic towards a creator and atheist towards all gods.

Interesting.

Correction
Buda knows "creator" and "god" are not the same thing.

Buda knows "creator" and "god do not exist.

Buda is not agnostic to "creator" and "god".

Buda is atheistic to "creator" and "god".

Buda will be a 7 on Dswkins scale.

Hope that's clear.

butterflyl1on:
An eternal God is simply eternal and uncreated. What part of the word ETERNAL do you not understand?

The video proves nothing! Its just another assertion of what you've been saying. The man may be a scientist, but he is also a theologian. "A satellite found god", how more ridiculous can he be. He jumps to the same conclusion you do without concrete evidence to prove your point. Eternal my dog!

What's sad is you really believe what you saying. You wouldn't notice how you deify your creator just by adding eternal to its description. There is nothing bigger or older than the universe so there's no other way to describe a creator of the universe except to deify it. If anything created the massive universe it is deified by its action and only a small minded fool would quibble over such a minute thing as to whether to call it a god or an intelligent designer if they understand what those words mean. But you can't see that. You want to reduce the atheist to what you can comfortably attack so you claim they believe in a creator of the universe despite numerous threads on here where numerous atheist say they believe otherwise. And if they don't fit into your narrow definition, you feel you can prove your point by asserting the same old trash and insulting those who do not agree with you.

I'm done. Thanks for your time.

rekinomtla:
Which is why I find many claimed atheists irrational. Those that viciously insult and mock theists.

It's hard for a discussion between atheists and believers not to fall into the gutter. Both sides hold strong positions, and are not always intelligent enough to consider the others position without resorting to insults. I tell you, its damn hard to turn the other cheek. There are some out there though.

rekinomtla:
Many people that claim to be christian/muslim are not. Just like many claimed to be "atheists" but are really misotheists or agnostics.

Thanks for this. God is with you.

hopefulLandlord:
are you naïve enough to think they watch the videos they post?

I must be. It does what they do, insert god at the beginning, but with fancy artwork. Its such a pity that they can't see how their religious mindset colours their arguments. There can't be a creation without a creator they say, and in the same statement claim god is eternal and uncreated. I can just about hear them claim that atheists accept the premise of creation to start with! Why they can't accept that 4.54 billion years for the age of the earth is not eternal enough, not to talk of the 13.772 billion years for the universe, is way beyond me. I guess when ones education is God is eternal, that's all there is.

Here's evidence for the age of god!

hopefulLandlord:
they said its eternal, therefore its eternal

challenge that and they'll repeat its eternal, they'll keep repeating the same thing aka proof by assertion

The video they posted says the universe is eternal. The universe must be god then.

KingEbukasBlog:
The universe having a beginning proves it has a creator .
.

Ergo, the creator must have a beginning so it must have a creator.

butterflyl1on:
Nothing stops an atheist from believing in the existence of something else.the only thing he abhors is God or gods and their deification.

This is simple enough. Google would solve this puzzle easily for you in 2 clicks.

The belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a "fairy story" for people afraid of death, Stephen Hawking has said.

In a dismissal that underlines his firm rejection of religious comforts, Britain's most eminent scientist said there was nothing beyond the moment when the brain flickers for the final time.
The person quoted above was presented as an authority.

butterflyl1on:
The only place atheists hold firm is on the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods but an atheist can believe in the existence of anything else.

An atheist can believe in the existence of

Ghosts
Fairies
Extra terrestrials
Spirits
Elves
Etc

Anything but God and even in the case of God they simply reject his deification. An atheist can claim to be a god to himself but as long as he does not see himself as a deity he is fine.

There is no argument that many people believe in whatever they like and are called atheist or call themselves atheist or believe they are atheists. The definition of atheist is the issue here. As in what is an atheist.

If I call myself god, I am deifying myself. Say, buda, you are mad, please, atheist or not.

If I claim there is a creator of the universe, but there is no god, intelligent people would snigger. Any argument on the issue would be about definitions, same as what Allah people have with Yahweh. They would not be claiming there is no god, but which god is the real god. The same difference is that between those who claim 'aliens are the creator' and 'Yahweh is the creator'. The atheist is claiming not only that Yahweh and the alien creator are not gods, but that they don't exist regardless of whether you call them gods or not.

An 'atheist' who acknowledges the existence of a creator but just doesn't believe it, hasn't quite figured out their belief yet. That's like believing the million pounds in my pocket is not there. If they claim it too strongly, I'm sure we wouldn't mind taking the million pounds off them. They refused to acknowledge they had it. They wouldn't miss it.

Claiming the atheist acknowledges the existence of a creator but just doesn't believe it, is probably worse. They have a million pounds. We claim they haven't, regardless of what they make think. Then we take it off them! I have found this akin to setting up of a straw man just so we may mug them. What follows such statements proves my point:

Atheism Unwise And Potentially Dangerous

Atheism And Terrorism; Annihilation in The Quest For Atheistic Domination

Atheist Murderers(past/present) And The Murderous Tendencies Of Todays Atheists.

Some things have been deified. The atheist is claiming those deified things (the stone, the wind, Jesus Christ, the holy spirit, gods) are not deities, and some of them (angels, devils, fairies, the holy spirit, gods) do not even exist. The atheist does not accept the deification of things, nor the existence of deities or fairies, or ghosts, extra terrestrials, spirits, elves, angels, etc. If they do claim to be atheists, and claim these things exist, please subject them to the same arguments they use to disprove the existence of god, and ask them why it does not disprove the existence of fairies etc.

It like when we ask those who claim everything is created, and by a creator, what created god! We hold them in contempt for their acrobatic dishonesty!

hopefulLandlord:
you reject the flying spaghetti monster?

how dare you reject the creator of the universe?

don't you know there are proof that FSM is real? ask and I'll give them to you

My bad. My head is turning with all this up and down. A Spaghetti Monster was in my house just this very yesterday, creating a new universe.

KingEbukasBlog:
What error ? You claimed that atheists do not accept aliens exist . For Christ sake , atheist like Stephen Hawkins , Richard Dawkins and many atheists all support the idea of extra terrestrial life , their position on extra terrestrial life has nothing to with their atheism . You can choose to reject or accept extra terrestrial life as an atheist .

They are scientists! The pose aliens as a possibility. They do not adopt a belief in their existence even if they support the idea that they might exist.

KingEbukasBlog:
Now I'm certain you are confused .But I sense the serious battle within you , keep fighting and break free .

The atheists who believe a creator of the universe exists do not take it as a deity or a god since atheism rejects deification .

An atheist who believes in a creator is deluded! If it created the universe, why argue that it is not a god? Does it matter? It created the universe for Christ sake!

Please do not count me amongst such people in future conversations. I do not only reject deification, but also the existence of deities, spirits, angels, aliens, flying spaghetti, creators of universes etc!

Proudgorgeousga:
I get your point now. The problem is that the person you were replying argues more for deism instead of his Yahweh.

So my question is if eventually an intelligent designer is proven to exist will you now call it god seeing as it actually created something as claimed. even if it is not interested in his creation?

In general conversation, where "intelligent Designer" is defined as god, I would have no choice.

In fact, I'd stretch further. If sufficient evidence is provided for God, I would not be an atheist. Same as I would not argue that I do not have a million pounds in my hands if I were holding a million pounds in my hands.

Proudgorgeousga:
1st time of seeing what bloody liar. Many atheists have had this same argument with you on nairaland. Many atheists might be open to the idea of extraterrestrial beings on other planets. but they do not believe they actually exist because there is no evidence.

Now you see his error! It is the reason I set up this thread suspecting many atheist would not accept it!

Proudgorgeousga:
I'm not trying to get into an argument tho below is from your post



So since you believe humans diefy things into gods simply because they don't really understand them or they seem special. then It means you are an atheist because you reject deificatin of things into gods.
[quote author=budaatum post=61395321]No! No! No! People may do so. My position is that they do so in error! The fact that they deify things does not prove those things are supernatural or that they created anything. An example is Raelism, and FSM! And is what you would claim if I were to say "The stone statue in my garden is a deity because it created the universe"! Not only would you argue that it is a mere stone, but also that it did not create anything!

Would it not be absurd of me to claim it is only the defication of the stone that you object to?

anyway I disagree with his argument about a the existence of a designer being proven all we have is various versions and speculations i.e. African version, Jewish, Muslim or deist version. There is no verifiable evidence a designer exist especially the one that is three in one and sent himself as his son to die.[/quote]Part of this response referred to a position taken by the person you say we are saying the same thing, sorry. I hope you can separate the chaff and wheat.

I do not only reject defication, but know that the thing deified is not a deity and deified in error including the three in one, the stone in my garden and all other things that human beings have imagined through time to be gods.

The stone is a stone and not a god, and believing it is one does not make it a god. Gods do not exist outside the imagination of those who create one in their heads!

JackBizzle:
Well, I believe that all atheist do not believe in god. There might be a creator but it might not be God.


Many sci-fi movies hint that it is an alien race that seeded life on earth. Life comes from life, as we have seen. It is a possibility even though there is no proof behind it.

Thanks. It's a position. But why wouldn't a person who believed their god created the universe not claim any one with a different creator god is an atheist?

It is the position being proposed!

Proudgorgeousga:
I'm not trying to get into an argument tho below is from your post



[b]So since you believe humans diefy things into gods [/b]simply because they don't really understand them or they seem special. then It means you are an atheist because you reject deificatin of things into gods.

No! No! No! People may do so. My position is that they do so in error! The fact that they deify things does not prove those things are supernatural or that they created anything. An example is Raelism, and FSM! And is what you would claim if I were to say "The stone statue in my garden is a deity because it created the universe"! Not only would you argue that it is a mere stone, but also that it did not create anything!

Would it not be absurd of me to claim it is only the defication of the stone that you object to?

KingEbukasBlog:
As a theist , you can reject the existence of a creator ; still as an theist , you can acknowledge the existence of a creator . Whether the creator exists or not has absolutely nothing to do with atheism or theism .

I pointed out atheists who believe in the existence of God

Really?

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a deity or deities.

Atheism is commonly understood as rejection of theism in the broadest sense of theism, i.e. the rejection of belief in a god or gods.

Wiki