Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And Anti-theism and Athiesm are both anti god(s). All other differences are superficial.
Good thing you can't just redefine words. Atheism means non-believe in God. That includes people that know of the concept and do not believe in it and people that do not know of the concept and can not believe in it therefore.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Good thing you can't just redefine words.
Like you calling ID a theory?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheism means non-believe in God. That includes people that know of the concept and do not believe in it and people that do not know of the concept and can not believe in it therefore.
So...the differences aren't very important.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
"Anti-theist" was coined because "Athiest" is really stigmatized and considered a bad word by a lot. They mean the same thing.That's like saying Creation and Intelligent Design are two different things.
There is a fundamental difference between having no belief in gods, i.e. atheism, and being against gods, i.e. anti-theism.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Apatheist.
Apatheism describes the manner in which one acts with regard to a belief or a lack of a belief in gods. An apatheist does not consider the question of the existence of gods as meaningful or relevant to his life, and as such is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods do or do not exist.
For one to act with regard to a belief or a lack of belief in gods, he must first have a concept of gods. Indigenous peoples with no concept of gods are negative atheists, not apatheists.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of God or deities. That is what I get when I look up the word.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheisma·the·ism noun.
[list=1][*]the doctrine or belief that there is no God
[*]a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [/list]
Great stuff lads, I’ve learned a lot from this little venture. My but haven’t I got up the nose of that Templer fellow (Surely an atheist should know that people will identify him with the Catholic Templars of the Crusades. Maybe it is time to change names. How about Chip instead?), see him rant on. When one rejects the opinion of a Professor of quantum maths about a subject he has spent eight years studying, doesn’t this show us something about our fellow commentator. Most of all I’ve learned something about atheists as distinct from atheism. First and foremost I see you guys are ANTI-CATHOLIC. Well, as one of you said ‘join the queue’. What amazes me is that if Catholicism is a man-invented religion with no truth in it, why have the most powerful organisations on earth tried for 2000 years to undermine and destroy it? It seems to me that if there is nothing to Christianity a lot of people have put a lot of time into trying to suppress something that has no substance. It would be like me gathering a group around me to fight those who believe fairies exist. No sirs, the very fact that you guys try so hard to convince yourselves and others that Christianity (not Islam, or Buddhism etc) has no substance shows it has something you fear. If not then you are putting yourselves into the foolish category and whatever else I do not believe you are fools.
I also see you guys have an answer for everything. You are good at invention. Earlier I said that you cannot explain your own origins that you say was a Big Bang. I asked where your original atom came from and how can an atom explode and create SPACE. Explain how SPACE was ‘created’ by your first atom? I couldn’t believe it when one of you guys actually attempted to explain the origin of that atom and that none of you others challenged him. Did you all agree with it? Were you glad one of you had an answer that looked like a coherent intelligible believable answer? Do atheists not adhere to the first law of empirical science, nothing can come from nothing and something cannot disappear into nothing. Now the first atom has to come from somewhere. Why even theistic-evolutionism (I am not one of them) has an answer to that - ex nihilo by God. You atheists have to grovel around trying to invent an answer but you cannot find one that can claim to be scientific.
Anyway. Back to the subject matter [Geocentricism – Catholic propaganda?]
I now realise the futility of ‘arguing’ with atheists. You guys cannot be objective for as I said before you only have one option, heliocentricity. All other human beings have in fact two options, geocentricity or heliocentricity. The reason for the latter’s choice is because man has not the ability to determine with certainty if the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun therefore we have two options. Given this fact only a FOOL would try to persuade others that science CAN show one or the other to be the truth of it.
Given man lives on the earth and experiences a geocentric universe, and that all his calculations of eclipses, comets etc., {even spaceflight} are done geocentrically, it is not a great mystery WHY the vast majority of mankind for thousands of years before Christ were geocentrists until the Seventeenth century. So it is not true to say that geocentricism is Catholic propaganda.
Note I have fully complied with the proposition above. I do not have to engage in any ‘scientific’ combat.
Now if someone opens up a new site or forum (which I cannot do, being blog illiterate) and calls it [Heliocentricism – Atheistic Propaganda?] I will support the proposition and demonstrate it using the findings of science.
So, go to it lads.