I'm an atheist because I don't accept any of the claims made about God by men. I'm open to the evidence but all of it usually ends up being a logical fallacy of some sort.
Are you guessing if you don't believe in the great cheese monster of Pluto? Or does your understanding lead you to the conclusion that the probability of this thing existing is so slim it doesn't warrant consideration?
Well it's a refresher for me given that there's hardly any blacks who would go beyond the call of duty and actually let go of spirituality altogether. I often listen to Infidel Guy and his radio show. Shame that he doesn't have a lot of listeners.
Your question assumes too much. The great cheese monster of pluto is an earth based concept because as far as we know cheese can only exist here on Earth. You're assertion would be valid and logical if I were refering to the Judeo Christian concept of God but I wasn't. Go back and reread some of what I said, I think we have similar ideas.
I'm with you on this one, I believe there is something else out there beyond any of us I just don't believe it to be what is in the bible.
Well, it's a matter of conviction. Should it be a "necessity" or a "wanting" for the basis of origin? Could it be that we simply shouldn't have to ponder about such things given what little information we have? Or rather, should we limit ourselves to one thought and perhaps explore that "nothingness beyond existence" isn't as people may think. I think if less people shackle themselves on religion and God and continue to move forward with enlightened ideas on rational thought of the here and now, perhaps the world would be more at ease and understandable.
But doesn't being an atheist imply that you're not open to evidence, that already "know" there isn't a God.
Sure, some names of places and a few historical figures, albiet grossly exaggerated, were in the Bible. But in reality, things like the flood, burning bushes, people reviving from death, and virgin births all are too fictitious to be considered true. Furthermore, much of the stories are told like story books. Hence, it's more plausible to say that they are BASED on a true story. In other words, the Bible is akin to modern day Hollywood storytelling. Not quite. It's the position you take currently holding that there's no empirical evidence showing that there is a god, as it's naturally conceptualized and popularized by the times. The idea simply holds a lot of strength mainly due to us having a strong love for spirituality. Regarding atheism, it does mean the lack the belief, but anyone can be open to conversion. Case in point, Lee Strobel and even a Swedish scientist who converted to Islam. It's only dependent on how strong you are in your position.
I haven't read the whole bible, so I wouldn't know. What I do know is I'm not going to believe something just because its written in a book.
Interesting because popular atheists like Richard Dawkins would argue that there is no God period. Darwin did as well, that's how the theory of evolution came about. I assert one very simplistic suggestion, that which isn't provable now doesn't mean its impossible but simply improbable today. Before we were aware of being built of cells or cells consisting of dna and dna consisting of atoms they still existed we just didn't have the tools to prove it until now. So is it far fetched to believe that at some point we can find evidence of grand design and a grand designer? As far as Jesus bringing people back from the dead. I completely believe it just not the way it was reported.
Actually, everything you're stating now is touching on thin grounds. Allow me to elaborate on a few important notes. 1. Yes, atheism simply means lacking the belief in a God, but even atheists can be open to other ideas and beliefs. As I pointed out earlier, there have been people who were former atheists and converted into other beliefs, be if monotheistic or polytheistic or just plain spiritual (meaning God is moot). Richard Dawkins, The Rational Response Squad, The Infidel Guy, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dannet are atheists by and large, but they merely represent more of the hard-line atheism. The same way how Christians, Muslims, and what have you can fall out of spiritual convictions and the belief in God for reasons of many. 2. Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist per se. He adopted more of a agnostic perception on everything. His understanding of the world was based on more what he can observe and test and conclude, which is why Darwinian evolution and natural selection have been the staple for explaining how we all evolved. It's just that nowadays you have political hustlers trying to change the scope of science and reason by implementing something which cannot be proven through empirical evidence. The Origin of Species is popular because it's the start of trigger for understanding how the world works without the auspices of a spiritual or supernatural belief. 3. The possibility of finding out the origin of existence is very much a big question still. But we won't know that until millions of years or eons from now. Whether we're part of a petri dish or simply a memory of someone else's existence or perhaps we're just here, the answers indefinitely elude us. But for now, the best answer any person could give regarding this question would be a simple "I don't know." 4. Regarding reviving the dead, you have to remember that before Jesus, there were other stories of mythical people, whom we easily reject because they are foreign to us, who have performed VERY similar works. But they all are simply situations, based on an actual event. If anything, they were great illusionists ahead of their time.
