For the monster, there is nothing rationnal that can make you think there is a monster, same with Santa Claus. However, nothing rationnal can explain some phenomena, hence why it is not illogical to think that God exists.
Yes, the belief of the monster would have some traits of reliogisity because there is no rational evidences that he exists. It's the same for God, there is no rational evidences that he exists, nor any rational evidences that he doesn't exist.

What the hell. Where did I say that "God" was meant as a Christian way? Seriously...
God can be interpreted as a force that we can't explain, that made the big bang happens, or that created the first part of matter, not even necessarly a person. God in a spiritual way, something that just is there that we can't explain.

Did I ever say that virgins don't have children, that the earth is 6000 years old.... ? NO. I didn't even talk about God in a christian way. Stop being so close minded.

So you use mythology as a basis to construct reality? You can't personally explain/understand it so it has to be magic?

I'm not trying to be condescending to religious people but absence of faith =/= faith in something else.



This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 12 2011 02:17pm

Atheism isn't no the absence of faith. It's CLAIMING that no God or anything religiously related exist. AGAIN, if you think that God doesn't exist, but do not CLAIM it, you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

Where did I talk about mythology? I never said that God has to be taken as a Christian way. It could only be the force that created the first part of mater or made the Big Bang happen. There won't EVER be any rationnal explanation as to why there was matter in the first place, and how was matter created out of nothing. This is where you can believe in a surnatural phenomena that started it all, which you could call God.

The oldest religions don't have an intelligent designer or creator god. By implying that there is you're drawling from one of the monotheistic religions, aka, the God of Abraham.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Animism, and the rest of the old religions don't have a concept of god the creator.



Saying that "Atheism isn't no absence of faith" means that Atheism is an absence of faith. Double negative rule.
And I brought up mythology because you are using religion to explain phenomena that you don't understand, which by definition is mythology.

When did I talk about intelligent designer or creator god? Again, stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not implying anything, it just you that is close minded and think that when I talk about "God" or surnatural force, it has to be an existing religion. God can be the force that made everything happened in the first place and ONLY THAT, not a personnification or anything else. That unexplicable force.

Oh, by the way, do you believe in string theory in physic? It is made to explain phenomena that we don't understand by using something that a model that can be adapted to anything we discover, and which can make no prediction.I don't see any difference between this and the explanation of the force that started it all to explain how it first happened or why e=1,602 176 565(35)×10^(-19) A·s why g =6,673 84(80)×10^(-11) m³·kg-1·s-2, etc.

P.s.You knew that I meant "Atheism isn't an absence of faith". So please stop dodging.

Dodging what? I don't believe in supernatural things, period. This isn't a religious-like belief.

You keep trying to frame it like it is. It isn't. You aren't succeeding in doing so.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 12 2011 02:37pm

It is illogical to think that God exists based off certain phenomena. A true rationalist will look for any other more plausible alternatives before accepting the existence of a creating God, since the actual proven existence of a God would open a whole new can of worms. A rationalist will try his best to disprove what he thinks is true, which is absent in pretty much all religious ideologies. You cannot have faith in a God as a pure rationalist.

I totally agree with what you just said, but when I use the term God I'm not talking about a creating God, I'm just talking about a force which we can't and we probably won't ever be able to explain. Such as how the first particule of matter was created. As for now, the "before the big bang" cannot be explained, and that is why I think you cannot deny (nor prove) the existence of God. There are some things that will never be explained, so it is logical to think that something ahead of us, might exist.
As I said, I do not think that a God exists, but I do not DENY it because it would be a sort of theism. I accept the possibility that "force" might exist, but I do not think it exists. I am studying in a domain affiliated with physics, it would be wierd to claim that God exists because you do not have any proof of it, and even if I did thought he existed, I would never "let him" enter in the explanation of a phenomena, I would juste say that the phenomena can't be explained as for now.

If you do not have faith in God, it doesn't mean that you are an atheist. Atheist would be claiming that God doesn't exist. A rationnalist/agnostic would say that there is no logical information that would lead to the existence of God, therefor, God probably doesn't exist. He wouldn't claim that God doesn't exist, be as an atheist would do, because you do not have any proof that it is true (there are a lot of phenomena that are unexplained, hence why it is similar to theist for that matter (believing and claiming something exists/do no exit with no sufficient proof to back it up).
So as long as we don't have any sufficient proof that God doesn't exist or that we don't have a good model to explain before the Big Bang that would lead to LOGICAL explanation of the spawn of the first matter, Atheism will be a form of Theism



You do not believe in supernatural things or you claim that they do not exist? Once again, if it's the former one, you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic.

@ Bold: Please enlighten me, oh omniscient one! What do you see in the future, great visionary? Which of the secrets of the universe shall never be uncovered?

On the rest, you are basically arguing semantics. The whole point is moot if people have different definitions on the term ''atheism''. Translated from Greek it means 'without god'. So if you take a literal definition, your explanation still fits with the term atheism.