Hypothetical: Creationism becomes standard in science classes

[Loudmouth]

I will let you define your own terms. A lot of us in my online fellowship talk to atheist online, and what most claim is that there are very few atheists, since most are not absolutely certain there is no God,

I am an atheist and I am not absolutely certain that there is no God. All it takes to be an atheist is to lack a positive belief in deities. You don't have to also take the position that no deities exist.

and that is supposedly the definition.

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Google

All you need in order to be an atheist is a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

An agnostic is anyone who still thinks there could be a god of some kind, but just hasn't found It/Him/Her yet.

Agnostics think it is impossible to know if there are gods or not. Atheists tend to think that it is knowable, but that there is no evidence for God. That is what tends to separate the two.

 

[bhsmte]

I will let you define your own terms. A lot of us in my online fellowship talk to atheist online, and what most claim is that there are very few atheists, since most are not absolutely certain there is no God, and that is supposedly the definition. An agnostic is anyone who still thinks there could be a god of some kind, but just hasn't found It/Him/Her yet.

It is you are making up your own definitions. Atheists simply dont believe a god exists and agnostics will state, it is unknowable.

 

[Ken Behrens]

And you think the observations science makes about the past are equivalent to your example? Hilarious!

Only hilarious to scientists.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you. I learned something.

I used the word "indistinguishable". Isn't that the same thing as "appear like"

-_- but none of the terms I gave you were synonymous. An agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist have quite the difference in their perspectives.

Agnostic by itself can apply to anything, it just usually isn't. For example, a person can be agnostic about matters of physics, which is another way of saying they don't have knowledge in matters of physics.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The evidence stretches back 13 billion years. We can DIRECTLY observe events from 13 billion years ago in the night sky. We can hold onto rocks that formed billions of years ago. We have evidence from those time periods.



And that evidence was produced in the past.

Just like you can directly observe the picture in my home of what you may think is may grandparents. The observation is correct; it is the analysis I question.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Beliefs aren't evidence.

Are you going to teach your students if they believe really, really hard that the Moon is made of green cheese that their belief is evidence that the Moon is made of green cheese?

i know. That's why I gave you other kind of evidence for the students.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just like you can directly observe the picture in my home of what you may think is may grandparents. The observation is correct; it is the analysis I question.

People can lie, but fossils can't.

 

[bhsmte]

Only hilarious to scientists.

No need to be scientist to find that hilarious.

 

[Ken Behrens]

You wouldn't consider fossils the original evidence for dinosaurs?

Yes, but I'd prefer an actual complete skeleton. I understand there are comparatively few of these, which leads me to think that some of the species of dinosaur we have found may not be actual species, but bones put together wrong. Also, I think dinosaurs were manufactured as part of ancient DNA experimentation.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I believe many theists, acknowledge they believe on faith alone.

I do not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, but I'd prefer an actual complete skeleton. I understand there are comparatively few of these, which leads me to think that some of the species of dinosaur we have found may not be actual species, but bones put together wrong. Also, I think dinosaurs were manufactured as part of ancient DNA experimentation.

Depends on what ancient species we are talking about. Complete trilobite fossils are so common, I bought a small one for $8 as a gift for my fiance. He loves fossils.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not.

I do not.

Good for you. You dont qualify as many.

 

[Ken Behrens]

I am an atheist and I am not absolutely certain that there is no God. All it takes to be an atheist is to lack a positive belief in deities. You don't have to also take the position that no deities exist.



"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Google

All you need in order to be an atheist is a lack of belief in the existence of gods.



Agnostics think it is impossible to know if there are gods or not. Atheists tend to think that it is knowable, but that there is no evidence for God. That is what tends to separate the two.

I certainly accept whatever you say as to whether you do or do not believe in. I am just reporting at this point that other atheists I know of use the words differently. But that's fine, Christians have over 42,000 divisions.

 

[Ken Behrens]

It is you are making up your own definitions. Atheists simply dont believe a god exists and agnostics will state, it is unknowable.

I'm not making it up. I really do coordinate an online Christian fellowship, and our members do regularly talk to atheists online, and they have really supplied me with these definitions given to them by those atheists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I certainly accept whatever you say as to whether you do or do not believe in. I am just reporting at this point that other atheists I know of use the words differently. But that's fine, Christians have over 42,000 divisions.

You might want to let them know that the actual dictionary definition of atheist does not require a belief that no gods exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I certainly accept whatever you say as to whether you do or do not believe in. I am just reporting at this point that other atheists I know of use the words differently. But that's fine, Christians have over 42,000 divisions.

Atheists only really have 2, gnostic and agnostic atheists. Simplicity comes with not having any tenants, religious text to interpret, etc.

 

[Ken Behrens]

-_- but none of the terms I gave you were synonymous. An agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist have quite the difference in their perspectives.

Agnostic by itself can apply to anything, it just usually isn't. For example, a person can be agnostic about matters of physics, which is another way of saying they don't have knowledge in matters of physics.

Then I was correct to state my position as an agnostic about the date of creation of the earth and universe. I do not beleive we have enough evidence to decide.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm not making it up. I really do coordinate an online Christian fellowship, and our members do regularly talk to atheists online, and they have really supplied me with these definitions given to them by those atheists.

Going by one of your own previous posts suggesting that people can lie or be inaccurate: unless they copy-paste, they are left to the telephone game.

 

[Ken Behrens]

People can lie, but fossils can't.

This response was given to the observations of what is believed to be 13 million years ago in the sky. Not about fossils. I believe in fossils, but not necessarily the date of their having lived.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then I was correct to state my position as an agnostic about the date of creation of the earth and universe. I do not beleive we have enough evidence to decide.

Sure, though it's a weird way of saying it. Kinda like how it would be weird to tell people "I call myself Sarah" when they ask me my name in English, but the equivalent would be totally normal in Spanish. Me llamo Sarah literally translates to "I call myself Sarah". To a Spanish speaker, saying "me nombre es Sarah", which does literally translate to "my name is Sarah", would be viewed as weird.