Myweponsg00d
-
Posts
2134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Myweponsg00d
-
-
I think that there are no other documentations besides Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well here's why it is so great but I'm not really positive about that.
Hey i kinda feel like a new topic soo what about gods morality? Here's an example of why I do not think that god (christian god anyways) would be a moral being: infinite punishment/reward for finite deeds. Here's a good analogy lets say your son/daughter kills a person then robs a bank what do you do:
A. Call the police
B. Do nothing (he/she your kid right)
C. Make a torture chamber in your basement and torture for all eternity
In this situation the Christian god most likely would choose C (if I'm interpreting this right) now would you consider this moral?
This isn't a good thing to argue about because any Christian will tell you that no mortal man can make a call about whether or not somebody is going to go to hell. The Christian God would not necessarily choose C because no sin guarantees your place in Hell, as long as you "find Jesus" or something like that.
-
There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.
The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.
We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.
No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.
The resurrection, which is the most important story of the new testament, is talked about in all 4 the gospels if I'm not mistaken and there are a few references to it in the letters written to early Christian communities that are also included in the Bible. It's quite possible that other stories, of less importance, are only told by one of the authors, but there are also tales, besides the resurrection, which are told by more than one of the authors of the canonical gospels.
I'm no specialist on the non-canonical texts, so I have no idea what they contain.
Well I know that there are other writings that mention the resurrection, but what I am asking is if there are multiple people who actually "recorded" the resurrection. Or whether it is just one author who said "This resurrection thing happened this way" and all of the other guys just mention "Oh, you know that resurrection that other guy talked about? Yeah well heres why it is so great"
-
There would be a lot of lost documentation, there's no doubt about that; one of the main things that were written one back then was just parchment or papyrus, things that just can't properly survive the test of time.
The Chinese kept records of their empire, there were people that worked at the court and whose only job was to write down the decisions of the emperor. They're called annals, the Romans had them too. The big difference here is that one, it's still one source regarding those things and two, they were especially made so they'd be saved for future generations.
We have multiple recordings of each story, there are 4 canonic gospels, and many more gospels and texts that didn't make it into the Bible. You're forgetting the Bible isn't one book, it's a collection of books.
No, I'm trying to keep that in mind. That's why I said that we sort of have "multiple" sources claiming that Jesus existed. But, what of the individual stories? I thought that the unused books of the Bible all had different stories in them? Are there multiple books that tell of each story in the Bible? For example, is there more than one author that wrote about the resurrection? I was under the impression that there wasn't.
Interesting scriptural studies observation, which I remember because of the incest comment, if you read Genesis, obviously there's Adam and Eve who have their two sons Cain and Abel. After Cain kills Abels, God punishes him by having him wander the Earth, but so that no one who finds him kills him, he's marked. Now if there were only two other people in the entire rest of the world according to a literal interpretation, why would Cain even have fear of running into them? That's presuming that his parents were still alive and that they would be capable of killing him. Elements like this prove it is a myth not to be taken literally. Genesis is primarily just in address to the theological Problem of Evil, not an accurate discourse of anthropology.
And you don't think that it is equally likely that the rest of the stories in the Bible are of the same nature? Mythology created to serve a human purpose?
-
I think what it mostly proves is that Jesus was an actual historical figure, it's not like Jews converted to this new Christianity thing for no reason at all.
Of course it wasn't "no reason". They obviously had a reason, but this reason may have been a false reason...I mean, why were they Jewish to begin with? Because someone made up a story about God. It isn't that much of a stretch to think that someone would make up a story about the son of God and people would start to believe it in the same way.
It leaves open the question of the actual deeds of the man. The point I was making with the last part, about the eruption, is that not having multiple elaborate sources for a historical event doesn't necessarily mean the historical event didn't happen, as you would suggest. You're also discounting the fact that, like Tacitus' work, some works regarding Jesus as a historical figure may have been lost during the Middle Ages.
I just think that there would have to be a LOT of lost documentation. A good comparison is that we have a lot of detailed knowledge of Chinese emporors from the same time period, and Egyptian rulers from even earlier time periods. But this guy comes along who is "king of kings and lord of lords" and there is only religious scripture to prove his existence. It just seems to me that if such a momentous figure really existed, there would be more conclusive evidence to suggest so. I mean and this is even in question of only his existence. We at least have multiple writers of scriptures who write about Jesus existing. If we want to question the validity of any of the stories in the Bible...what do we have? One recording of each story?
Well, to answer one of the questions, yes it would be incest. It's a common thing in creation myths, they have to somehow make few people into a lot of people.
I doubt you'll find someone here that actually believes those stories as 100% factual though.
Well if they don't believe this...then what DO they believe? How else did God create men?
-
*shortened for page length courtesy*
So what we have now is just one notable text about the eruption, written by someone who wanted to make his uncle seem heroic, with a lot of exaggerations. Does that make the eruption less true? No, it doesn't. Yes, I know there is archaeological evidence of the eruption, but I'm talking about writings, not archaeological evidence, since it'd be impossible to find archaeological evidence of Jesus (unless you consider the Shroud of Turin as evidence, which I personally don't).
To be honest, I don't really know how to make sense of a lot of all this stuff you wrote. It is interesting nonetheless. To me, it just looks like a lot of people who wrote about religous stories that they heard, like if someone from today would write a book about the Bible. It doesn't really look like historical documentation of the life of Jesus.
-
Wow! I can't believe Jagex sometimes...a lot of people are gonna end up tearing their party hat. Why would they do this??? <_<
-
I don't know. I honestly don't know. I'm not gonna make up something. I can't claim to know what happened at the beginning of the universe, but you can't claim that either. No one, at the moment, can.
Correct. Nobody knows. And nobody should pretend that they have the best explanation when we really just don't know. Someone would be a fool if he insisted that an intelligent being created the universe, and someone would be a fool if he insisted that X or Y or Z came before the universe. Because we just don't know.
Sure, we can suggest possibilities. I love doing this. I love thinking about things like the multiverse theory. Is it something that is true? I don't know yet. Nobody knows yet. I don't have any beliefs about what came before the universe because we simply don't know at this time.
2000 years ago, writing all these books down is what they considered documenting the events well. Who's to say 2000 years from now, all these well documented facts won't be viewed in the same way? That's if they even all survive it.
Not quite. Humans were quite sophisticated in their keeping of historical records. There have been discoveries of historical Asian texts that wrote about stories they heard of the Egyptian empire. Yet somehow, nobody outside of Jesus's circle of followers in one isolated place in the world happened to write about him.
Also, saying the Bible is the only evidence we have is a bit wrong, there were hundreds of books that never made it into the final canon of the Bible.
Okay fine...holy documents that were written for the Bible are the only evidence. If there were really so many epic divine events occuring in this Jesus character's life, don't you think that at least one Chinese historian would have written it down? I have never seen one non-biblical historical description of this famous guy who supposedly got nailed to a cross and rose from the dead.
Hell...why do you think it isn't in history books? Even if they left out all of the stuff about God and spirituality, don't you think that historians would say something about this guy existing? We have established detailed historical records of events occuring in the Qin dynasty (a couple hundred years before Jesus) yet theres not a single historical record of Jesus? Only holy books?
-
225 to parallel
What do you mean by "to parallel"? Just curious...
A "parallel" squat is where you squat low enough so that your upper legs (quads) are parallel with the ground.
I'm glad you asked, because one time I met a guy who thought he should be squatting with his legs really close to each other, so that they stay parallel with each other :???:
-
I always squat to at least parallel. A lot of the time I end up going lower by accident.
Back then I weighed in at around 140 lbs. I wasn't a very big kid.
I played hockey and I was a sprinter. Dunno if that would effect it.
Right now I can squat about 385 at 194 lbs. It would have been higher if I hadn't snapped my femur during last summer.
Sprinting certainly would affect it. When I was responding to justcallmedaddy I mentioned how distance runners could be at a huge disadvantage when starting to squat. This is because when you do any athletic activity, your body learns to build the muscles that are good for that activity and get rid of the muscles that aren't needed for that activity. Distance runners obviously use their legs, but when you look at it they don't really train the muscle groups that would be good for squatting: quads, hammies, glutes, and hip flexors
Sprinting, on the other hand, requires intensive fast-twich stimulation of all of those muscles. Definitely helps to explain why you are a "natural" squatter. Olympic lifters, who work on developing immense strength in the front-squat and the overhead squat, actually run sprints as part of their training routine.
Basically...this:
225 to parallel at 140...age 14...is still ridiculous though. haha. What did your parents feed you as a child? :razz:
-
Every action has a reaction, and every action itself is a reaction to another action. In other words, something can't just start moving by itself, it needs to be triggered by something else. This action-reaction pattern can't be traced back forever, there has to be something in the beginning that just somehow moved by itself, the unmoved mover, that would set in motion the rest of the reactions that would form the Universe.
Of course, finding this unmoved mover is near impossible, and I have no idea how it would exist, but what's the alternative?
The alternative is that the Big Bang itself is the "unmoved mover". If everything needs to have a creator, then the creator has to have a creator. If the creator doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one?
Well yes, but that's not something that's controlled by humans. You asked if "we could find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist", which suggests that humans themselves would find the evidence. If God comes over here and shows himself, it's God that showed us the evidence and not human beings.
So yeah, to go back to your example, I think most people would be convinced and a minority would stubbornly decline to accept.
Also, on a side note, by that logic everyone should be a christian now, since 2000 years ago there was a man walking the earth that came back from the dead and told of the word of God. Who's to say that if that would happen again, people living 2000 years from now wouldn't look at the writings and such from this encounter the same way we view the bible today?
Theres little historical proof that the stories of the new testament actually occurred. The only evidence we have is the Bible itself.
If divine events happened today, and they were unmistakenably caused by divine power, we would presumably be able to document these events well so that future generations could make no mistake about what happened
-
Personally, I have a different view of God. I'm not really religious, but I think of God more as something that's not really made of matter, that can't, at this point at least, be defined by science. It probably sounds [developmentally delayed]ed, but that's kind of the vision I've gained recently, while thinking of the beginning of the Universe. Just some force, at lack of a better word, the unmoved mover, that set in motion the expansion of the Universe and thus life. Perhaps it's not even a God in the normal sense of the word after all, I don't know, it's just, something that goes above the mental capabilities of mankind to fully comprehend at this point.
But then again, there could be no such thing, but there'd still need to be an answer to what happened at first. I don't think science at this time is capable of finding that answer.
But that's the thing with religious debates, there's no definitive answer, at least not yet.
What you're saying is that the beginning of the universe needs an explanation.
What is the explanation for your explanation? How does the unmoved mover exist?
In response to Mywepons, no, I don't think we can.
I doubt a scientist will one day come out with a discovery saying "God is real and I have this scientific data to confirm it." And even IF something like that would ever happen, society would never accept it as real, just dismissing the scientist as a nut.
If a giant man came to Earth and started floating around and taking us to solar systems that are many lightyears away, curing diseases, and doing all kinds of other Godly stuff, you don't think that would be scientific proof of God?
-
Well I can assure you it's not raw muscle, although from Cross Country/track my legs are strong, so hopefully my squatting is better than most beginners.
Yeah, they told me the first month usually shows the most improvement, then things slow down.
Running doesn't really develop the same kind of strength in your legs that you will need for squatting. In fact, if you ran long distance primarily, you could be at a disadvantage even.
I'd say you can expect to bench 95, squat 105, and deadlift 115. If you have seriously never lifted ever in your life then take 10-20 lbs off these numbers.
If you do pushups occaisonally and stuff, you might be able to get like 105 on your bench. When I first started lifting I weighed 140 and could bench 105 but only squat and DL about 95
I must be a freak then. When I started squatting at 14 I could do 225 6-7 times.
First of all, it depends on your genetics and what sports you may have played.
Secondly, it depends hugely on your bodyweight. If you weighed close to 200 lbs, 225 wouldn't be all that insane.
Thirdly, it depends on what you call a squat. No offense, but when I hear people throw around large squat numbers like that, it almost always means they aren't doing a full squat. Just like 90% of the people at a gym these days, I wouldn't be suprised if you were doing half-squats or even quarter squats. I mean 225 isn't a crazy huge squat, it is less than what I max out on and anyone who trains consistently for more than a year should be able to rep out at 225. But to be a true beginner and full squat 225 pounds? You either have incredible genetics or you weren't really squatting with full depth. Or, like I said, if you weighed 200+ pounds it wouldn't be unexpected.
-
Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?
My definition of god:
god is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent but i also believe that this sort of being cannot exist and therefore i do not believe in god.
And to most people, that is god. And the way I used to think. But then I took a philosophy class. That put me more in the agnostic category. I am all for science and whatnot, but at the moment, there are some things out there that can not be explained without the existence of a god. Mainly the first nanoseconds after the big bang. It can't be explained at the moment, putting god creating the universe on equal footing with all the other explanation for those first few instance of existence. Explicitly stating he doesn't exist is not being fair and open-minded, but so is saying he does exist and being close-minded.
What do you think agnosticism is? Because it isn't a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. If you say "I believe God does exist" then you are a theist. If you say anything else, then you are an atheist. Agnosticism is not a statement about your belief about the existence of God, it is a statement about whether you think the question of God can ever be answered. If you don't think we can ever find the answer, then you are an agnostic. But you can still either choose to believe in God or not believe in God. I have met agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.
Secondly, so what if we can't answer some questions right now? I have two points to make to this logic. First of all, 200 years ago, we couldn't answer the question "Where did humans come from?" Now we have evolution. Why should we just continue to substitute God for our unknown information?
My second point is as follows: What came before God? You're basically saying that the universe MUST have an explanation, but why doesn't God need an explanation? If you think God can exist without an explanation, then why couldn't the universe exist without an explanation?
God is not necessarily omniscient, all the evidence for that is in the bible. The bible proclaims a god, but god proclaims a bible, making it a petitio. In that sense, the bible is a fallacy, so I don't think it should be trusted in determining whether or not there is a god. So we really don't know what god is, just that he/she/it could be there, or she/it/he could not be there.
Do you think we could possibly ever know if there is a god? Could we find any evidence to convince us that God definitely does exist?
-
Well I can assure you it's not raw muscle, although from Cross Country/track my legs are strong, so hopefully my squatting is better than most beginners.
Yeah, they told me the first month usually shows the most improvement, then things slow down.
Running doesn't really develop the same kind of strength in your legs that you will need for squatting. In fact, if you ran long distance primarily, you could be at a disadvantage even.
I'd say you can expect to bench 95, squat 105, and deadlift 115. If you have seriously never lifted ever in your life then take 10-20 lbs off these numbers.
If you do pushups occaisonally and stuff, you might be able to get like 105 on your bench. When I first started lifting I weighed 140 and could bench 105 but only squat and DL about 95
-
Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.
The bigger point I'm defending, in case you've lost sight of it, is that your pasta parody isn't a religion.
Why not? Because the prophet of Pastafarianism intended for it to be a "parody"?
1.) How do you know that this is his actual intent, instead of false information that you found on Wikipedia?
2.) Why does his intent affect whether or not anyone else can deem the ideas worthy of being a religion to follow?
Does that mean that if I go back in time and suggest Christianity as a joke before anything comes about, that Christianity cannot be a religion?
I've made this argument thousands of times and have yet to see it refuted.
Who are you to criticize people for not refuting arguments? You are the grand master of saying ridiculous things that I refute and then never acknowledging my points.
I never said the fact that people died for something made it inherently right - but it does at least indicate there is powerful evidence to believe it's true.
Then every religion is true, along with Nazism, Marxism, and devil worship. Also I'm sure there are some psychos out there who died in the name of the voices they heard in their head. People have died in the name of Japan, is Japan the best country? Hell people have died for basically everything. People have died due to their scientific beliefs. I guess everything is true then?
And why would they believe a lie? They were right there - they would have been the first ones to call bs if something was wrong.
Why are there people who believe in Jesus and people who believe in Muhammad? Are both then true?
Of course humans don't have inate lie-detection - but generally we believe things that are true, or at least when we have reasonable evidence of such. You're still not answering my question - these people died for Jesus right when these events were occuring. If Jesus was a fraud, surely they would have been the first to know - and why then would they have laid their lives on the line for that?
Once gain, I don't see anyone being martyred for pastafarianism.
First of all, I'm not sure that theres really evidence that any of the disciples died for Jesus, or that Jesus even ever existed.
Secondly, why would people have died for Muhammad?
Thirdly, why would people have died for Hitler if his cause wasn't worth supporting? Better fire up the gas chambers.
Also, for any theist interested in starting off on a fresh debate: what is God? And how do you know he exists?
-
I'll tell ya who did it, it's that damn Sasquatch
-
If ever a thread needed a version of Wikipedia's Three revert rule, it's this one. This is nothing more than two people contesting to see who can shout 'You're wrong!' the loudest.
Actually, it's one side yelling "Youre wrong! And here's why..." and it's another side yelling "You're wrong...so there!"
-
Not just "people" - 11 out of the original 12 believers withstood torture and painful deaths, refusing to denounce their testimony, believing and proclaiming what they saw until the very end. This is the same for many of the very early Christians. This shows that it isn't a joke or something that people aren't taking very seriously.
So, basically, why would people die for their belief?
Well, why would 918 people drink the poisoned kool-AID at Jonestown?
Why would 74 members of a cult fight the US government to the death to defend their Messiah at Waco?
Why would 39 people commit suicide for Marshall Applewhite in San Diego?
Suicides because they're mentally unstable, peer pressure or otherwise. Waco was a massive F-up by the US government, and it is uncertain if the people inside the compound would've "fought to the death" - they died in a fire.
Who are you to say that they are mentally unstable? They are doing what they believed in. According to you we should respect people who have beliefs.
-
I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - .
Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.
Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right?
So find 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions. Even if you do, you'll still find a common underlying theme - good and evil exists, and demons exist - all of which is essentially correct.
And where is the scientific explanation for this? Where is the soul located? What is the mechanism for how a demon can posess a soul? How do you know that the soul is there? How do you know the demon is there? Where are these things? What are they made out of?
-
Versus the nonsense of your noodle thing? Everything. Otherwise I don't know how to answer this question, because it seems all knowledge is based on human testimony, things and accounts that others have witnessed be it in scientific experiments or personal narratives. How do we know that the artifacts coming out of an ancient grave weren't fabricated on the spot, in order to tell a lie?
All sources of scientific knowledge are based on evidence that you can go look at if you want to. Want to see the fossils that were found? Want to test their credibility? You can. You might need to be a scientist do to some things, but you could still do it if you wanted to.
How do we know that scientists viewing into space or walking on the moon weren't hoaxes? We take them at their word
- why do you treat another person's experience with God treated any different?
Because I can go look into a telescope for myself and see the things in space...Also you act like one random guy looked into a telescope and out of it came scientific knowledge. Millions of astronomers worldwide are all looking at the same thing and verifying each others claims.
Compare this to "religious experiences", which are independent and verified by nobody. Furthermore, "religious experiences" conveniently appear to change depending on what religion the person believes in, which suggests that these experiences are just artifacts of the person's mind.
If all people across the world experienced the same religious experience and saw the same God, then I might be more inclined to take the evidence more seriously.
It's just like alien abductions. They all have either largely different stores or stories that are congruent with only their personal belief about aliens.
Speaking in foreign and ancient tongues, super human strength, and a dramatic change in the person after the ritual?
And how is this explained by the person having a soul that is posessed by the devil?
First of all, foreign and ancient tongues -- I would like to see conclusive evidence that the person is actually speaking a real language.
Second of all, people only use about 30% of their available muscular strength when using it conciously.
Thirdly, change in behavior has nothing to do with a spirit. People change their mood when they smoke pot, is pot an exorcist?
I've listened to Fr. Vince Lampert speak about exorcisms in real life - he's one of twelve officially recognized exorcists in the U.S. You can listen to him here - .
Basically, I don't see the point or purpose of lying about these things.
First of all, nobody is saying that the person has to be lying. An exorcist can be delusional also and actually believe that the things he sees are due to God.
Secondly, if he is telling the truth, how can you say that he is correct rather than all of the other spiritual or religious men across the world? I bet I could find you 5 different exorcists from 5 different religions who all have very different explanations for what an exorcism is, what the soul is, and what you need to do to cleanse the soul. Are all of them right?
And thirdly, if you seriously think there is no financial motivation to preach about religious success stories then you're missing out. Look at this auditorium that man is speaking at. Do you think he speaks there for free?
-
I'm using historical and verifiable facts as proof that there is something more to Christianity than there is to pastafarianism. Just because something is in the Bible doesn't automatically make it fiction, especially when the events are non-secular.
So what? If Christianity is more popular, has more history, and has more events that were taken place in its name...SO WHAT? What does this do to strengthen the case that God exists? How is human support of an idea a marker of truth?
If those are the examples you want, look at any modern miracle, especially those used in the canonization of recent saints. Or listen to any tape recordings of exorcisms. In both cases the Catholic Church will exhaust all natural possibilities before jumping to a supernatural conclusion.I've seen plenty of tape recordings of an exorcism. I see nothing there that is evidence of a supernatural power. What specifically is there that can ONLY be explained by God?
-
And so then where is the evidence for God?
What do you want me to say, here is a notarized statement from 10 years ago that says God left His mark on this spot of land, along with the signatures of 1000 witnesses, and 25 independent verified video and tape recordings?
You've already rejected all the evidence that I have, that has been presented here and elsewhere. "Na na na that's not good enough na na na na I'm not listening na na na na you need better evidence" :rolleyes:
I've not just said "na na na" I've logically refuted your reasons. One of your reasons is that many people believe in Christ. I said, so what? Billions of people don't believe in Christ. Many people also believed in the Nazi cause. What does belief by many have to do with truth?
You've also said that the sacrifice of the disciples gives evidence for God. I said that it is ridiculous to use evidence FROM the Bible as proof that the Bible is true. Want to use evidence from the Pastafarian web site to show that Pastafarianism is a real religion? According to its own web site, it is.
I'm not saying "na na na" I'm giving you reasons why your evidence doesn't make any sense. This is how a debate works. Then, to defend your point, you can supply new evidence, or tell me why my critiques are invalid.
You're the one who just throws out random evidence, then when it is refuted, plugs your ears and pretends that the response never happened.
And evidence for God could be any number of things. Video recording of an angel coming down from the sky and saving somebody from getting hit by a bus. Scientific measurement of an energy that is inside somebody's body and then leaves their body to go into the afterlife. It's up to you. Show me the evidence, and I'll tell you what I think of it.
Why the hell should a religious person need to give evidence? If he himself is sure that God is guiding him, why do you want to rain on his parade and ask for evidence? Religion isn't a science, it's a personal matter.
If someone tells you that he talks to a leprechaun in his back yard who tells him what to do, is that a personal matter also?
-
You've discredited your own point. In the past - no one educated believes it now.
Then imagine you existed 400 years ago. When astronomers said "Wait a minute, theres no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything" would your defense be "WAIT! Billions of people currently think it is!"
Except you're forgetting a key point - "Wait a minute, there is no reason to believe the Earth is the center of everything, and here is my evidence against conventional wisdom.
And so then where is the evidence for God?
-
Atheism is an umbrella term for a whole set of beliefs, ranging from, "There is no evidence that God exists, but other supernatural things may," to "There is evidence that nothing supernatural has ever existed."
There is a difference between saying, "I don't know for sure, but based on anecdotal evidence I think God doesn't exist," and saying, "I know for sure; I have proof God doesn't exist."
Yes, there is a difference, but this difference is not accounted for by the term "atheist". An atheist could be someone who firmly and stubbornly denies the possibility of God. Or, and atheist could just be somebody who says "I don't think you're correct" when someone says "There definitely is a God"
When you're trying to decide whether or not atheism is justified, the only thing you can look at is what you DON'T believe. An atheistic argument is one that says that your reasons for believing in God are flawed. If someone is constructing an argument that God definitely does not exist, this is not an atheistic argument.
religion
in Off-Topic
Posted
Possible.
Another possibility is that God is real and he made all of this religion stuff to see who is going to live their life stubbornly and who is going to live rationally. Then when people die, everyone who was blindly having faith about God gets punished and everyone who used logic and reason to form ideas about the world will be rewarded with eternal life.