If you actually read the wikipedia article you would see that attached are peer-reviewed documents and sources. Even if you might think that wikipedia is useless, the sources are accurate.

So now someone can’t back up their opinion by showing you where they have said it before? My own articles are all based on definitions and research, so anything I relate to them uses that definition.

I don’t think I wandered off at all. Looking back over the conversation the original point got dragged into arguments about simple semantics, where it has been ever since. As far as I can tell I haven’t missed a single point brought up.

My actual words were “Don’t expect” me to reply, but since you insulted my character, calling me a lunatic etc. I didn’t expect such behaviour from you, but there we go. Where I come from, you don’t just walk away from someone who is insulting you. Perhaps my anger did get the better of me, but I don’t see a bad reason for it doing so.

If you’d been following my actual points instead of just trying to get at me on semantics, you will see that I proved the belief / disbelief thing without definitions mathematically. Mathematics doesn’t need majority opinion to back it up, it needs a proof.

“you are wrong with your original premise”

Do you know what my original premise was? No, since you are not me. My original premise, as I have stated was to find out how many people agreed and how many people disagreed with me. The most I’ll admit to is that not many people agree with the statement “atheism is a belief”, however, as we have seen throughout history, majority support doesn’t mean a concept is correct.

The simple fact about validity is that as long as the premises are true, and the conclusion is true, the argument is valid, hence:

The universe as we know it, had a beginning.
We do not know what the cause of the beginning was, it is “unknown”.
“Gods” are unknown.
Therefore, “Gods” could have begun the universe.

A perfectly valid argument, and you can whine all you want, but it stands up to all definitions.

Ironic that I will now leave this discussion, content that you aren’t the open minded observer you so proudly believe you are.

You know, I don’t even want to get into how ridiculous you come across by citing your only source as a wikipedia entry. Almost as foolish as previously when you cited one of your own articles as validation for one of your own statements.

The truth is, i’ve enjoyed baiting you these last few posts. While you started this thread stating your point quite well, you quickly wandered off, ignoring points raised by others in an attempt to argue down the points you (in error) felt you could overturn.

You’ve let your anger get the better of you Adrian as you’ve actually continued to respond to me even after vowing never to again.

And I actually agree with you. The majority of definitions for atheism do contain the words Belief and Disbelief (as in “not holding belief in a god” or “one who has disbelief in a god”, but why you think that supports your theory is beyond me. There are few that actually refer to atheism as a belief. But of course, your assertion that the majority isn’t always correct comes in to play again. Unless of course you have found the majority agrees with you, then you are perfectly content to allow the majority opinion to be valid.

Adrian - you are wrong with your original premise. You posted an opinion, with an ‘informal’ poll attached. Your regular readers have voted against you, and the support you have in this forum comes from vague references to a friend who buys into your delusion. At least man up and admit you might be mistaken.

Ironically - you feel there’s no room for doubt here. I say ironically as you freely admit that god, flying monkeys and the invisible unicorns have validity as they contain a possibility, no matter how minute, of being correct.

I now leave this discussion, content that you aren’t the open minded observer you so proudly believe you are.

Check it out yourself if you really don’t believe me, or ask around your local church.

As for the poll, I thought as atheists we understand that the majority is not always correct? Certainly seems the case with religion wouldn’t you say? The poll is an opinion poll, used only to see how many people support each point. I believe I have already shown how every definition of the word “atheism” contains the words “disbelief” and “belief”.

As for writing drivel, it really is a matter of opinion as well. I’d say you’ve written some complete drivel so far in trying to argue your views. We have different minds. You tend to think like a scientist whilst I tend to think philosophically.

I wouldn’t ever call what you wrote drivel (until this point) since I understand how to debate properly and you only understand your own pompous opinions. As of now, this discussion is over for me. If you want to continue it with someone else, be my guest.

Where you get your facts is beyond me. “a lot of religious institutions herald it as an explanation of “God’s” creation.” “However, the Big Bang theory, whilst not directly supported by scripture has been viewed by many many religious believers as an advanced modern day explanation of Genesis.” - absolutely made up. Please illuminate us by pointing us in the direction of the ‘many’.

“I don’t understand all the concepts of Gravity and yet to my knowledge it has been tested and observed so much that I can accept it as true.” You accept it because you experience it daily. You can test it yourself, at any point in time. That’s the beauty of gravity, or rather our local gravity on earth. It’s available for anyone to discover. Furthermore, lacking any contradictory theories it seems to be a fairly solid Theory, wouldn’t you say?

I honestly cannot believe the amount you allow yourself to bend the truth in order to be correct.

By the way, did you notice we are up to 76% today? Keep writing the drivel, Adrian. It’s quite entertaining, although it doesn’t seem to be earning you any more votes.

In science, a “fact” is an observation backed up by evidence. We see creatures evolve, so Evolution is a fact. A theory in science is an explanation of the observations, and “The Theory of Evolution” is our way of explaining how creatures can evolve into other species.

Back to the Big Bang. You will find that you do not need to understand Big Bang theory to accept it. I don’t understand all the concepts of Gravity and yet to my knowledge it has been tested and observed so much that I can accept it as true.

The Big Bang is similar. Every religion often starts off with “creation” of the universe, and when scientists first theorised it, a lot of religious institutions herald it as an explanation of “God’s” creation. Even Pope Pius XII supported it.

The thing I was trying to get across with my point was that Evolution isn’t supported anywhere in the scriptures (thus the I.D movement) and 50% of America refusing to believe in it. However, the Big Bang theory, whilst not directly supported by scripture has been viewed by many many religious believers as an advanced modern day explanation of Genesis.

“Don’t you get tired of being mistaken?”

Great, now we’re back to the petty comments again? If you actually let your opponents explain themselves properly you might excel at debates and discussions such as these. However you are held back by your inability to refrain from insulting and unnecessary jibes, and in the debating world the minute someone does that they often seem to lose all respect they had previously gained.

Again - yeah, you’re the one talking drivel.

“The Big Bang is probably more accepted these days than Evolution”

I’m not sure where to begin with statement. But I’ll try.

Evolutionary Theory is an accepted fact. There are scant biologists out there who don’t agree with it. The specific mechanics and pattern of evolution is what is actually disputed. And there is great discussion over it since there is still so much more to learn. But again, Evolutionary Theory is accepted as fact (I.D. crowd notwithstanding).

The theory that the galaxies are moving farther apart is accepted as fact. Whether they will continue to expand or will eventually stop and contract again is quite up in the air. And even more so is what started them in the first place. The Big Bang is one of many theories for which expanding galaxies provide circumstantial evidence. But to get it, you have to be one of a small group of people on this planet that actually get Quantum Physics. And, as they proudly claim, anyone that says they get Quantum Physics probably doesn’t.

Pat yourself on the back if you really feel you ‘get’ the concept of a Quantum Singularity beginning all of space and time. But rest assured, you are incorrect about Evolution being less accepted than the Big Bang.

Don’t you get tired of being mistaken?

I feel that you have at several points refuted your own statement, but regardless of that, the poll you’ve put out for the opinion of your readers answers it best - 76% agree that atheism is not, in itself, a belief.

Thanks for the debate.

“In truth - I don’t believe in the Big Bang. It has little to back it up.”

I’m talking drivel??? The Big Bang has a heck of a lot to back it up. Blue shift / red shift means that everything in the universe is moving apart from a point in space. Using out current theories about velocity and vectors, we can theorise that billions of years ago, all these objects were closer together, and something made them move apart. The Big Bang is probably more accepted these days than Evolution, and that is saying something (even with all of the evidence for Evolution).

I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this:

General Hypotheses DO NOT need evidence, neither do General Theories.

You keep trying to make this entire “god” argument about science, and everyone has already made it clear that god has nothing to do with science. I agree with you, scientific hypotheses need evidence, but look at any definition of a hypothesis (or theory) and it will tell you (amongst other things):

“a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.”

The argument is where everything came from. The hypothesis is God. It’s a proposition that if accepted can answer the argument. Again, I’m not saying it is a good hypothesis, or a testable or observable one, but it is a hypothesis none the less, and it is perfectly valid as one. VALID does NOT mean true.

I also can’t believe I am saying this again:

“I think we really should just end this debate right now, because it is evident that nothing I say will sway your opinion, and vice versa.”

Don’t expect a reply from me again. I’m leaving it at that. This debate has gone from arguing over semantics to who uses the better dictionary, right back to semantics again. It’s completely ridiculous.

“Science is based entirely on assumption”

Absolute drivel.

Looking at your example of your BigBang/Flying monkey comparison.
Flying monkeys are a conceptual idea that is not based on any observation (translation: pulled out of your ass), whereas The Big Bang is a concept based on the observation that all galaxies are flying away from one central point of origin. But we discussed this previously on the subject of black holes regarding circumstantial evidence being a good start. The monkeys, and god, are both completely lacking in even that.

You’re right. We have the freedom to suppose whatever we choose. It’s the wonderful thing about imagination. But those suppositions amount to squat without evidentiary support. Which, again, is where your monkey/Big Bang analogy falls short.

In truth - I don’t believe in the Big Bang. It has little to back it up. It’s interesting, but I can’t buy into it based on what we so far know. However - again - that doesn’t translate into a belief that the Big Bang did not happen.

Biogenesis on the other hand has an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence: i.e. following the branches of the development of life back to a supposed common ancestor/molecule. In addition, by laboratory demonstration, we haven’t yet produced life, but we have produced simple molecules using the ‘electricity in the primordial soup’ hypothesis. That is at the very least proof of concept. And you can choose not believe that it is the correct solution, but that does NOT translate into a belief that it is NOT the correct solution.

I can’t believe I have to keep repeating this - but there isn’t any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that god is anything more than one of those suppositions you mentioned. Not a shred. Thus it is a failed hypothesis. Intellectually you neither have to believe in god or disbelieve. And certainly - as one who considers all suppositions valid - not believing in god can’t translate to believing in his non-existence if all suppositions are equally valid.