This kind of attitude “don’t be ridiculous” is where you ultimately fail. Just over 100 years ago we thought heavier than air flying machines were “ridiculous”, and look where we are now.

Scientists have managed to create the building blocks of life from non-living material in labs. They have been doing it for 50 years. There is no reason to give up on reason yet.

You are not serious are you, if you read the sentence I obviously meant “disproved”.

Well obviously it wasn’t “obvious” to me. I have met so many flat earthers on the internet I never know when people are in support of the theory or are joking about it. It doesn’t hurt to be certain of something.

You are obviously not reading my words carefully. I was talking about a benefit. I was not doing a definition.

Being an atheist does not mean you automatically don’t believe anything until it is proven though. The only benefit of atheism is that we don’t blindly accept a god with no evidence. I’m an atheist and I believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. It has never been proven and the only evidence for it is our understanding of how life starts, combined with the logical probabilities of life evolving.

That my dear sir, is the whole foundation of science. The fact that we can not yet prove anything allows theories still to be debated. Defining my attitude as immature is like the pot calling the kettle black.

The whole foundation of science is to continue researching and build upon knowledge. All scientists believe in their ideas, otherwise they would not continue. What gives them the reason to believe is that they have evidence which to them shows a different thinking to what is already believed. Theories are debated, and the one that is the strongest in light of the evidence is the one that is accepted by science. You know very little about scientific working is you think that everything has to be proved before the scientific community accept it as good science. There are no proved theories, only theories supported by evidence. To go around saying that you will not believe in any of them until they are proven is to ignore the evidence. If new evidence arises that disproves a theory, everyone can shrug their shoulders and say “well we were wrong”, and then move onto supporting the next best theory. There is no shame in being wrong, but believing in nothing rather than following the evidence is a very poor way to live.

You are not serious are you, if you read the sentence I obviously meant “disproved”. There is no way to prove a flat earth theory. I can make a smart alek comment here. But I’ll refrain…

Thats the definition of a skeptic, not an atheist.

You are obviously not reading my words carefully. I was talking about a benefit. I was not doing a definition.

I think it is an immature attitude to say you won’t believe something until proven.

That my dear sir, is the whole foundation of science. The fact that we can not yet prove anything allows theories still to be debated. Defining my attitude as immature is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Having said that I would like to make some final unrelated points in answer to your first reply:

A that is a new word to me. Eugenics. A quick look at Britannica has given me the opinion that it is not an exact science

Eugenics is the act of overriding natural selection and actively selecting traits that you want in the offspring.

Now that is just not true. flat earth was proven by actually being able to move round the earth.

Flat Earth wasn’t proved…ever.

That is the benefit of being an atheist - you don’t have to belief anything until proven.

Thats the definition of a skeptic, not an atheist. An atheist simply believes there are no gods. A skeptic keeps an open mind about everything. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have to accept things. Indeed, if you go around looking for the proof for everything before accepting it, you would accept nothing. There is, in reality no such thing as scientific proof. We don’t have proof of Evolution, we have strong evidence supporting it.

I think it is an immature attitude to say you won’t believe something until proven. Its the same attitude Creationists take when they look at Evolution, they want proof and decide that until they have it they will disregard all the evidence.

If I may quote him :
“Sorry, but I’m not the the person who wrote the website (and I try to think for myself, so I don’t have to agree with evrything that is written about the electric model) and I’m not the guy who designs the different space programs and measurements. I may be stupid to think this model has merits, but it is certainly no religion to me. I do find it a very interesting model, and whether it’s true or not worth the trouble of discussing it. And about the electrons flowing towards the Sun, the other half of the matter, positive particles streaming away, has been shown to exist.”

A that is a new word to me. Eugenics. A quick look at Britannica has given me the opinion that it is not an exact science.

Darwin only had fossils and adaptations to go on for his theory of Evolution, and today we can back it up with genetics. Even if Darwin had recanted on his death bed (which he didn’t) it wouldn’t have changed the theory being a very accurate model of explaining the diversity of life.

Of course it would. If I know I don’t have a sound foundation and a niggling feeling about that I missed something it would obviously affect things very much. That is why satellites are ending up way off course from where predicted. If Newtonion physics are to be applied to ending up light years from here if we manage to design lightspeed drives you wouldn’t want your calculations to be wrong. What worried Einstein is that his physics applied to macro level and not micro (quantum physics) Now it is easier to work on macro than the micro. But as any science it is better to work and understand the micro before the macro as it is an obvious building block. Unfortunately Einstein didn’t have the tools at that stage as I am sure he would have been an invaluable resource.

Electric Universe denies the evidence that stars are giant balls of gas, even though we have so many images and data that confirms it. There is no point being open minded about something like flat earth theory or indeed electric universe theory when it has been disproved countless times.

Now that is just not true. flat earth was proven by actually being able to move round the earth. That is a long shot away from actually proving their theories on the universe. You can keep an open mind about things that has not been physically proven. That is the benefit of being an atheist - you don’t have to belief anything until proven. Now I am not knowledgeable about the subject (although I think few people are on the actuality). But writing of another theory just because you have reverse theories that don’t suit your thinking smells too much like religion for me.

An open mind does not mean I will agree with anything put in front of me, but that I will allow anyone to give me evidence to support any kind of theory. I have research electric universe theory and for every point they make, there are countless others that disprove it.

OK please state your facts. I am not interested in reading the other people’s theories as I am not discussing this with them. The universe is supposedly ruled by a divine intelligence, atheism defines it is not. I think discussing the universe is a very valid topic as it matters to what you [believe]. Discounting the rest of the universe because your only wanting to focus on the earth is like focusing on only the cheese and ignoring the fridge.