I respect Carl sagan.. I mean I will believe once there's enough proof but scientist have discovered that universe expansion speed is growing enormously. They calculate that if it was a ball, expansion speed would slow down not accelerate like is happening now. Also the flat universe model allows it to come from nothing. It has zero energy thus can come from nothing. But I admit there's a downside:" The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10−4" watch the video from 1.45
Not exactly. By "default", people have never even thought about the subject, so they can't be either.
There's no way to broach the subject with a child without eluding to the concept you would refer too. I think that naturally, by a certain age, the want for a patriarch or matriarch would lead to the spontaneity of 'God' being reinvented. In some subjects at least; I bet. But I'm just hypothesizing.
I assume you're talking about the "born atheist" thing? Atheism is the lack in beliefs in any deity. You can't believe in something you know nothing about. Therefore, babies have a lack of belief, and thus are atheist.
Would you take Lawrence Krauss:es word that universe is flat? But anyhow I was hoping that you would prove me wrong co's its much more easy to imagine a ball universe
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." - Wikipedia (eng) The "rejection of belief" just means that you claim that there are no deities. If you claim there are no deities, you must know something about the subject. If you know something about the subject, chances are very little that you are under 2 years old. Therefor, people cannot be atheists just after their birth. It's not the lack of belief, but the denial of that belief.
"WROOOOOOONG!" (End of quote) As was written (again and again), you have to claim existence, not non-existence. If it were you're way around, you are born a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and *edit in random religion here* too. And a born believer in the invisible dragon in my garage.... Doesnt make sense....
Behold the structure of the english language. Atheist --------------------------- Theist What changed is a prefix that means not. As someone I can't remember once said Atheism is as much a belief as being a non-stamp collector is a hobby. Oh and try harder then Wikipedia to get support for your opinion.
Wikipedia has been a proven reliable source. Atheist-one who believes that there is no deity Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Could you please not post sarcastic sentences which only make you look like an idiot? It only pisses people off. What I'm talking about, is if people who don't believe in a god, are atheists, or if only people who deny the existence of a god are too.
The forums have been rubbing off of you. I remember when you thought wikipedia was a totally terrible source. (I mean this in a good way not a bad way as in I am glad you trust Wikipedia now).
No, I want to piss people off, whos argument consists of "you are an idiot" Someone like you ^^ Look at DutchMasterRace, who completely ignored everything said, except the part where I quoted from Horrible Histories....
