Rover finds evidence of ancient freshwater lake on mars

[Forever_frost]

How the hell do you refer to it as a he then?

The same way some refer to him as 'Her.' It's my personal preference of a pronoun describing an entity that isn't bound by sex or time. Also the same way I refer to vehicles as a 'her' and Russians refer to them as 'he.'

[Forever_frost]

Only to people incapable of critical thinking, skepticism, and rational thought. I don't hold it against you. The king, however, has no excuse.

Prove it.

Says the man who believes we came from nothingness and science can explain how a pool of goop became every species of every plant and animal on the planet.

[racrguy]

So an Atheists claim is to not know?

No, the atheist belief is no belief.

No, that is definitely not true. Their claim is that they do know there is no god, which in my opinion is the pinnacle of ignorance and hypocrisy. What you are describing is Agnosticism.

You are confused in your terms. There is agnosticism and gnosticism, theism and atheism. Theist/atheist is a belief claim, gnostic/agnostic is a knowledge claim. There is no such thing as agnosticism by itself.

Certainly there is a chance there is life elsewhere. The answer to your question is what proof does religion have other than a book? The same proof that Atheists have that there isn't a god. The claim that either side, be it theism, or atheism that they conclusively know the truth is, in my opinion, absurd - because we both know for certain that no one knows.

You're trying to rationalize organized religion, which is a product of a theist view. The discussion here seems to revolve around the existence of a god, which is different. Your explanation for why religion exists is to control a population is just as easily reversed. You could say the reason atheism exists is so people can be amoral without the guilt of repercussions. See how easily that's turned around? Just because you've found some way to rationalize your opinion doesn't mean you're right.

I'm simply pointing on that as vehement as aheists are in regards to life on other worlds (which is the holy grail of atheism, to prove something wrong with the bible and therefore proclaim it has been invalidated) for the last 50+ years they time and time again fail to prove this. Now, removing the fact that their very well may be life on other planets, it would seem, at least so far, to further strengthen the theist view as there isn't a shred of evidence to support the atheists view point.

Many people believe there is life on other planets, some people even adopt that theory as a religion in itself. But as analytic and practical as atheists proclaim themselves to be, I find sometimes they tend to forget or at the very least consider the possibility of the other side of the argument which is why I spent the time to dip into it, as simply an exercise in variety which seems to be so infrequently visited.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god, and I do not claim to know there is no god. Theists of all sorts and gnostic atheists are all incorrect, IMO, they have to prove their stance and I have seen no evidence that supports either the existence or non-existence of a god.

[racrguy]

Says the man who believes we came from nothingness and science can explain how a pool of goop became every species of every plant and animal on the planet.

You are the one that believes we came from nothing. You believe we were literally blinked into existence.

Uhhhhhhhhhh. As far as I know science hasn't explained how abiogenesis worked, when we do know is how evolution works. The two are not the same, because once life began the age of abiogenesis ended and the age of evolution began.

[CJ]

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god, and I do not claim to know there is no god. Theists of all sorts and gnostic atheists are all incorrect, IMO, they have to prove their stance and I have seen no evidence that supports either the existence or non-existence of a god.

You might want to let the world know that agnosticism doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The whole, "weak atheism" "strong atheism" and "theist atheism" are all modern formulations to dilute what the actual factual basis for the term is. People take one from the other, mix it up, etc. in an effort to not be labeled. And I completely disagree with your definition of atheist, as does my dictionary.

[racrguy]

Strong and weak atheism mean nothing to me. Theist atheism? That is immediately contradictory. I don't even know what someone who uses that is trying to say...