Something can’t come from nothing. But I don’t believe a god or a designer was the culprit.
You do realize that Atheism doesn’t claim to have the answers right? It also doesn’t have a guide book with all of the answers in it like Christianity, Islam, Taoism, or Hinduism does about the origins of the universe. Atheism is one thing, the lack of belief in the existence of deities peddled by Theism.
That depends whether one accepts it was a question in good faith, or a loaded question to avoid addressing the fact you made a bare assertion, by implying he was making a contrary claim, Either you can’t read a simple sentence, or it was a loaded question.
Did he say that? No he did certainly did not, not there anyway, so it has the appearance a loaded question, given your penchant for trying to reverse the burden of proof and deflect from your unsupported claims, this was a reasonable inference.
FYI that’s a lie, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the universe always existing is more plausible than a deity creating it, because we know the universe does exist and is therefore possible, we have no objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible, when you questioned you stated plainly you did not know where it came from, when aske how it was possible you said “how is anything possible” demonstrating you had no credible answer.
Again this is whataboutism, and again the value in pointing it out is in demonstrating your assertion as specious. If you have an example of a blind assertion an atheist has made, present it to them, as in this instance all @Calilasseia was state the fact that yours was a blind assertion.
Nature exists. It is. How do you get it to ‘not exist.’ It is there. It is real.
Now demonstrate the same for your God thing.
It’s the same false equivalence fallacy he’s been using from the first. Occam’s razor applies, plus he has already admitted he doesn’t know how a deity is possible, doesn’t know where this deity he imagines is real came from, can’t offer one word of explanation as to how the supernatural power is possible, can’t explain where the power to create a universe comes from, or offer one word of explanation beyond facile assertion to explain how he imagines a deity use supernatural powers to create the universe
Alongside these assertions:
That’s pretty hilarious, you must admit.
Laurence Krauss and Stephen Hawking would sure give you an argument!
Depends on the question surely.
So how many definitions do you think there are for “atheism”?
I would imagine this is scientist being sloppy in wording in order to easily pass concepts on to the average person.
Most would say, id imagine is theres no such as ‘nothing’, if you can point to nothing, then it must something.
Nope.
Atheism is merely the position of being without theism.
Although others have added or taken away from that… you also have different varients of athiesm.
For example, implicit, explicit, weak, strong or hard atheism… and so on.
Only one that encompasses all atheists, and is the dictionary definition. Google the dictionary definition, I’ve done it enough times only for you to dishonestly ignore it.
Oh I know you have a preferred definition, but that is not the only definition, read for yourself, this is an exchange between an annoyed “atheist” ad the senior editor of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
why not? 
That’s still a lie, like the one you keep making that you’re no longer going to respond to me. The evidence it is a lie is that I have each time stated I use the dictionary definition, and linked it several times. I also explained it encompasses all atheists, unlike the biased archaic ones you want to use to reverse the burden of proof, as you have failed to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Does that encyclopedia contain the dictionary definition, that reflects common usage? Does it encompass all atheists, like me for example whose atheism is a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities? No I am sure you’re right and we should ignore the fact that the definition would mean the atheists here were not in fact atheists, invent a new word for them, and all to indulge a relatively obscure philosophical encyclopedia definition that reflects your obvious bias and prejudice is the only one we should use.
Or we could accept the dictionary as reflecting common usage, and acknowledge that while it encompasses all atheists, the definition you’re offering does not reflect the atheism of one single poster here yet, and would of course make anyone who does not believe in any deities, but does not hold any belief no deity exists, not an atheist.
The sheer hilarity is palpable, nice appeal to authority fallacy though, FYI you’re not the first to peddle this encyclopaedia from Stanford either, and for the same mendacious reason as well.
Atheism
noun
Instead of endless espousing your bias to push your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, lets ask actual atheist what they believe and what they don’t.
I’ll get the ball rolling, as I think I know better than you what i do and do not believe.This text will be hidden
@Sherlock-Holmes you clearly neither read that book nor have you watched the book presentation by Lawrence Krauss.
First thing he explains is that nothing in the title is not a philosophical/theosophical nothing but rather a state with a potential.
We have absolutely no reason to think that “nothing” can exist.
Yes, there are many definitions for the word atheism. Words frequently have multiple uses. Seems to me that the easiest way to deal with this is to ask what one means by a word they are using…in the case, atheist/ism.
For instance, I identify as atheist. For me, that identification means I do not believe in any god/s. It does not necessarily mean I believe no god/s exist.
There, wasn’t that easy?
So, my advice to theist verbal combatants in this issue is to address the one given by the person identifying as atheist with whom you are having a conversation instead of insisting they use yours.
Oh? So you think it’s right for Theists like Christians and Muslims to define what that definition is right? The actual definition of Atheist as stated here by myself and several members is irrelevant to you because it doesn’t line up to your confirmation bias. Is that the argument you’re trying to push?
OK that was your last chance, have a nice day.
No, I agree with the editor in chief, the definition based upon the philosophical literature is clear.
No, the fact that I’m bringing to your attention is that the “absence of belief” definition is simply Anthony Flews definition and dates from the 1970s. The long established definition is used by many atheists today and is - for them - the correct defintion.
Likewise there are agnostics who are opposed to Flew’s definition too.
As for Flew himself you might find this of interest: (emphasis bold added by me)
So what does one atheist becoming a Christian have to do with anything?
Atheists and Christians alike change their beliefs on the fly. Some Christians convert to Islam. Some Atheists become Pagan. I know of a girl I used to talk to who claimed she was atheist but decided to chase Greek Paganism and was obsessed with Greek Zodiacs.
Okay, okay. Please stop beating the dead horse of definition and move on. Ask what, specifically, an individual means if it’s not clear. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe ffs!
I think there may be a poll on this in this thread, ahem…I encourage all atheists to voice their views accordingly, and they can then cite both their own view and that of the poll. Though of course the views of atheists on this site need not be taken as a binding general rule, it nonetheless would help negate definitions of atheism being offered that few or none on here actually hold.
As @CyberLN says, why not ask, and then accept what someone tells you they believe or do not believe. As a corollary there are over 45k differing sects and denominations globally defined broadly as Christian, how would Christian posters feel if their assertion to be a Christian were dismissed arbitrarily because we decided only one of those applied.
Oh look, it’s the blatant lie that Flew became a believer in a cartoon magic man!!!
And I KNOW that this is a blatant lie, because the episode was covered at length in the past. A neat encapsulation of the relevant duplicity on the part of the mythology fanboys involved (one being a creationist by the name of Roy Varghese, whose sleazy role in this episode is a major one) can be read in detail here, which includes a link to an article on this matter in the New York Times. That article reveals that Flew was being manipulated by sleazy mythology fanboys, at a time when he was profoundly affected by a neurodegenerative disorder.
From the article, we have this:
There’s more:
PZ Myers offers this advice at the end:
Once again, we see how low mythology fanboys will stoop, in order to propagandise for their sleazy and nasty little doctrine.
