They need attention...gets lonely in they mama's basement.

@TheMiddleWay Fine...believe what you want...I don't believe in the divine or any manifestations of it...

@LimitedLight I think his ultimate goal is to be blocked by every single member on this site.

@TheMiddleWay You completely redefine atheism and by proxy many an atheist's position, so that you can attempt to prove that agnosticism (yours specifically) is the superior position. I reject your definition and posit that you argue from a position of bad faith, as many theists and apologists tend to. My question is, why?? What could possibly be your goal aside from inflating your own sense of superiority?

@DesertInfidel

Well put. And why keep bringing this up unless it's to accomplish only that?

@Athena No idea but I've humored him for far longer than I should have had the patience for. I'll let him have the last word as I'm sure he'd have it no other way.

@DesertInfidel

I'm blocking him after this post loses its momentum.

@OwlInASack I had a very long discussion with him, which ended up where he said I could be wrong about my own personal position on the issue, lol. (I went on and on clarifying that my position might be wrong, but I cannot be wrong that what my position is IS what I say it is. He disagreed, lol.) He knew he was ticking me off because he kept putting those winky emojis at the end of everything.

@greyeyed123 Yes, he continually argues from a position of bad faith, that the definition he prefers is the ONLY correct one and that disbelieving a ridiculous, unfalsifiable claim, somehow shifts the burden of proof to the disbeliever (but only in the case of gods, not magic or fairies or dragons ¯_(ツ)_/¯ ). He does this repeatedly, knowingly and intentionally, under the guise of "civil discourse and discussion". I feel he is actually malicious and actively trolling but just good enough at disguising it to get people to bite.

I think you warned me about exactly this once before. I will heed your advice the second time around.

Sorry, Athena; Atheism literally means "No god".

Agnostic literally means "Not knowing".

Agnostics say "I/we don't know for sure" whether there's a god...so far the evidence doesn't exist.

Atheists say "I'm/we're sure...no gods".

Look at the chart...it helps...

I totally agree. Unfortunately people use the word ‘atheist’ to mean someone that asserts that there is no god/s. It’s understandable because there is no word to describe a person like that. I’ve heard ‘antitheist’ used for that, but it’s not in common use.

@Robecology

No it doesn't.

Atheism answers the question "Do you believe a God exists?" It is a question of belief, not of knowing.

Answer: No. I do not believe a God exists, just like I don't believe fairies exist. I make no claim that there is no God and no fairies.

Agnosticism asks "Do you know if a God exists?" It is a question of knowledge (gnostic = knowing).

Answer: No I don't know if a God exists.

Do you believe in fairies?

No? So you're claiming there are no fairies then? And that's inconsistent with science?

I'm done with this. It's complete fucking nonsense.

*Edited for spelling.

Where does it assert in this definition that there is NO God?
[google.com]

@TheMiddleWay

No, that is NOT what I'm saying.

If a defendant is not guilty, that doesn't mean he is innocent. It means there isn't enough certainty/evidence to state he is guilty.

If you say you are convinced that a man is guilty, and I say I'm not convinced he is guilty. I am not claiming he is innocent.
Yes, I needed to state that twice because I see you struggle with logic.

@Robecology That is NOT the definition of Atheism Rob.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. ... Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

That is the correct definition.

@zblaze

Yes!

@TheMiddleWay

I am no longer communicating with you. This kind of bullshit argument is a glaring display of your poor logic and highly inflated sense of self.

You can continue making these same ridiculous comments - knock yourself out. They don't make any more sense just because you're repeating yourself.

I don't know why you're on this site... you're a closet theist. I know this because you argue like one. Illogically and nonsensically.

In a court of law there is only guilty and innocent?

No; there is guilty and not guilty.

When there's not enough evidence to convict someone we say "not guilty" not "innocent."

Only when there is overwhelming evidence to show a man is innocent do we say he is innocent, eg. It was discovered he was nowhere near the scene of the crime.

O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. Is he innocent?

Now buzz off!

yes..it does...and well hidden if you don't research it...

I am laughing

@Pralina1 seriously...ha ha ha...hello...intelligent group here...we know about this thing called google...ha ha ha ha

@thinktwice wtf right ?

@Pralina1 I am screaming in my office right now...you are my favorite to win the internet today! ha ha ha ha I am going to pee my pants if I don't get it under control!

@Pralina1 Thank you my dear...!

@VictoriaNotes well he should be proud of it, he had to work harder to learn it.

Yeah, I've spent to much time with narcissists. It's rubbed off on me.

@TheMiddleWay Your claim about number two is wrong.

"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence. ..."

The second half is what we're all saying. But you already knew that. The OED would never make such an egregious mistake as the others make.

@TheMiddleWay You've also ignored all other dictionaries. Merriam-Webster? Not to mention the fact that you just keep ignoring WE ATHEISTS, lol. But that doesn't matter to you.

@TheMiddleWay What is dishonest is linking to Merriam-Webster's "atheist" definition, while ignoring where it says one who advocates atheism, without looking at the definition of atheism in their link, which says in the first freakin' entry, "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods". But you just continue to be dishonest and argue in bad faith.

"a lack of belief" is the half we are talking about.

I am not the pope of atheism, and you are not the pope of dictionaries. Dictionaries get their definitions from the world around us. They are not prescriptive, but descriptive, so continually returning to them is idiotic when what you want to know is the position of a group of people on an issue. You have an avalanche of atheists on this website setting you straight, and you ignore them because you like trolling.

What atheist organizations would you then accept to clarify the stance of our group, since you do not accept me, or the dozens of others here? You are already on record as rejecting American Atheists because you don't like their definition. (You are arguing both sides against the middle. Implying you need someone to speak for our group but not me, and also rejecting the very definitions of one atheist group because you don't like their definitions a priori, is again dishonest and arguing on bad faith. There is more than one group.) Freedom From Religion Foundation? American Humanists? Atheist Alliance International? (Stop me when they add up to overwhelming evidence.) Center for Inquiry? Secular Student Alliance? Secular Coalition of America? Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers? Humanists International? League of Militant Atheists? Atheist Centre? Minnesota Atheists? Atheist Foundation of Australia? Atheist Ireland? Brazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics?

I'm going to sleep. Others can argue with you.

@TheMiddleWay There is a group. We're called atheists.

@TheMiddleWay Will you quit equivocating on everything. "These should be taken as models to, at least roughly, describe people's beliefs and their attitudes towards belief itself."

When you ignore what we are telling you, what does it matter that there is no religious group "atheists" with a pope to tell you what we all lack a belief in? We are are telling you and you don't even care. So why do you keep insisting that our position isn't really our position but some other position?

@TheMiddleWay And yet I just listed a dozen atheist groups who all define "atheism" the same way. I gave you Merriam-Websters, and you dishonestly ignored "atheism" to focus on "atheist" and hope I wouldn't notice the very link to the word "atheism".

For cryin' out loud, even "conservapedia's" bat shit crazy website acknowledges both "lack of a belief" and "believing there are no gods".

Here's wikipedia if you care, which I'm sure you don't. Feel free to accuse me of not giving citations once again.

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[10][11][12]"

[en.wikipedia.org]

@TheMiddleWay Are you pretending to be this confused on purpose? Do you really want me to believe you are this lost about our previous conversation? lol Maybe you are having multiple conversations at once and don't remember what you were saying in each one. But I highly doubt it.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not talking about this thread. I'm talking about everything you already told me in the other conversation, doofus. It doesn't matter anyway as you are just wrong. Most atheists do not use the definition you keep foisting on us from the SEP (which is not as clear cut as the section you keep quoting from anyway--the very section theists quote screaming as if their hair is on fire--because apparently you did not read the entire entry), and your narrow definition fits inside the broader one anyway. You just don't care.

Why is it so important for you to define what other people's positions are? And if you are now going to deny this, why is it so important for you to assign "some or many" to this narrow definition (when this is not true either, unless by "some" you mean a tiny, tiny fraction of the whole)? What is your motivation? (I know you will give none, which will allow readers of this thread to make up their own minds.)

@TheMiddleWay, @OwlInASack

Years ago when I was in college, I had a Great Books class for four years. We had two professors lead our round table discussions, and one was a pretty hardcore Calvinist. When we got to the bible and god issues, I always used the "I don't know" agnostic label.

They would always laugh and say that meant I was an atheist--the implication being that in order to believe in god, you had to actually declare theism. Anything else was atheism.

Now that the winds of change are blowing in our direction, they do everything they can to say belief in god isn't really necessary to be a theist. Just say "I don't know" and you can have Jesus at your side, lol. (Some already say atheists go to heaven too, so it doesn't really matter.)

"Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven"
[charterforcompassion.org]

@TheMiddleWay Not everyone. Just believers in one god. It is weird that you assume everyone are theists. Maybe not weird, but...suspicious. lol

@TheMiddleWay You routinely insult my intelligence and education, while pretending you had no idea you are doing so. Touche. Touche.

@TheMiddleWay You make assumptions about me (and others), and then comment as if the premises of those assumptions are true. Doofus. You know what you are doing because you are not as dumb as you pretend. No one is. lol

Me: that was lucky then!

@TheMiddleWay That's not ironic. That's me saying the same thing twice (you are pretending in both, pretending to be dumb in both), and you pretending you didn't understand. Again.

@TheMiddleWay Agreed, we should avoid ad hominem attacks. It's best if we assume that the other person is presenting arguments in good faith, with no ulterior motives. We're on the same team after all.

@OwlInASack Ah, I'm definitely out of the loop then.

Yep.

Abstinence is a sex position, so by not having sex you are asserting sex does not exist.

@TheMiddleWay
Yours is not the middle path. You keep insisting non belief is a belief, and not scientific. This argument doesn't hold any water.

It's like saying abstinence is a sex position, to quote Bill Maher.

I do think "thou dost protest too much" regarding atheism. You may just be a closet theist, after all, yes.

I'll be blocking you, I promise, once this post dies off. I'm sick of this same argument.

Believe whatever you want, but STOP attempting to make atheists into believers of non belief!

@TheMiddleWay Walking the middle path is like sitting on the fence...sooner or later you fall. Goddess help you if you fall on their side.

@TheMiddleWay Why are you surprised? I told you so many times, lol. Then you act as if no one ever said such a thing before.

I agree. This goes to show that even apparently intelligent people can practice self-delusion when it's in their pecuniary or emotional interest.

@TheMiddleWay The "scientific" method dictates that the burden of proof rests with the one who makes an affirmative statement ("god exists" ), not the others to prove the negative. Theism has many gods. Countless gods in fact, and they are often self-contradictory.

I think that we can fairly affirmatively prove that Zeus doesn't exist. I think we can fairly affirmatively prove Yehew doesn't exist. The problem with theism is that it is a moving target. But if we were to examine every single organized religion, we can fairly prove that they are artificial. As artificial as Joseph Smith and his golden plates.

What we need to enter is the realm of epistemology, a theory of "knowledge": what does it mean when we say we know things, and what does it mean when we say we believe things.

There is nothing in the world that can be 100% iron-clad proven or disproven. That is why there are still those who debate materialism vs. idealism. How do I for absolutely certain know that what I am holding is an actual apple that objectively exist, as opposed to a product of my (or collective) imagination? These are NOT scientific inquiries, but they are in fact philosophical.

A scientific method would start with the presumption that what I hold in my hand looks, feels, and smells like an apple, and even though I cannot be absolutely certain that I "know" it is objectively an apple, I will interact with it with the assumption (usually very safe) that it is an apple. I will take a bite.

It doesn't make me an apple-agnostic to say that I don't know for sure that it is an apple, but I am pretty certain that it is an apple.

There are lots of scientific hypotheses that later prove to be right, but these hypotheses are built upon evidence, not lack of non-evidence. And just because the Theory of Evolution starts with the word "theory" it doesn't make it a theory: any honest biologist will tell you that the evolution is a fact. If so, much of "theistic" belief goes out in the smoke.

We want to hold on to theism, for whatever comfort that it may give, but theism is a by-product of exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, and the human history is an excellent witness to that charge.

@AtheistReader He knows all of this. I had this discussion with him over days and days and dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of messages. So have others.

@TheMiddleWay You did not address the points I made. Instead, you simply restated your position. Leading me to believe that this isn't a conversation.

@greyeyed123 I am giving up.

@AtheistReader I told you so. lol

@TheMiddleWay It's taking me awhile to get back to this but I have to comment on one thing that you stated. You mentioned the Higgs Boson and String Theory as examples of how you cannot discard or disregard a hypothesis. Thousands of scientists have done exactly that. I think that you are unaware of the peer review process. Even if you cannot disprove something there has to be agreement and the hypothesis has to be tested and reproducible.

Let's talk about testing. I have heard repeatedly that God is jealous, omniscient and omnipotent. If I were to proclaim there's no god right now, just like I have so many times before, I should be struck by lightning or something. Yet repeatedly I have not. Over and over again. It does not conclusively conclude that there are no gods because there could be a different less important version of a god but I repeatedly try to piss off whatever fantasy god you come up with until the only God left is insignificant and powerless or dead. In that case, either you can believe that there are no gods or you can disregard these gods because they don't matter.

I choose the obvious, no god. Atheism. If any real evidence is shown, then I will change my mind. That's the same for God, Higgs boson or string theory but let's be honest there's strong, reproducible supporting evidence for both Higgs and String theory. None of a god.

I love a woman with an opinion

@gater

Then be prepared to love me intensely, because I've got LOTS of them.

Fuckwits AND idiots? Brutal.

@Count_Viceroy

Yes. Both.

@TheMiddleWay Mis Characterization or not, the vast majority of the indoctrinated are swallowing it up, spitting it out and taking up arms and are ready to become/ becoming martyrs.

Rather than making a bald-faced declaration of disbelief concerning ultimate reality, it would seem more honest to just say that you don’t understand.

@OwlInASack I am also an atheist with respect to the set of mad and often immoral claims presented by some organized religious groups. A set of claims is not all there is to reality.

Gleiser is not calling for people to believe the unbelievable. I think he is asking us to look directly at the stark implications of reality and see the limitations to our ability to comprehend. If A person declares in connection with ultimate reality that they disbelieve, that is a sure sign that they have not truly looked.

Deciding that the moon is not a goddess or that it is, after all, not made of cheese—that is only the first step. We should go on from there to examine and study the moon as best we can with an attitude of curiosity, awe and reverence. Sitting on your ass and spouting disbelief will get you nowhere.

@Antifred Okay... seems your talking semantics but when a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or the vast majority of other religions use the word "god" they are referring to a supernatural being, not a person or a silly collective of people. What I am referring to and what you are referring to are two separate things. Sure, you can call the population of New York City a god or all of the clowns in the world a god but that has nothing to do with organized religion or the religious definition of "god".

When you are using the word "god" you are not referring to a supernatural being in the same context as the Christian god (for example). I don't think you are claiming that someone who is Taco God has omniscience or omnipotence or is worthy of devotion and worship as a higher being.

A couple of thousand years of reprinting a book does not in any way make it more true. If so, then Zeus and Odin are real. And only the Torah is more than 2000 years old since the Koran wasn't written until the 7th century and the Bible wasn't compiled until the 5th century.

Quoting the Bible has as much validity as quoting "The Hobbit" and expecting me to believe that dragons are real.

@Charles1971 Hey mate, you do realize that " AntiFred" is, in fact, imho, a religious Troll, or a Religious 'roach as I like to call them, and you've just opened the door to a possible interminable debate (aka flood of) consisting of endless repetitive biblical citations from him?

@Antifred 'Spiritualist/Spiritualism/Supernaturalist/ism' is not that merely a 'cop-out' kind of situation religiously speaking, FriarFred?
What precisely and exact is a SPIRIT ( NOT the alcoholic variety of course), what, also is 'Supernaturalism' if it is just simply something above or beyond the PRESENTLY observable part of the natural world, a world btw, that we are only just beginning to explore fully and understand very little of this far.

Also, I stated that IN MY HONEST Opinion, NOTE, MY Honest Opinion, that you are a Religious Troll/Roach I was OFFERING up my OWN Opinion and NOT making an actual Accusation, there IS a very GREAT difference between STATEMENT of Opinion and STATEMENT of FACT in case you are/were unaware.

And, as per my opinion, I shall leaving 'kindergarten tactics, as you so kindly put it, to you since, IN MY OPINION, you are far better suited to them than I.

@Antifred Yes, I see that you are already, and as is your usual trait, resorting to interminable religious citations, BUT what empirical evidence and PROOF positive do YOU offer up that this 'ruach'/'spirit' actually exists?
YOU have made the claim, therefore, the ONUS is solely upon YOU to prove your claim, that Sir, is the way things are done.
Ergo, come up with the Proof or forever remain silent.

@Antifred Dude I think I am correct in assuming that NOBODY wants to read this shit. You can't even spell and it's downright ANNOYING.

@Antifred PLEASE do TRY to tell something, no matter how MINISCULE it may be, from you exulted bible that I have NOT already known from my years of Studies to gain my ThD.

@Antifred Conjecture, AntiFred, aka FriarFed, merely CONJECTURE not PROOF.
I requested empirical PROOF from you or for you, failing giving that as requested, to remain forever silent.
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means a failure and 10 means you've succeeded, SIR, you've hit the MINUS 1, i.e. a Complete, Utter and Irrevocable FAILURE.

@Antifred Fred, Fred, Fred, my sympathies are with you, imho, you must live a truly tedious and boring life there in Texass, sorry Texas.
Have you ever considered just putting away your cellphone or whatever, getting up and going over and kissing the wife, hugging the children or even just simply going out into the countryside and enjoying what nature has to offer?

@Antifred okay there Antifred, play your 'Theist's Favorite Sport" as in my little offering below.
I think, by now, we all know full well that you HAVE absolutely NO empirical proof nor evidence to offer up so run and hide as all Theists do so very well.

@Antifred You seem to have ignored my response and gotten into a posting contest with Triphid.

I'm not replying to the numerous posts between yourself and Triphid that popped up in the past 12 or so hours.

As you stated, man made "jesus style god" and any god that is made up (fictional) can be dismissed.

So, unless you have something more substantial to say then I'm done.

@Charles1971 Sorry, but I ignored unintentionally due to the unwanted bombardment from another source. Please accept my most sincere apologies.

@Antifred I do NOT believe nor think that I am better than anyone else, I am just me, an individual who is a human being with the self-same Morals and Ethics, though somewhat honed and improved over the millenia since, that our Proto-Hominid Ancestors worked out for themselves when they first climbed down out of the trees and stood erect on 2 legs for the first time. THAT is what makes me Human, that is what makes me think, learn, study, better myself knowledge-wise, that is what drives me to pick up and read books, etc, on numerous and diverse subjects rather than merely scanning through ONE single collection of ancient 'books' assembled and purportedly claimed to be the "Written Word/s of a Supreme Deity" that absolutely NO-ONE has ever seen, etc.
When I express my opinions, I express them from knowledge gained by studying, learning, etc, from almost innumerable sources INCLUDING over 7 years of intense studies required to achieve a ThD (Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions) PLUS 2 other PhDs and a number of Bachelors Degrees as well.
I have and use NO prejudices, nor pessimisms or condescending attitudes BUT I do use Logic, Reason and Reasoning PLUS tried and tested, proven Empirical Evidences and Facts.

I think Antifred just wants to argue for the sake of argument. If I said I like pizza he'd argue the definition of pizza.

@Charles1971 Precisely.

Not really. Agnostics "claim" nothing.

@Storm1752 Atheists claim nothing as well.

@Storm1752 Do not Agnostics state that they are 'unsure' ( for want of a better word/phrase) whether or not a God/Deity exists or not, whereas an Atheist, like myself for example, simply REFUTE the unfounded, unproven CLAIMS made by believers that a God/Deity exists BECAUSE there never has been ANY empirically proven EVIDENCE brought forward by those believers to support their claims.
Yes, the believers can and do hold up their bibles and state loudly that this is ALL the proof they need since it IS the " Written Word of God" BUT NOWHERE within that collection of books, which it truly is btw, is there even one single thing to state or show clearly and undeniably that IS the 'book' and was written by this God him/herself.

@TheMiddleWay You can 'believe' what or however you wish BUT since Atheism is NOT in any way shape nor form a system of Belief then it makes no claim whatsoever, it simply states, asserts and affirms that, given the continually growing 'mountains' of empirically tried, tested and proven evidence offered up in its favour that a Supreme Deity/God does NOT nor never has existed, ergo it IS not a CLAIM, it is a proven assertion.

@TheMiddleWay A Theist holds forth only ONE book and CLAIMS it to be fact and Truth, an Atheist lists countless, often innumerable books, filled with tried and tested EVIDENCE and asserts and affirms that these do actually hold facts and truths that can and do stand by themselves against all comers.

@TheMiddleWay Here we go again with words and labels. Yes, a belief that there is are no gods or an unbelief in gods is a claim. That’s not necessarily what an atheist is though.

@TheMiddleWay Well if you think "I don't believe in god" means or implies “gods don't exist”, then I don’t know what to say. They are different statements.

@TheMiddleWay Speaking here for myself, which, for the most part is what only anyone can truly do, as an Atheists from childhood I can safely and honestly state that through my many, many years of learning and studying that it is my honest opinion that the God/s, etc, that people choose to worship are little more than products of the imaginations of people from more older/ancient times whose knowledge and understandings of the world around them was extremely limited, etc.
Therefore, in my well considered and somewhat well educated opinion, I am at LEAST 99.9999% CERTAIN that absolutely NO God, Gods, Goddesses in any shape nor form, etc, have ever existed or even exist in the here and now.

@TheMiddleWay So it is impossible to not believe one way or the other on anything?

@TheMiddleWay Science as science is NOT a system of belief nor does it require or demand belief,.
Science is system of questioning, searching for, discovering, examining, trying, testing, re-trying, re-testing, re-examining and finally actually PROVING by empirical means and measures the FACTS and the Truths.
Whereas religion and religious BELIEFS absolutely DISCOURAGE any form of Questioning, Examining, Trying, Testing and the usage of empirical means and measurement, religions DEMAND Faith, usually BLIND Faith and throughout its history has regularly castigated those who have dared question it.

@TheMiddleWay No, not really. Cosmologist do NOT really believe as you have just posted, they cannot state nor believe ( for want of a better and more appropriate word) that " what happens on Earth here and now, happens a million/billion Light distant." They might HYPOTHESISE given that which has been observed here BUT that which has occurred here may NOT be the same as that which has/is or may occur elsewhere because the Universe and events occurring throughout it and within are differing and changing constantly.
For example, take the possibility of Extraterrestrial life, though mammals have evolved here they may never have evolved a billion or even a million Light Years away on other planets, something else may have evolved, not the so-called Hollywood style Aliens we see depicted, but something beyond our present scope of imagining, perhaps some kind of semi-intelligent, limbless, water dwelling, jellyfish species for example. No-one truly knows exactly what is out there for a FACT.
As for your "axioms and beliefs" well many of those have fallen by the way-side as scientific knowledge and understandings have grown, e.g. it was once state and believed that the Earth WAS the centre of the Solar System, the Sun and planets revolved/orbited around the Earth and the stars were mere 'pin-holes' in the firmament of the night sky which allowed specks of light to pass through them. Well that axiom/belief has gone the way of the dinosaurs, has it not?

@TheMiddleWay Well, Light speed has been measured and tested repeatedly and still stands at approx. 180,000 miles or 300,000kms per second just as do radio waves as well.
Ergo, other than the light emitted by our Sun, light striking our eyes/planet from space left its point of emission anywhere between 1 Earth second ago to 1 Light Year + ago. Hence the light we see from the stars, NOT the Moon or planets in THIS Solar system btw, at night could have been emitted anywhere from 1 Light Year ago ( 6 Million, Million miles distant) to 10s of Billions of Miles distant and even Billions of years back in time.
We NEVER see or observe the light emitted from, for example, the Binary Stars nearest to our system that was emitted this very moment/second or even the year before today BECAUSE it has not reached us yet, it WILL arrive here some time is the distant future though.
Yes, scientific theories change as more evidence, etc, is added to them, that either disproves the original or enhances it whichever may the case. But that is how science works thankfully and religions founder.

@TheMiddleWay The have almost innumerable experiments done since, and including, Einstein's experiments to determine and calculate the speed of light and every one of them has arrived at precisely the same rate of speed.
IF, you do NOT believe me then there is a very simple, easy experiment you and a friend can try for yourselves; Find a site/place flat and open enough where YOU can stand separated by a scaled down distant of the 186,000/300,000 miles/kms in as complete darkness as possible. Have your friend stand at one end of the distance separating you, you and stopwatch at the other, then when you see your friend switch on his/her flashlight, record the time that elapsed between it being switch on and the light shining in your eyes. Multiply that time by the co-efficient used to calculate the scaling DOWN of the distance of 186,000/300,000miles/kms and you will get the precise same result as did REAL scientists before you.

@TheMiddleWay Well, it CAN be said that EVERYTHING we 'know' re- the Universe is MERELY based solely UPON data, etc, we have extrapolated here in the very tiny, insignificant patch of a massive Universe.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, BUT we do know from both the Voyager Programs and the Lunar Landings, unless of course you believe both were faked, that e.m. radiations ( radio signals) go through a type of time lapse between transmissions and receptions the further away from Earth, etc, the transceivers are, hence it goes to prove that since light is an Electromagnetic Transmission, just as are radio waves DO travel at a set speed only.

@TheMiddleWay Then, IF the time lapses between transmission from Earth and reception on the Moon, for example, are unproven evidential facts, then what, exactly are they, complete and utter bunkum perhaps?

FYI, TheMiddleWay believes atheism can only be a claim that no gods exist. Lacking a belief is not a definition he accepts, and he will support it with the SEP over and over again. (I will not post any more comments in this thread because I do not want to have that argument with him, or anyone, again. At least not today. lol)

@greyeyed123 thanks for the heads up...

@TheMiddleWay Merriam-Webster and Oxford beg to disagree.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, when I want to know the meaning, origin and Latin root of a word, I definitely pick up my encyclopedia set.

@ReadyforaChange Glad to see courteous interaction is still part of the eclectic landscape here.

@Geoffrey51 No courtesy for troublemakers. Go away troll.

@ReadyforaChange Why troll? Who is trouble being caused for?

@ReadyforaChange ditto!

@ReadyforaChange, @Geoffrey51 hey, you vicious sexual predator (and I have several ladies who will testify now, why are You still slinking around?!

@AnneWimsey Is he? Have we reported him?

@ReadyforaChange Please do as its incorrect.

@ReadyforaChange I I gave Admin full details about 6 months ago...nada reply or action....

@AnneWimsey Which was what Anne? No action as nothing to answer.

@Geoffrey51 "nada" Spanish for "nothing".......

@AnneWimsey What were the details if I may ask because this seems all very odd to me. Please copy and paste some remark that you have viewed in order for me to comment.

@Geoffrey51 um, remember Betsey, who was trusting enough to walk into your house, where you threw down a pillow & told her to "get on your knees"?...turns out she is a friend of mine! We compared your messages, and modus operandi, you sleaze

@AnneWimsey that’s not me Anne. I have no idea who Betsy is. No one from here has ever walked into my house. I am in Australia and have been for 12 years. Please look again and you will see that is not me.

@Geoffrey51 then you are hacked...he uses your camel pic on here & Plenty of Fish as well. Plus the name Geoffrey. He is in Avon, Ct, near Hartford. One reason I gave him my trust, and Betsey too, is because he is on both this site & POF

@AnneWimsey Thanks Anne that is a bit disturbing. I’m not even on Facebook let alone Plenty of Fish!

I’ll let admin know.

Yes it is.

I'm blocking him once I finish blocking the other stupid people here.

That's just nonsense.

Come on. That is absolute nonsense

@TheMiddleWay "To be an atheist is to believe in something for which there is no evidence for."

Words have definitions, and that ain't it, chief.

@TheMiddleWay To be an atheist is to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence for, is the correct definition.

@TheMiddleWay Bruh, as usual, your smugness belies your bias. Words have definitions, they are universally agreed upon, understood to mean a specific THING and written in books called DICTIONARIES. You should totes pick one up.