All atheist means is that the person doesn't believe in a god or gods. It's as simple as that.
Lack of belief is not quite the same as belief of lack. So no, it's not as simple as that.
About the Earth being flat idea: Some scientists say that what we see as objects being round is just an illusion caused by the space/time distortions from gravity. You know the term "flat universe"? I think flat universe is what is meant by them saying planets being round is an illusion. So I guess some people could still believe it is flat.
Aaaargh.
No.
...just, no.
Universe being "flat" is a sentence that manages to marvellously confuse everyone who doesn't know what it means.
Flat space is simply another term for euclidian space. That is because euclidian space is in the famous "rubber sheet analogy" represented by flat sheet. Euclidian space means simply that its geometry is euclidian - for example, straight lines that are tangential at some point of space will never cross each other at any point of euclidian space. The dimensions of euclidian or "flat" space are completely perpendicular and regular, without any anomalies.
To say that "universe is flat" means that
within observation threshold the overall, average geometry of the universe appears to be euclidian.
Now, what objects with gravitational mass do to space is that they locally non-euclidize it. They curve space-time slightly, resulting in a situation that we do not in fact live in completely euclidian space - but close enough that it doesn't matter. Good example of stuff that happens in non-euclidian curved space is that the sum of the angles of a triangle might be something else than 180 degrees, and you might be able to put a bit more than one litre of liquid in a 10x10x10 cm cube than you could in euclidian space. Practically though you would need a black hole or at least a neutron star for this kind of effects, but that's what curvature of space-time does (in a nutshell, it's a bit more complex issue).
Also, the sky is blue because of the way the gases interact with the light from the sun and therefore, the atmosphere reflects more blue and ultra-violent light and absorbs more of the red light and probably infrared too. So if it reflected more red and infrared light and absorbed more blue and ultra-violet light, the sky would appear a beautiful red.
Yes.
That is a better explanation than "Wizard Did It", because it actually offers an explanation, not an assertion (and it is experimentally verifiable hypothesis). Which is why religious scientists don't mix their faith with their job. I don't personally give a damn what anyone believes to be behind the world that we can observe. Scientists with some degree of faith in any religion generally don't either. It's when arguments based on dogmas and religious authorities start to affect how
other people should live their lives that starts to annoy me. Just like any other enforcing of random opinions would annoy me.
"A lot of criminals are children of unmarried mothers; therefore getting married should be required for having children at all."
"This and that is wrong because it harms our children, if you disagree you want harm done to the children."
"This economy model is correct because it benefits all people except those it screws over and kills. If you want to help those who can't help themselves you are doing harm to the society as a whole."
"There's no need for economy; we provide you with all we think you need. When everyone does their part, everyone prospers."
An observant reader might notice which economical ideologies are caricatured there. You might also notice that I do not approve with either extremities.
And when this kind of opinions are stuffed in my face, when the logical errors of argumentation are so glaringly obvious that it would take a blind, deaf and mute man to agree with them*, it becomes very annoying, especially when counter-arguments are usually fruitless because they are against the opinions of the other side, so they are obviously wrong, and obviously the logic leading to them is flawed as well - and when that is determined, no analysis of the actual logic used in the counter-argumentation is necessary. Simple denial is enough for true faith.
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gate unbarred and unguarded."
Also, literate interpretation of the translation of a book several millennia in the making is hardly the most fruitful method of analysis ever.
If I would have to pick an opinion about what "in God's image" means, I would say that God made human beings similar to himself in the way we think, how we exist and perceive ourselves as sentient beings, not how we look like. Luminous beings we are, not this crude matter, as the little guy said.
Or like someone (I think it was C.S.Lewis) said with a fairly good point; "we do not have souls, we have a body." (or something like that).
Assuming that against all probability and scientific evidence, God really decided to create us as we are. Which do you think he would have paid more attention to, body or mind (or soul if you want to call it that)? He had just spent a whole lot of days making all sorts of critters, you would imagine that designing the bodywork would be fairly routinized by this point. Fixating on what kind of body the God made for this purpose doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of the story.
...of course, as the story goes, God chose to exclude the ability to perceive right and wrong (or good and evil).
Why God would want to create an equal in cognitive abilities with no concept of right and wrong (essentially a species of sociopaths) eludes me. I can't think of any good reason why anyone would do that.
Of course all this is purely academical, but worth a thought nevertheless. Dogmatic thinking of people who call themselves Christians is actually much more annoying than Christianity itself, and even though I don't have any faith in religions or supernatural or divine myself, it's worth doing some thinking on these matters and not just follow whichever opinion you first happen to be exposed to.
*blind and deaf because that way he can't read or hear the argument. And if he learns to read braille, he needs to be mute to not be able to disagree...
