dougsmith,
Sure, I could be wrong about that. I could also be wrong that I’m sitting in front of my computer right now (something else I claim to know). I could be dreaming.
Hehe..shades of the movie Matrix…
Well, actually the Matrix is shades of Descartes’s Meditations ...
So that’s it then? You’re not going to tell me what you actually think concerning atheism or your beliefs?
Also I was hoping you could tell me why I sound confused.
Settle down. I haven’t been on the ‘net until now.
You didn’t seem to be asking me about my beliefs; you seemed to be asking about my position on the topic of this thread, which I had just stated.
None of the reasons for believing in any particular god have been compelling for me, therefore I don’t subscribe to any of them.
Which as far as I know doesn’t deserve any branding to “atheist” besides that single word.
The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist.
I don’t think these are “equal”.
I think even a “strong” atheist like Dawkins is primarily emphasizing the scientitific point that extraordinatry claims need extraordinary evidence, and lack of evidence is indeed evidence of absense of something contrary to physical laws.
We can ask the Christian how he KNOWS that God exists and get to the evidence…..
The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist.
EM, read again what I wrote. I did not say I absolutely knew, I said I saw NO PROOF. There is a BIG difference. I am not agnostic about Krishna or Brahman, or Thor, or Zeus. I simply see no evidence in their existence. Are you equally ‘agnostic’ to the existence of all of the other 10,000 or so gods AND the existence of fairies, dragons, leprechauns and Rocs? I am open to proof, but no one has offered compelling evidence of the existence of ANY of these beings.
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
I think I’m agnostic about agnosticism. How should I know whether or not God can be known? lol. Is that too “meta”?
On another note, would you, ExMachina, consider me “delusional” if I were a strong atheist in regards to the Christian God if I considered him to be logically contradicting and therefore could not possibly exist?
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
No, I am an atheist. I am NOT agnostic. I DON’T believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe a dragon lives in my basement. The same way I don’t believe JFK is alive. If you were to offer compelling proof otherwise, I could change my mind, but I don’t believe even the proof is there.
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
No, I am an atheist. I am NOT agnostic. I DON’T believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe a dragon lives in my basement. The same way I don’t believe JFK is alive. If you were to offer compelling proof otherwise, I could change my mind, but I don’t believe even the proof is there.
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
No, I am an atheist. I am NOT agnostic. I DON’T believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe a dragon lives in my basement. The same way I don’t believe JFK is alive. If you were to offer compelling proof otherwise, I could change my mind, but I don’t believe even the proof is there.
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
No, I am an atheist. I am NOT agnostic. I DON’T believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe a dragon lives in my basement. The same way I don’t believe JFK is alive. If you were to offer compelling proof otherwise, I could change my mind, but I don’t believe even the proof is there.
Elvis is still “alive”......
Oh, THAT one I BELIEVE! I have seen PROOF!
And he seems to be omnipresent. No matter where you look, there is Elvis…...... .“Thankyouverrymuch”..
The name of a Strong Atheist should be changed to the Delusional Atheist. A person who claims to have absolute knowledge that a God doesn’t exist, to me, is equally blind to the Christian who insists that he KNOWS that a God does exist. Do Delusional Atheists really think that their points on their beliefs are more valid due to the fact that they refuse to accept the remote possibility that a Deity could exist? Because regardless of what people think, it in no way changes what the truth really is.
Now on the flip side, I think that Weak Atheist should be changed to Rational Atheism. I’m not really sure who coined the terms weak Atheist. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be derogatory, but it certain reeks to make their pov sound less valid.
TBBH I think you’ve got the wrong idea on what a “Strong Atheist” is, I’m a very strong atheist but I don’t claim to know there is no god, how could I? How can I declare there is no god when the thing won’t come out and play? There might be one, there might not be (and my money is on the latter) but until such time as it reveals itself all bets are (strictly speaking) off ... but none of that means I have to be a weak atheist.
TBBH I think you’ve got the wrong idea on what a “Strong Atheist” is, I’m a very strong atheist but I don’t claim to know there is no god, how could I? How can I declare there is no god when the thing won’t come out and play? There might be one, there might not be (and my money is on the latter) but until such time as it reveals itself all bets are (strictly speaking) off ... but none of that means I have to be a weak atheist.
Keke
So how would you term an Atheist who says no God exists? How would you differentiate between this and a strong atheist?
I am positive the Christian concept of God does not exist. Does that make me a strong atheist?
All bets are off seems more an agnostic position.
It maybe political convenient to be as inclusive as possible with our self-labeling, but it doesn’t make it any less confusing.
Since you do not absolutely know, doesn’t that make you a weak atheist? You don’t have to be agnostic to be a weak atheist. You seem to be a “gnostic weak atheist”, actually. You believe God can be known, but that there isn’t enough evidence for you to believe in him right now.
No, I am an atheist. I am NOT agnostic. I DON’T believe a god exists, the same way I don’t believe a dragon lives in my basement. The same way I don’t believe JFK is alive.
Wait, isn’t that what I said? Atheism and agnosticism are on distinct spectrums. Atheism is about belief in God. Agnosticism is about the possibility of knowledge of God.
So how would you term an Atheist who says no God exists? How would you differentiate between this and a strong atheist?
I dunno ... an idiot maybe? Seems to me that whilst the likelihood of deity seems vanishingly small, there can be no certainty.
Gnostikosis - 22 December 2010 12:19 PM
I am positive the Christian concept of God does not exist. Does that make me a strong atheist?
I can’t so see above.
Gnostikosis - 22 December 2010 12:19 PM
All bets are off seems more an agnostic position. It maybe political convenient to be as inclusive as possible with our self-labeling, but it doesn’t make it any less confusing.
As implied earlier I think the two positions are more or less the same, I simply think to call oneself atheist ((which means to not be with god, not to disbelieve in gods) is more honest.
This whole Atheist argument is a strawman invented by the devil to confound the atheists. Don’t forget if there is a god, then there is a devil. And what self respecting devil would want people to ignore him as they do god?
.“Thankyouverrymuch”.. 
