If you believe no gods exist you're a strong atheist. The rest is irrelevant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
What a bizarre definition.
What happened to the weak atheist category you were using before?
What's dishonest about saying "I don't know" regarding gods (agnosticism), and that I have no reason to believe that any do (atheism)?
And why do you suggest that I can't hold both of those positions simultaneously (agnostic atheism)
How can I know? I have no test, argument, experiment, observation or algorithm that rules gods in or out. If gods are possible, then I have no way of knowing if a god that has not contacted me exists. I understand the limits of knowledge possible here, and accept my agnosticism. Why claim otherwise?
And given that and my rational skepticism, why should I believe in gods? Their possibility is all that is justified. I can live with that.
Also, why does it matter what somebody like me believes or how I describe myself? I've told you what I believe and what I call that. Why would you have any other reaction than, "I see. Now I know what you claim to believe and the how you use the words atheist and agnostic"?
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Yeah, "all gods" is way too broad. I'd narrow it down to theistic gods.
I don't know what you mean by "theistic gods." To me, the term is redundant.
Nothing...
So is Revoltingest's hybrid a strong atheist, a weak atheist, or neither?
He said and I quote:
"Can I be a hybrid?
I'm a strong atheist because I have an overwhelming sense that no gods exist.
(The whole idea of gods seems absurd.)
But I'm also a weak atheist because the above is not verifiable, ie, they could exist."
1. He says "I have an overwhelming sense that no gods exist". If that means "I believe no gods exist" he's a strong atheist.
2. He says "But I'm also a weak atheist because the above is not verifiable". That has nothing to do with weak atheism.
His whole post doesn't make much sense. I suggest a rewrite.
If you don't like his, you could answer my question about the other hypothetical atheist: someone who rejects some gods, considers some gods suspect, and has never even heard of others. Is he a strong atheist, a weak atheist, or neither?
Does your atheist believe all gods don't exist? Then he's a strong atheist. If your atheist is simply not a theist then he's a weak atheist. If he's neither please feel free to make up any label you want for him. You are the one who made him up.
Not irrelevant if I also believe they could exist.
Instead of a rewrite, I suggest a re-read.
Note that to "have a sense" of strong atheism is more of a feeling.
But logically, I know that sense is unfounded, leading to weak atheism.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Let's consider your first definition as our working definition of 'god'.
If a strong atheist is someone that believes all beings 'conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions' ( definition for god ) don't exist, then a lot of people that would generally be labeled as theists could also be strong atheists. To be clear, many christians might believe in a similar, yet different, entity than the one proposed in your definition ( remove the word 'omnipotent' from the description, and it is now a different, but similar, entity ) and that would result in them being strong atheists. That's certainly problematic.
Still makes no sense.
They are both working definitions.
"1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."
god"
A strong atheist believes that the beings covered by a. b. or 2. don't exist. I don't know what you are trying to say.
Well, look at who the poster is.
I know you are the poster but you usually make more sense.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
The definition on #2 comes with its own set of problems.
Why does a strong atheist need to believe that ghosts ( the #2 definition applies to ghosts ) don't exist ?
You try to impose your schema of nomenclature on us, but don't have much success. How can you? You have no argument and no leverage. Sorry, but we are not forced to accede to your will and don't find your formulation descriptive or useful. I will continue to call myself both an atheist and an agnostic for reasons already given. Why would you think that I or anybody else would do differently.You don't have a compelling argument, just claims about how you insist language must be used.
You also work assiduously trying to convince others that atheists are deceptive and should be embarrassed, but you misrepresent us to do it. The position is sound, honest, and internally consistent. Atheism is the only possible position for a rational skeptic that has not been convinced of the existence of gods to take.
What else could I be? I can't decide what I find believable. Being or saying anything else would be deceptive, albeit self-deceptive. This is the only honest position available to somebody with my values.
I'm proud of my atheism. It's one of my principle achievements in this life. I was once a Christian. Tunneling out was not easy. Many don't have the resources to do so. It takes reason, critical thought, the willingness to endure a lot of unpleasant cognitive dissonance, persistence, a love of truth, and a restructuring of ones social circle. For some, it means the opprobrium of friends and family.
It would have been much more comfortable to just float in that life, but comfort wasn't my highest value. Being true to myself apparently was more important.
So, you see, honesty is what it is all about. I wasn't willing to to live a lie.
I take great comfort in that criticism.