Attention Atheists: Validity Issues

[ikitikitembo]

Hey people. My name is Josh, I'm eighteen, and I'm new to religousforums. For the first couple days I decided to ghost around a little to get the feel of what kinds of things people had to say about philosophy and religion. In doing so, I came across a lot of interesting perspectives, and people who knew what they were talking about. Unfortunately, at the same time, I came to find some large misconceptions that people have about their worldviews. A lot of these were revealed through people who called themselves "Atheists". There were also a myriad of theistic misunderstandings, but I'm not going to get into that now; perhaps I'll rebut in future posts. Besides, I felt the Atheistic issue needed to be focused, and addressed as soon as possible.

Many of you are aware of the categorization of atheism. For those of you who aren't, allow me to enlighten you. The atheistic worldview is broken down into two major subdivisions: Weak Atheism & Strong Atheism. Weak atheists are those who lack faith in God. Strong atheists are those who claim there is no God. Better put, a weak atheist would respond to the question: Do you believe in the existence of God(s)? with: "I have no faith at the moment in any particular God(s)." On the other hand, a strong atheist would respond to that same question with: "No, because I know there is no God(s)." One holds less assertion in the denial of the existence of a God, and is altogether unsure about the whole thing, thus still retaining the possibility for one (hence "weak"). The other is steadfast or "strong" about their position, and claims to know for a fact that there is no God.

Now, this brings me to question, if not entirely reject, the validity of atheistic ideology (especially strong). Here are the questions/arguments I have firstly, for the Strong Atheist: How in the universe, let alone in the world, do you know there is no God? Where are you getting this information?: I would certainly like to know so I can share this discovery with the world. You do realize that you are a human right? That you are bound by the laws of nature? That it's possible you don't posess the intellectual capabilities near to the most intelligent life form (theoretical, yet possible, aliens)? That even if humans are the most intelligent forms of life, we still reside in a place that the idea of a God would look down upon, and that that God and the realm he exists in would contain knowledge that is wholly out of our reach, even if we used 100% of our brain capabilities? It's like this: Picture a cockroach. Now picture (if you can) that cockroach claiming to discover, say, the insights Albert Einstein had into the concept of a spaciotemporal, general/special relativistic universe. Or, even simpler, the properties of, say, a triangle. Or, even simpler, converting a decimal into a percent. Or, simplest of all, the fact that one plus one equals two. You see where I'm getting? A cockroach cannot possibly learn those things because they exist outside its own realm of knowledge. Now picture us, we humans, we cockroaches, gaining the insights to God. Mr., God isn't one plus one, or ten times ten. God is in a place that we cannot understand, or comprehend. A place that we cannot say "doesnt exist" (Just like that cockroach can't say dark matter doesnt exist). Heck, we barely even know about all the details and intricacies of our own universe, let alone claiming we know about God's. Who the hell are you to tell me that God doesnt exist? Oh yeah, that's right, you're just a human. You're just a tiny speck of nothing on a huge planet, which is itself a tiny speck of nothing in a huge solar system, which is itself a tiny speck of nothing in a huge galaxy, which is itself...on and on and on, until you have a very very very tiny speck in a very very very huge universe; a speck that is bound by the laws of that universe; a speck that is possible to not even be the most intelligent speck; a speck that is so distant from the supernatural, that if empowered with that sort of knowledge would most likely overload, combust, and lose the ability to tell apart his left knee cap from his right *** cheek. I mean seriously, who do you think you are...God?

Strong atheism my friends, is quite simply, nonsense. Non-sense. No...sense. It's unsensible to the possibilities of what you don't know. It's inconsiderate to lack of intellectual capabilities of the human race. It's baseless, illogical thinking. It's invalid, unfounded, and ungrounded. It's an embarrassment to those who take the time, and reason through to their lack of faith in God. It's humiliating to the progression of the human understanding of truth & science: man's number one accomplishment ("truth" and "science" practically being synonymous, as science is simply a subdivision of truth). It's degrading to the self, and the mark of an ignorant, irrational mind. Following this through, I now have only one thing to say about strong atheism: It does not, and should not, exist. (CONTINUES TO NEXT POST)

 

[ikitikitembo]

With that said, I can now presume there are going to be four types of people that react to this. The thiest, who has found the truth, the way, the light, whatever, and doesnt care, because the invalidity of strong atheism doesn't and shouldn't bother them anyway. The strong theist who disagrees entirely, demands to stay locked within their narrow view of the world, and who I'm hoping will put forth arguments against me so that I can gain a better understanding of how they think the way they think (Afterall, you're silence will prove all the more you're attatchment to falsehood). The strong theist who didn't realize this before, becomes sensible, and changes their viewpoint for the sake of truth (whom I will have gained a new respect for). And finally, the weak atheist, who most likely doesn't care, yet it's time for you to tune in because I'm going to present something that maybe/maybe not, you have not thought of before.

Once it's realized that to be a strong atheist is impossible, and it's agreed upon that the faith doesn't even exist, we can throw it out completely, and consider weak atheism alone. Once you have weak atheism alone, the prefix "weak" self-destructs, because in order to have something weak, you need its counterpart opposite: strong. Weak is a relative term. So I'm simply going to remove the weak prefix and go with the more logical phrase: Atheism. We can now define atheism as those who lack faith in God (previous weak atheism definition [now, every time I refer to an "atheist" I will be referring to this specific definition]). Wait a minute let me run that by again. Atheism = a lack of faith in God. One more time. Atheism = a lack of faith in God. This means that even if 99.9% of the person doubts the existence of a supreme being, there is still the slight possibility for one. Wait, something's not right here. If this person doubts the existence of God, but he still leaves room for the possibility, it must follow, that he is unsure. Unsure of his faith. Unsure of the answer to life. Unsure of what the truth really is. Sound familiar? Ever heard of Agnosticism? For those of you who haven't, it's not hard to explain. Agnosticism is...well...it's one who is unsure. The same exact ideology of the now obsolete weak atheist, who has been converted to the "atheist". They are both unsure. So, here we have two distinct terms, with the exact same meaning. This is what I call, the Atheist-Agnostic Dilemma.

I call it a dilemma, because two choices are involved, and each choice can be treated equally. Although it doesn't have the "unfavorable" aspect of the choices of a real dilemma (meaning, choosing between labeling yourself as an atheist or an agnostic really isn't a problem like choosing between you get shot and you're friend lives, or you're friend gets shot and you live), being either one, or being unsure about the existence of a God is unfavorable in itself. All of us agnostics and atheists know how hard it is. No sure set of principles or values to follow, no security on where we're going to end up after life, no answers to too many questions, and so forth. So we've got this Atheist-Agnostic Dilemma. The question is: Which one should we choose? Well, the truth is, it really doesn't matter. The only reason I have for calling myself an agnostic is the understanding exchange. Atheism not only has a bad rap, but it's just too misunderstood in today's society. If someone asks you: What's you're faith? and you reply, "I'm an atheist." it's very likely for them to automatically assume you believe God doesn't exist. Afterall, that's why it has a bad rap. However, if I reply with,"I'm agnostic." people either know what it means or they don't. They either know you're unsure about your faith, or they don't know what it means, so you can explain it to them. So I prefer the label "agnostic" in order to save some misunderstanding. However, this really doesn't matter too much, because in the end, whether you call yourself an atheist or agnostic, you'll still be who you are, which is what matters the most.

In conclusion:

A.) Strong atheism is invalid, because when taken up as a position, presumes that the individual knows all laws of every kind, including those which are possible to reside outside of our own natural experience. It is based on the assumption that there are absolutely no other possibilities for higher understanding, which is false. It self-destructs. It does not exist.

B.) Since strong atheism does not exist, only one subdivision is left: weak atheism. Weak atheism fails to be "weak" once strong atheism is removed, therefore becomes "atheism"

C.) Atheism and agnosticism have the same exact meaning, so it presents a semantical problem: the "Atheist-Agnostic Dilemma" It really doesn't matter which one you choose to be labeled as.

D.) If a majority vote was taken across English speaking countries on which phrase, "atheist" or "agnostic" should be used for this unsure worldview, whichever is opposite of the one that wins the vote should be removed from the English language.

Well, I hope I presented my argument in a clear and understanding way, so that people with an open mind will be able to gain a new perspective. I look forward to both countering to your rebuttal's and posting responses to other people's ideas. Thanks for you're time. Later! :run:






"You've got your phenomenon on one hand. Concrete and knowable. On the other hand you've got the incomprehensible. You call it God, but to me, God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable."
-Robin Green & Mitchell Burgess

 

[Opethian]

Strong atheism my friends, is quite simply, nonsense. Non-sense. No...sense. It's unsensible to the possibilities of what you don't know. It's inconsiderate to lack of intellectual capabilities of the human race. It's baseless, illogical thinking. It's invalid, unfounded, and ungrounded. It's an embarrassment to those who take the time, and reason through to their lack of faith in God. It's humiliating to the progression of the human understanding of truth & science: man's number one accomplishment ("truth" and "science" practically being synonymous, as science is simply a subdivision of truth). It's degrading to the self, and the mark of an ignorant, irrational mind. Following this through, I now have only one thing to say about strong atheism: It does not, and should not, exist.

No, strong atheism is not nonsense, and I'll tell you why:

1) There is no evidence anywhere in this world that points to the existence of any god, except for useless ancient literature.
2) Humans created a god for certain reasons, among which the most primal, and most important one is probably explaining things they couldn't explain. Yet as science progresses, the gaps where a god can jump in for a magical but useless explanation, are getting smaller and smaller. Logically, if science gets an infinite amount of time to progress, this would close the gap of the gods, and eliminates any possiblity of a god. All past developments of science have shown that new science replaces spiritual/godly explanations, never the other way around.
3) Most humans believe in a god because they want to believe in a god. Not because logical thinking leads to the outcome that there must be a god, but because their want and need for a god gives their thought processes such a strong bias that they simply must believe that a god exists.

Strong atheism is the only logical worldview after considering the progress of science in the past and the origin and results of religion. Debates with religious fundamentalists and zealots have only further supported my view. Every new bit of scientifical knowledge that I gain, further supports my view.

Strong atheists do not claim to be able to prove that there is no god. We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none.

A.) Strong atheism is invalid, because when taken up as a position, presumes that the individual knows all laws of every kind, including those which are possible to reside outside of our own natural experience. It is based on the assumption that there are absolutely no other possibilities for higher understanding, which is false. It self-destructs. It does not exist.[/

As I already said, we do not claim to be able to prove that there is no god. We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none.
From your logic, all the religions of the world are invalid for the same reasons that strong atheism would be invalid, since almost all religions consider one if not all of the other religions faulty, and thus its followers presume the other gods don't exist, and would make the same mistake you would accuse strong atheists of. You simply have no point at all, even though you obviously took your time to write this thread.

 

[Tiberius]

I agree with Opethian.

Your argument seems to consist of, "Atheists don't know everything about the universe, and maybe in a part of the universe we don't know about there will be proof of God."

Strong Atheism isn't nonsense for several reasons.

As Opy said, there is very little evidence for God apart from ancient religious texts. if there was evidence for the existence of Faeries that only existed in ancient texts, would you actually consider the possibility? Do you consider the possibility that hercules was real? jason and the argonauts?

Also, we can deduce that something does not exist even if we don't know everything about the entire universe.

if the existence of something would contradict laws of nature, then we know that it won't exist.

For example, there is no water ice inside a G-type star. To do so would require the ice to be below 0 degrees celcius in an environment that is at several million degrees. The only way for this to happen would be a violation of the laws of nature.

Also, there are no even prime numbers greater than two. To do so would mean that the number isn't divisible by two, and yet the definition of a prime number states that it CAN'T be divisible by two.

in short, your argument says that strong atheism is a universal negative, which is said to be impossible without infinite knowledge. However, I have given at least one example of an easily provable universal negative, so it would seem that the crux of your argument is flawed.

 

[ikitikitembo]

In reading your rebuttal I realized that the basis for our disagreement is our differing definitions of "Strong Atheism" In this counter, I will try to show you that strong atheism is the assertion/claim that there is NO God. It's not simply having overwhelming evidence and "leaning towards" disbelief.

No, strong atheism is not nonsense, and I'll tell you why:

1) There is no evidence anywhere in this world that points to the existence of any god, except for useless ancient literature.

Argument: You're most certainly right that there is no evidence, but that doesn't mean you can rule the possibility out. What does that have to do with the strong atheist claim that they KNOW there is no God. What you're saying is simply evidence against a god. Not proof.

2) Humans created a god for certain reasons, among which the most primal, and most important one is probably explaining things they couldn't explain. Yet as science progresses, the gaps where a god can jump in for a magical but useless explanation, are getting smaller and smaller. Logically, if science gets an infinite amount of time to progress, this would close the gap of the gods, and eliminates any possiblity of a god. All past developments of science have shown that new science replaces spiritual/godly explanations, never the other way around.

Argument: Yes, I do think it's a possibility that religion is something that manifested itself within humans to appeal to our survival intincts, and to explain things that they couldn't, that's fine. But sir, you cannot assume that this gap you're talking about (which I agree with you has done some closing in) is going to completely close over an infinite period of time. That is illogical. Science can only go as far as what this universe has to offer. Science in essence, is the law of the universe. Over an infinite period of time there would be a point where we would figure out everything there is to know about the universe, and that would be it. There would be a stopping point in science. Even if we were to get to that point, there still lies the possibility of the realm of the unknowable. That we are still not significant enough to be able to understand what could lie outside of the universal realm. Sure, we could get surer and surer that God doesn't exist, but no matter how sure we got, we would never KNOW. So the gap would never close.

3) Most humans believe in a god because they want to believe in a god. Not because logical thinking leads to the outcome that there must be a god, but because their want and need for a god gives their thought processes such a strong bias that they simply must believe that a god exists.

Argument: Okay, fine. Like in your number one point you put up a good point but you're not addressing the question correctly. Once again, just because humans want/need to believe in a god and that that drive gives them a bias, still doesn't rule out the possibility of a God.

Strong atheists do not claim to be able to prove that there is no god. We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none.

Argument: Think about what you're saying. Of course strong atheists claim they KNOW there is a God, and I think when asked to prove themeselves, they either realize their belief is false, or they keep believing it because even though they can't prove it, they still "feel that way in their heart" or whatever, and they dont want to let go of it. But look at the next sentence in what you said. If you're saying that all strong atheists do is "simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one", and believe in "a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none," what you're describing in that sentence is a weak atheist. A weak atheist is able to do the same exact thing: see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one. But he doesn't rule out the possibility. Sir, I'm not saying that they claim to prove themselves, I'm saying they dont even consider proving themselves. They just irrationally claim they know there is no God. Think about it. If what you just described is truly a strong atheist point of view, it would be the same as the weak theist. The two would be the same, and there would be no point in subdivisions. It seems to me like you're not a strong atheist at all, you're a weak one. And this whole argument is based on our perception of the definitioin "strong atheist".

As I already said, we do not claim to be able to prove that there is no god. We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none.

Argument: Once again, our definition of strong atheist is different, and I have a feeling yours is false, because your definition: "we simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none", fits in what a weak atheist is, not a strong atheist. Your describing weak atheist ideology: that they lack faith in god.

From your logic, all the religions of the world are invalid for the same reasons that strong atheism would be invalid, since almost all religions consider one if not all of the other religions faulty, and thus its followers presume the other gods don't exist, and would make the same mistake you would accuse strong atheists of. You simply have no point at all, even though you obviously took your time to write this thread.

Argument: You've misunderstood some of my presuppositions. Let me explain. The question that I raise in response to your first sentence is this: Why do religions rule out all other religons? (ex:christianity): because they've come to discover the truth: how?...one of two ways: a.)they've experienced divine intervention and have communicated with God himself, or b.) They really havent come to discover the truth, they're just going along with it for various reasons (some of which you mentioned earlier). Sir, im agnostic, i think i am true to myself for the most part, I am never going to be influenced by other things to go along with any religion unless I've experience divine intervention. That is the only way to discover god. There is no other way. So all those christians who are "going along" with it (whether its because they want/need that feeling, or believe in fairy tales and ancient literature") are not really christians, they're agnostics that are lying to themselves. Now, from my perspective its possible that all christians are lying to themselves, because i believe its possible that god doesnt exist. I also believe its possible for some of the "true" christians to be right because I also belive its possible that god does exist. What im saying is simple: You can't prove naturalism (nature is absolute:there is no god), You can't disprove theism (which is the same as proving naturalism), yet you can disprove naturalism by proving theism. How do you prove theism? Divine intervention. Communication with god. It's the only way. And if you say it's "not possible" for divine intervention to occur, you really don't know that. Just like you don't KNOW a God doesn't exist.


Conclusion: The first part of your rebuttal is based on your definition of strong atheist. Once again, you say its: "We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none." This is how a weak atheist thinks. If this is your ideology, you are a weak atheist. Period. If you still disagree with my definition, and you think yours is correct, I ask one question: Distinguish between a weak atheist and a strong atheist.


The last part of your argument is an attempt to have my argument self-destruct. It is obvious when you read my thread, that you assumed I was saying not only can you not prove there is no god, but you also can't prove there is a god. This is wrong. You can prove a God. Not to the masses (unless God touched everyone at once), but individually, by divine intervention. The only possible argument i can think of that you would have against my belief in the possibility of divine intervention is that it can't happen. Well my answer to that is you don't know that.


Please reply back by either a counter or an agreement. If I still disagree, try to reach me on AIM if you have it my screen name is: ikitikitembo. I think it would be much easier on there to debate.

 

[ikitikitembo]

Your argument seems to consist of, "Atheists don't know everything about the universe, and maybe in a part of the universe we don't know about there will be proof of God."

No. No. No. You've misunderstood. You're thinking to linear. I do not think that proof of God would reside within the universe. When you think "God" you have to think OUTSIDE of the universe. Outside of nature. Outside of the cosmos. Picture the universe as a box expanding constantly. We are within that box, and that's all we've known or can know in all of our life-time, finite or infinite. How could we possibly understand what's outside that box with just knowledge on how the box works. There could be a completely different realm, a completely different world beyond the box, with different laws, perhaps no laws, perhaps an infinite set of laws i don't know because im not able to comprehend them (if it were to exist) You have to consider the possibility, which, sure, you can argue all you want that the "outside the box concept" is improbable. But you will never be able to prove that. You will never know 100% like the strong atheist claims to know.

Also, we can deduce that something does not exist even if we don't know everything about the entire universe.

if the existence of something would contradict laws of nature, then we know that it won't exist.

Of course you can deduce that fact, but only if you assumed a God within the universe. Once again, I'm thinking outside of the universe. You can't look at our universe as an absolute. I mean, you can think that however much you want, but you'll never be able to prove that.

I'm sorry I did not make that clear in my thread that I was talking about a God outside the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., allow me to enlighten you. The atheistic worldview is broken down into two major subdivisions: Weak Atheism & Strong Atheism. Weak atheists are those who lack faith in God. Strong atheists are those who claim there is no God.

What pompous and puerile nonsense! Note the counterposition of the terms 'faith' and 'claim'.

Strong atheism my friends, is ... invalid, unfounded, and ungrounded. It's an embarrassment to those who take the time, and reason through to their lack of faith in God.

You set up a silly strawman and then pummel it with the ostentatious pretense and certainty reminiscent of a Jr. High School debating class.

Learn the difference between ontology and epistemology.

 

[Opethian]

Argument: You're most certainly right that there is no evidence, but that doesn't mean you can rule the possibility out. What does that have to do with the strong atheist claim that they KNOW there is no God. What you're saying is simply evidence against a god. Not proof.

The fact that there is no evidence for a god, along with the fact that god originated as an imagination of the human mind (since it was used to explain things like fire and thunder, phenomena that are now perfectly explainable by science with no need for divine intervention ), along with the progress of science and the decline of things that cannot be explained by science, along with numerous other reasons (concerning things like "free will", "good" and "evil" etc...), leads me to be sure that there is no god. How sure am I? 99,999...%. Not 100%, because only irrefutable proof can cause me to be 100% sure, but on my life the 99,999...% has the exact same effect as 100%. I simply see no need at all to count the possibility of the 0,000...1% being true. Because in that case I might as well start revering the pink unicorn or imaginary dwarves around me. That's why I can say that I am a strong atheist, and am completely sure that there is no god, because the uncompleteness of my sureness is simply to small to be taken into account. You don't need irrefutable proof to know something for sure.

Argument: Yes, I do think it's a possibility that religion is something that manifested itself within humans to appeal to our survival intincts, and to explain things that they couldn't, that's fine. But sir, you cannot assume that this gap you're talking about (which I agree with you has done some closing in) is going to completely close over an infinite period of time.

From what we've seen in the past, I think that is a pretty logical assumption to make.

That is illogical. Science can only go as far as what this universe has to offer. Science in essence, is the law of the universe. Over an infinite period of time there would be a point where we would figure out everything there is to know about the universe, and that would be it. There would be a stopping point in science. Even if we were to get to that point, there still lies the possibility of the realm of the unknowable.

Why would we need knowledge of things outside of our own universe, if this universe is all that affects us? It is the only thing that defines our reality, and thus only it is part of our reality. If after discovering all the knowledge of our own universe, it would not be sufficient to explain its existence, then it would be another matter. But from what I've learned so far, the chances of this occuring would be rather small.

That we are still not significant enough to be able to understand what could lie outside of the universal realm. Sure, we could get surer and surer that God doesn't exist, but no matter how sure we got, we would never KNOW. So the gap would never close.

That remains to be seen.

Argument: Okay, fine. Like in your number one point you put up a good point but you're not addressing the question correctly. Once again, just because humans want/need to believe in a god and that that drive gives them a bias, still doesn't rule out the possibility of a God.

Same reply as I gave earlier in this post, it is unnecessary and impossible to take into account all tiny possibilities as a human.

Argument: Think about what you're saying. Of course strong atheists claim they KNOW there is no God, and I think when asked to prove themeselves, they either realize their belief is false, or they keep believing it because even though they can't prove it, they still "feel that way in their heart" or whatever, and they dont want to let go of it. But look at the next sentence in what you said. If you're saying that all strong atheists do is "simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one", and believe in "a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none," what you're describing in that sentence is a weak atheist.

So someone who is 99,999...% sure there is no god, and chooses to dismiss the 0,000...1% in his view of the world, is a weak atheist?

A weak atheist is able to do the same exact thing: see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one. But he doesn't rule out the possibility.

Ah, well I have ruled out the possibility, because it is too small to take it into account.

Sir, I'm not saying that they claim to prove themselves, I'm saying they dont even consider proving themselves. They just irrationally claim they know there is no God. Think about it. If what you just described is truly a strong atheist point of view, it would be the same as the weak atheist. The two would be the same, and there would be no point in subdivisions. It seems to me like you're not a strong atheist at all, you're a weak one. And this whole argument is based on our perception of the definitioin "strong atheist".

Well, I still see myself as a strong atheist, although I don't like to say that I am 100% sure that there is no god, because such a thing is impossible. I'd rather say that I am 99,999...% sure and that I round it off to 100% .

Argument: Once again, our definition of strong atheist is different, and I have a feeling yours is false, because your definition: "we simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none", fits in what a weak atheist is, not a strong atheist. Your describing weak atheist ideology: that they lack faith in god.

Well, please let me know if you still feel the same after the new comments I've added. I'm kind of curious to what kind of atheist I am. Maybe I am just an instable atheist ?

 

[Opethian]

Argument: You've misunderstood some of my presuppositions. Let me explain. The question that I raise in response to your first sentence is this: Why do religions rule out all other religons? (ex:christianity): because they've come to discover the truth: how?...one of two ways: a.)they've experienced divine intervention and have communicated with God himself, or b.) They really havent come to discover the truth, they're just going along with it for various reasons (some of which you mentioned earlier). Sir, im agnostic, i think i am true to myself for the most part, I am never going to be influenced by other things to go along with any religion unless I've experience divine intervention.

Well the problem is, all human experiences are interpreted by the humans that experience them, so I have very little doubt that all "divine interventions" are misinterpretations by humans of unusual processes going on in their body, possibly intensified or even started by religious thinking in their (sub)consciousness.

That is the only way to discover god. There is no other way. So all those christians who are "going along" with it (whether its because they want/need that feeling, or believe in fairy tales and ancient literature") are not really christians, they're agnostics that are lying to themselves. Now, from my perspective its possible that all christians are lying to themselves, because i believe its possible that god doesnt exist. I also believe its possible for some of the "true" christians to be right because I also belive its possible that god does exist. What im saying is simple: You can't prove naturalism (nature is absolute:there is no god), You can't disprove theism (which is the same as proving naturalism), yet you can disprove naturalism by proving theism. How do you prove theism? Divine intervention. Communication with god. It's the only way

You can't prove it this way either, because what some believers describe as communication with god is very likely to have a normal non-supernatural psychological and biochemical explanation. It's always been like this: people claim to witness supernatural events, until the point where a serious scientific experiment is held and provides a natural explanation. The opposite doesn't happen, so what can that make us conclude?

And if you say it's "not possible" for divine intervention to occur, you really don't know that. Just like you don't KNOW a God doesn't exist.

That's true, but again, I dismiss that tiny possibility.

Conclusion: The first part of your rebuttal is based on your definition of strong atheist. Once again, you say its: "We simply see absolutely no reason at all to believe that there is one, and a massive amount of evidence indicating that there is none." This is how a weak atheist thinks. If this is your ideology, you are a weak atheist. Period. If you still disagree with my definition, and you think yours is correct, I ask one question: Distinguish between a weak atheist and a strong atheist.

I'd say a weak atheist is exactly like me, only she/he doesn't dismiss the 0,000...1%, probably because this percentage is higher in her/his mind.

The last part of your argument is an attempt to have my argument self-destruct. It is obvious when you read my thread, that you assumed I was saying not only can you not prove there is no god, but you also can't prove there is a god. This is wrong. You can prove a God. Not to the masses (unless God touched everyone at once), but individually, by divine intervention. The only possible argument i can think of that you would have against my belief in the possibility of divine intervention is that it can't happen. Well my answer to that is you don't know that.

You can't prove god individually either, because personal bias in the subconscious can make you believe things that are not true, and interpret certain things as something entirely different as what they actually are. And no again, I don't know that it can't happen, but I just dismiss that tiny possibility from my mind because it serves me no use at all in experiencing reality.

Please reply back by either a counter or an agreement. If I still disagree, try to reach me on AIM if you have it my screen name is: ikitikitembo. I think it would be much easier on there to debate.

I'm sorry, but I don't have AIM, I do have MSN however but I fear I won't have much time for debates the coming month and a half because my exams are coming up.
And dude, make your posts shorter, this is the first time I've ever had to divide a post of mine up in two parts .

 

[Opethian]

What pompous and puerile nonsense! Note the counterposition of the terms 'faith' and 'claim'.

You set up a silly strawman and then pummel it with the ostentatious pretense and certainty reminiscent of a Jr. High School debating class.

Learn the difference between ontology and epistemology.

Ah come on Jayhawker you could be a little kinder . We're all just trying to learn from each other and we can at least try and do it in a friendly way, even if we see mistakes in others reasoning and don't agree with that person. I didn't see anything truly arrogant or pompous in his post, so I don't see any reason to reply with arrogance, like you did. People make mistakes, but that doesn't mean that you need to grind them into the ground if they make them.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

now this is funny. you never get to see nontheists after each other. its usually them after the theists. anyway. i concider your post to be mostly true and very enlightening. but i wouldn't say that agnosticism is the same as atheism. even though there is no verifiable evidence against the existence of god, there isnt alot of evidence for him, either. an atheist just picks a side instead of remaining unsure. just like i picked the side of theist. you yourself seem to be in the middle.

 

[Opethian]

now this is funny. you never get to see nontheists after each other. its usually them after the theists.

Now this is funny, I never go after anybody at all. I just try to share info and views with others and learn from them, and debate with people I don't agree with. I don't "go after" people.

anyway. i concider your post to be mostly true and very enlightening. but i wouldn't say that agnosticism is the same as atheism.

Did he ever say that?

even though there is no verifiable evidence against the existence of god, there isnt alot of evidence for him, either.

There is plenty of evidence against the existence of god, but no irrefutable proof. Don't mistake evidence with proof. As for evidence for the existence of god, I have yet to see any of that, unless you mean some ancient texts.

an atheist just picks a side instead of remaining unsure. just like i picked the side of theist.

I wouldn't say strong atheists "just pick a side", we pick a side based on our observations in this world and scientifical understanding, that leads us to be nearly completely sure that there are no gods. Whereas most strong atheists have solid and graspable arguments for choosing atheism, most theists (from my experiences, I could be wrong) do not. (divine communication and holy books are feelings and old unverifiable writings respectively that can be interpreted in many different ways etc... and thus aren't exactly solid arguments).

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

There is plenty of evidence against the existence of god, but no irrefutable proof. Don't mistake evidence with proof. As for evidence for the existence of god, I have yet to see any of that, unless you mean some ancient texts.

i think that would be based on your perspective

 

[michel]

now this is funny. you never get to see nontheists after each other. its usually them after the theists. anyway. i concider your post to be mostly true and very enlightening. but i wouldn't say that agnosticism is the same as atheism. even though there is no verifiable evidence against the existence of god, there isnt alot of evidence for him, either. an atheist just picks a side instead of remaining unsure. just like i picked the side of theist. you yourself seem to be in the middle.

Go to Jail, do not pass "Go" do not collect $200...................

If I were you, I would stay well clear of things you seem not to understand.

 

[Opethian]

i think that would be based on your perspective

Perspectives aside, evidence is evidence. All phenomena that scientists now can explain that used to be explained by gods is evidence against the existance of god. It's not proof, but it is definitely evidence, no matter what perspective you choose to take.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

Go to Jail, do not pass "Go" do not collect $200...................

If I were you, I would stay well clear of things you seem not to understand.

jail? what?

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with the OP to some extent. That being, it is a leap of faith from naturalistic materialism to metaphysical materialism. The former allows the possibility of deity, while the latter usually denies that possibility. So, I would agree that a strong atheist, if he or she makes that leap, is making a leap of faith.

However, an atheist might arrive at his or her position without making a leap of faith to metaphysical materialism. That is, s/he might ignore the metaphysical question altogether, and instead arrive at his or her position along lines something like these: "There is as much evidence for deity as there is for pixie dust. i.e. there is no evidence for deity. Since there is no evidence for pixie dust, I do not believe in pixie dust. Therefore why should I believe in deity, which also has no evidence for it?" In other words, someone can completely deny the existence of deity on the grounds there is no evidence for deity, even without positing a metaphysical alternative to deity.

Whether such a person is a strong or weak atheist is a fine point, but such a person is not quite agnostic, for an agnosistic would simply assert that s/he doesn't know, rather than the inability to know is conclusive in and of itself.

At least that's how I see it before having sufficient coffee this morning to be perky.

 

[michel]

I agree with the OP to some extent. That being, it is a leap of faith from naturalistic materialism to metaphysical materialism. The former allows the possibility of deity, while the latter usually denies that possibility. So, I would agree that a strong atheist, if he or she makes that leap, is making a leap of faith.

However, an atheist might arrive at his or her position without making a leap of faith to metaphysical materialism. That is, s/he might ignore the metaphysical question altogether, and instead arrive at his or her position along lines something like these: "There is as much evidence for deity as there is for pixie dust. i.e. there is no evidence for deity. Since there is no evidence for pixie dust, I do not believe in pixie dust. Therefore why should I believe in deity, which also has no evidence for it?" In other words, someone can completely deny the existence of deity on the grounds there is no evidence for deity, even without positing a metaphysical alternative to deity.

Whether such a person is a strong or weak atheist is a fine point, but such a person is not quite agnostic, for an agnosistic would simply assert that s/he doesn't know, rather than the inability to know is conclusive in and of itself.

At least that's how I see it before having sufficient coffee this morning to be perky.

Get some coffee down your throat quick! You sound like you might be in danger of going "To the other side"

(I thought this smiley might soothe you, in your hour of need)

jail? what?

Surely you have played the game "Monopoly" ?

 

[Halcyon]

:fsm:

I agree with some of your points, but disagree with others.

I think stong atheism is an illogical belief as it is a faith based belief system not too dissimilar to theism. To say that you are 100% sure that God does not exist, without any evidence backing up that statement (lack of evidence is not evidence) is faith, They have faith that no form of God exists.
But i wouldn't say that it is invalid. Its more valid than most religions, you can't disprove a strong atheists assertion that there is no God, but you can disprove many claims made by theists.

Neither do i believe that weak atheism and agnosticism are the same thing. Agnostics say they don't know whether God exists or not, they will not give an opinion on the matter because there is no evidence favouring either possibility.
An atheist, even a weak one will give an opinion, they'd say that they don't believe that God exists. They're not ruling out the possibility that a God exists like a strong atheist, but they personally don't think that one does.

Stong atheism is irrational, but is still as valid a belief system as any theistic religion.

Weak atheism is still a belief, but it is not faith based, it is more opinion. Its the non-theist equivalent of Deism.

Agnosticism is the only logical stance. But most humans are not logical creatures.

 

[sparc872]

I disagree with your belief that a weak atheist should be considered agnostic and we should just get rid of atheism in general. I consider myself a weak atheist because I believe there is no God, but I cannot disprove God entirely unless I die and am still alive. This doesn't mean that I am in the middle and just unsure of the issue of God or don't care whether or not he exists however. I am, like some of the others who have responded to you close to 100% sure there is no God, but I am not 100% And like Opethian said, my percentage of certainty is probably a little lower than his, hence the reason I am a weak atheist.