Question about Strong/Weak Atheism

[ArtieE]

So you can say there's a certainty that no god exists based on the available evidence (for which there is none). But if demonstrable evidence ever presented itself, you are able to use that evidence and change your opinion.

Strong atheism.

I think that would be weak atheism, because it suggests that there is still the potential for evidence to be found.

It's strong atheism.

If you're strong, then you'd be saying that no evidence will ever present itself to contradict your view.

That is gnostic atheism.

 

[ArtieE]

That's like saying, can we say there is a possibility that I have sixteen eyes even though I know there for believe there are only two (some have three or four given two headed birth)?

This is strong atheism. I know; therefore, I don't believe there are gods.

Strong atheists believe there are no gods. Gnostic atheists know there are no gods.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Strong atheists believe there are no gods. Gnostic atheists know there are no gods.

Semantics. I know there are no gods therefore and as a result, I believe there are no gods.

I believen there are no gods, because I know there are no gods.

You at least understand my point?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

BUT... we can look at your head and see that you only have 2 eyes. That is evidence from which we can come to a conclusion.
Whereas there is no evidence for the existence of a god

Here is a good example.

Nature of god
#6

You can pull the triangles a part and proove there is no actual Tangible triangle. To prove god exists, you have to see it in a different perspective. Yes, there is a triangles there And it does not exist. Its your perspective. Its a belief

Same with god-religions. Find the triangles and pull them a part. Some people fuss about "no evidence ofba triangle" of course not! How can you provide evidence for a non existant thing?

 

[ArtieE]

Semantics. I know there are no gods therefore and as a result, I believe there are no gods.

I believen there are no gods, because I know there are no gods.

You at least understand my point?

The point is that a person who says he's a strong atheist believes there are no gods but may be wrong. A person who says he's a gnostic atheist says he's 100% sure there are no gods. No room for being wrong.

 

[Altfish]

There is evidence of no existence of god. You have to process and elimente, understand psychology, and be open that "god" is not defined as something tangible; so, unlike actually looking at my eyes and finding proof, you have to find other methods appropriate to what youare trying to proove exist.

The more I hear countless people talk about god, the more I realize he is Not an entity. He is not something you can find evidence by probing through a microsope. Hes the experience, passion, love, mystery, wonder, etc within people ans however they discribe it always correlates to how they Feel and what they Believe not what they know.

I think you guys are using wrong methods to find evidence for god. I dont know. Be more open to other methods and perspectives and you can find proof the definition you may have of god (entity etc) may not exist.

Well I am happy that you can find god.

But that statement just confirms my assertion, "There is no evidence for god"

 

[Altfish]

Here is a good example.

Nature of god
#6

You can pull the triangles a part and proove there is no actual Tangible triangle. To prove god exists, you have to see it in a different perspective. Yes, there is a triangles there And it does not exist. Its your perspective. Its a belief

Same with god-religions. Find the triangles and pull them a part. Some people fuss about "no evidence ofba triangle" of course not! How can you provide evidence for a non existant thing?

Change the word god to "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Unicorn" and it makes as much sense, which isn't much.
The triangle puzzle is a good example of how the human mind through evolution can see/imagine things that are not actually there. There are hundreds of optical illusions that are equally baffling and amusing.
If you are saying god is an optical illusion then we may have a consensus.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The point is that a person who says he's a strong atheist believes there are no gods but may be wrong. A person who says he's a gnostic atheist says he's 100% sure there are no gods. No room for being wrong.

Im taking out strong/weak. Either gods exist or they dont. An atbeist doesnt believe god exists.

As for Know and Believe, my point is for example "I Know therefore I believe; I believe because I know"

There is no room for interpretation. I'm saying its a fact.

Whether one wants to slide their belief vs fact on a sliding scale, that is their view. However, if we know something else is a fact, we dont question it and say "we have weak belief or strong belief" or "weak knowledge or strong knowledge."

Its true. Its fact. Unless one wants to analyize it, why make it complicated?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well I am happy that you can find god.

But that statement just confirms my assertion, "There is no evidence for god"

God does not exist. How would we assume evidence for a non existant thing?

"What" is it that has no evidence?

There is evidence we have experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc. That is what peoplensee as god regardless of how they amphomize or personify it. These are evidence for god.

What type of god exists that has no evidence of its existence? (No evidence doesnt mean it doesnt exist)

 

[ArtieE]

Im taking out strong/weak. Either gods exist or they dont. An atbeist doesnt believe god exists.

True.

As for Know and Believe, my point is for example "I Know therefore I believe; I believe because I know"

Makes no sense to me. You either believe or you know gods don't exist.

Unless one wants to analyize it, why make it complicated?

It's not complicated it's very simple. A strong atheist believes gods don't exist, a gnostic atheist knows gods don't exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Change the word god to "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Invisible Unicorn" and it makes as much sense, which isn't much.
The triangle puzzle is a good example of how the human mind through evolution can see/imagine things that are not actually there. There are hundreds of optical illusions that are equally baffling and amusing.
If you are saying god is an optical illusion then we may have a consensus.

I wouldnt tell someone that point blank. Everything we experience and intepret is from our minds. I dont understand how a spegetti monster can exist outside ourselves. This monster has fifty eyes, three arms, a tail, and a beautiful smile.

All in my head but doesnt mean its invalid or not useful. But, like my friend tells me, she rather not thinl this way. Makes her doubt her faith, she says.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

True.Makes no sense to me. You either believe or you know gods don't exist.It's not complicated it's very simple. A strong atheist believes gods don't exist, a gnostic atheist knows gods don't exist.

I dont get into the gnostics etc.

If you know something doesnt exist, why would you not say you dont believe it does?

If you know something exists, why would you say you believe it doesnt.

They go together.

 

[Altfish]

God does not exist. How would we assume evidence for a non existant thing?

"What" is it that has no evidence?

There is evidence we have experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc. That is what peoplensee as god regardless of how they amphomize or personify it. These are evidence for god.

What type of god exists that has no evidence of its existence? (No evidence doesnt mean it doesnt exist)

You are grasping at straws.

 

[ArtieE]

I dont get into the gnostics etc.

If you know something doesnt exist, why would you not say you dont believe it does?

If I know something doesn't exist I would say "I know something doesn't exist" if I believe something doesn't exist I would say "I believe something doesn't exist."

If you know something exists, why would you say you believe it doesnt.

You wouldn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It all depends. There are formulations of gods out there that are logically impossible, that hold contradictory characteristics and cannot possibly exist. I see nothing wrong with believing those gods do not exist. But I believe that square circles don't exist too.

It's also perfectly fine to believe something doesn't exist when the preponderance of the evidence points more to it not existing than to it existing, even if the evidence isn't conclusive.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are grasping at straws.

Hey.

I'm the odd one out that has never been raised to believe in entities, never experienced an entity even as a Catholic, and never pondered the meaning of life and anything like that. Had more important matters on my mind.

God is a collective term for people's experiences (mysterical, literal, or not), feelings, thoughts, and wholeness in being (the "awakeness" feeling) they get. It's the blessings (or events that happen towards their favor) they attribute to an outside source. Everything that is about god whether written or testimony is from someone's or a community's experience.

These experiences, testimonies, and so forth can be proven (aka: god can be proven).

As an entity, as many non-christians (and many atheists on RF portray him) he does not exist. If he does or you have an idea that he does, I'll ask the same question of atheists as I ask of theists (specifically christians since other believers "get it"). What is a god to where you can quote there is no evidence for? What are the characteristics of this god so I can determine, test, and make a conclusion on whether or not evidence has any meaning in relation to this god?

Can you define god? (Not what people say he is, but god himself. What you experience).

Another bonus question. Why the abrahamic god? Why not debate the Hindu god, the Shinto deities, the Buddhist devas?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If I know something doesn't exist I would say "I know something doesn't exist" if I believe something doesn't exist I would say "I believe something doesn't exist."You wouldn't.

My point is, can you see the relationship between the two statements?

 

[Altfish]

Hey.

I'm the odd one out that has never been raised to believe in entities, never experienced an entity even as a Catholic, and never pondered the meaning of life and anything like that. Had more important matters on my mind.

God is a collective term for people's experiences (mysterical, literal, or not), feelings, thoughts, and wholeness in being (the "awakeness" feeling) they get. It's the blessings (or events that happen towards their favor) they attribute to an outside source. Everything that is about god whether written or testimony is from someone's or a community's experience.

These experiences, testimonies, and so forth can be proven (aka: god can be proven).

As an entity, as many non-christians (and many atheists on RF portray him) he does not exist. If he does or you have an idea that he does, I'll ask the same question of atheists as I ask of theists (specifically christians since other believers "get it"). What is a god to where you can quote there is no evidence for? What are the characteristics of this god so I can determine, test, and make a conclusion on whether or not evidence has any meaning in relation to this god?

Can you define god? (Not what people say he is, but god himself. What you experience).
Another bonus question. Why the abrahamic god? Why not debate the Hindu god, the Shinto deities, the Buddhist devas?

Definition of god, easy!

A man made scam for controlling the population and making a lot of money

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Definition of god, easy!

A man made scam for controlling the population and making a lot of money

There's no evidence of this scam?

 

[IndigoStorm]

“All thinking men are atheists.”
― Ernest Hemingway, A Farewell to Arms.

IOW ... it is not possible for an intelligent person to believe in the Biblical God.