"Atheists lack a belief in God, they do not claim that a god does not exist.

Atheists are refuting beliefs or positions, not "refuting something that doesn't exist"

I quote this because I am not entirely shure if everyone would agree. So if atheists lack a belief in God, but do not claim a God doesn't exists then there is a possibility that a God may exist. Now sometimes some people go out of their way to argue that there is no God, or it may be the opposite and they're just responding. Now if atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God then what would be a proper name to label these individuals who argue that there is no God ?

[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 02-21-2006).]

Strong Atheists

Here's another quote of mine:

" A"weak"-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, yes. A strong atheist simply denies that one or more gods exist exist; though that is a less common position among atheists I would say.

Now, the reasons for why they lack a belief (or deny the possibility of a god existing) may vary. Many atheists take the agnostic approach, and lack a belief because they do not know; yet they could lack a belief for other reasons."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004998-2.html

Those who argue that there is no god would be "strong atheists".

In the statement you quote, I'm stating the position of the weak-atheist because that was the position being dealt with in that post.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

^rust basically ended the thread

"Strong Atheist" is the name for people who dont believe a god exists.

Athiests had to invent the terms, "Strong athiest" and "weak atheist" because they realized the implications for making such a claim. They should just be agnostics and be done with it.

As I already showed you, and you willfully refuse to accept, that's completely false and a very ignorant understanding of what "atheism" is/was.

The very etymology of "atheism" (i.e. From the Greek 'atheos' which means 'godless') suggests two possible results: Either the individual is godless because he lacks a belief in god (for whatever reason), or because he actively denies the possibility of gods existing; thus the two positions are completely inherent in the initial term.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's another quote of mine:

"A "weak"-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, yes.

Otherwise known as AGNOSTIC.

Small children. Labotomy patients. People with down syndrome.

quote:A strong atheist simply denies that one or more gods exist...

Otherwise known as ATHEIST.

Everyone else.

quote:Now, the reasons for why they lack a belief (or deny the possibility of a god existing) may vary. Many atheists take the agnostic approach, and lack a belief because they do not know; yet they could lack a belief for other reasons."



An agnostic claims he doesn't know, and therefore cannot assert whether there is or isn't a god(s). This is lack of belief out of ignorance. Truly, "weak" atheists are agnostic.

A "strong" atheist claims there is no proof of existence, and therefore he can assert that there IS NO DEITY. This is denial of existance out of ignorance.

Agnostics and atheist's are completely separate groups. Stop trying to soften the image of the traditional atheist.

quote:Those who argue that there is no god would be "strong atheists".

No, they are simply an "atheist".

Whether they argue or not, a person who says, "There is no god, God, deity, etc." is an atheist.

A person who says, "I do not know, therefore I believe nothing." is an agnostic.

As soon as a person hears about gods, God, deities, etc. (therefore gaining knowledge about the possibility of their existence), they begin the process of choosing to believe, or not believe.

If they choose not to believe, they are atheist.

If they choose to believe, they are [insert religion here].

This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad.

Admitting that you deny the existence of god(s), God, or deities based on nothing other than personal opinion makes your position weak, at best. You can never abide such a perception. Science does not validate your position, because it cannot prove that atheists are 100% correct. Atheists must rely on faith, just like everyone else does.

Also, you know damn well which kind of "atheist" Christians argue about. Why would we bother to argue about small children and people with down syndrome, who cannot believe in anything since they are incapable of making such decisions or processing that kind of information ?

Any time the designator "atheist" comes up, it is known (at least here on totse) that the sort of person being referred to is a "strong" atheist (I will use your over-complication here, just to make sure you follow).

Muddling it up with semantics ("Well, that's not REALLY an atheist because blah blah blah") only serves to detract from the original intent, which is to say that ATHEIST'S CHOOSE TO DISBELIEVE, though they have no concrete proof of non-existence !

Obviously, this doesn't apply to "weak" atheists.

You know this, every time this topic comes up.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Otherwise known as AGNOSTIC.

Small children. Labotomy patients. People with down syndrome.

...

An agnostic claims he doesn't know, and therefore cannot assert whether there is or isn't a god(s). This is lack of belief out of ignorance. Truly, "weak" atheists are agnostic.

A "strong" atheist claims there is no proof of existence, and therefore he can assert that there IS NO DEITY. This is denial of existance out of ignorance.

Agnostics and atheist's are completely separate groups. Stop trying to soften the image of the traditional atheist.

Incorrect.

An agnostic states that he does not know whether a god exists or not. A weak-atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. The two are not the same. One can lack a belief in a god for agnostic reasons, as well as other reasons. Thus the two are not synonymous at all; to say that they are is to say that one can only lack a belief in a god because of lack of knowledge in their existence/non-existence, which is false.



quote:No, they are simply an "atheist".

Whether they argue or not, a person who says, "There is no god, God, deity, etc." is an atheist.

A strong atheist.



quote:

A person who says, "I do not know, therefore I believe nothing." is an agnostic.

Wrong. He would be a weak-atheist who lacks a belief for agnostic reasons.

quote:

As soon as a person hears about gods, God, deities, etc. (therefore gaining knowledge about the possibility of their existence), they begin the process of choosing to believe, or not believe.

If they choose not to believe, they are atheist.

If they choose to believe, they are [insert religion here].

This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad.

Ridiculous. I'm not doing anything of the sort. Both definition of atheism, as well as it's etymology, are clear. You are the one who purposely ignore both of these in order to fulfill your ridiculous desires.

I stand behind my definition of atheism because that's exactly what the etymology suggests, and exactly what has been used in numerous philosophical discussions and texts for decades.

quote:

Admitting that you deny the existence of god(s), God, or deities based on nothing other than personal opinion makes your position weak, at best. You can never abide such a perception. Science does not validate your position, because it cannot prove that atheists are 100% correct. Atheists must rely on faith, just like everyone else does.



What an idiotic claim.

1. If atheism were what you claim it is, which it clearly is not, then I would then consider myself an agnostic, and thus absolutely nothing has changed save for fulfilling your childish penchant!

It is completely ludicrous to think that atheists don't want atheism associated with "faith" simply because they really really like the word "atheism" which is what you're suggesting.

2. Lacking a belief in a god does not require faith.

quote:

Also, you know damn well which kind of "atheist" Christians argue about. Why would we bother to argue about small children and people with down syndrome, who cannot believe in anything since they are incapable of making such decisions or processing that kind of information ?

Any time the designator "atheist" comes up, it is known (at least here on totse) that the sort of person being referred to is a "strong" atheist (I will use your over-complication here, just to make sure you follow).



Muddling it up with semantics ("Well, that's not REALLY an atheist because blah blah blah") only serves to detract from the original intent, which is to say that ATHEIST'S CHOOSE TO DISBELIEVE, though they have no concrete proof of non-existence !

Obviously, this doesn't apply to "weak" atheists.

You know this, every time this topic comes up.

Why?

1. I do not feel compelled to use your ignorant notation, a notation which does away with the very etymology, meaning and usage of the word "atheism"; especially not when it is the product of such a disgusting form of intellectual stupidty and apathy which apparently finds it too dificult to add the words "strong" or "weak" when using to a term.

2. Strong atheists are a minority among atheists, and thus the distinction serves to show how trivial and meaningless your objections truly are, when they are aimed at only a small percentage of atheists.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

So let me get this straight by sifting through the detritus of your verbal rantings:

You think that weak atheism, which was invented to stave off stupidity, is different from agnosticism?

Differentiate between the two for us...

a·the·ism:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Godlessness; immorality.

ag·nos·tic:

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

The dictionary has no terminology for your invented theory of 'weak atheim' to support your assertion of etymology. So if the dictionary dosen't recognize weak atheism, why should we give any credence to you, speaking from an etymological view?

Just concede, you lost a long time ago....

*applauds*

Ah, moral relativism knows no bounds.

"WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP TO AVOID GUILT !" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Differentiate between the two for us...

a·the·ism:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Godlessness; immorality.

ag·nos·tic:

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.



I have already differentiated the two, in this very thread in fact. I suggest you actually ready what I have said instead of ignorantly labeling my points as a "verbal ranting" and ignoring them completely, only to come and make a fool out of yourself by asking something which was already dealt with.

That being said, I'll differentiate the two, again.

A weak-atheist lacks a belief in a god. Why he lacks that belief could be the result of many reasons. Among them, he could lack the belief for agnostic reasons; that is, he lacks a belief in god because he does not posses knowledge of his existence/non-existence. Yet he could very well lack a belief for other reasons. Thus, agnosticism is not the equivalent of weak-atheism. Though we can say that all agnostics are we weak-atheists, since they lack theism, not all weak-atheists are agnostic, and thus, the need for differentiation.

quote:

The dictionary has no terminology for your invented theory of 'weak atheim' to support your assertion of etymology. So if the dictionary dosen't recognize weak atheism, why should we give any credence to you, speaking from an etymological view?

1. The dictionary does give credence to "weak-atheism", that it doesn't contain that particular term ammounts to nothing; there are numerous terms in common usage that the dictionary does not include.

2. Let's inspect your own definition:

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

This is completely within the definition of weak-atheism. A Weak-atheist does not make a positive claim on the existence or non-existence of a god, but lacks a belief in his existence or non-existence; that the lack of a belief comes from a refusal to believe is irrelevant, the fact remains that he lacks a belief. The "refusal" would be related to the "Why". Why he refuses to believe, be it because he lacks knowledge of his existence/non-existence would point to just that: why he is a weak-atheist.

Disbelief in the existence of a god, by your own definition, is weak-atheism. Your own dictionary definition makes two very distinct possibilites of what "atheism" entails: either disbelief in a diety, or the possitive assertion that a deity does not exist.

3. All of this if I even being to give credence to your own definition, which you hand-picked in order to promote your own ridiculous beliefs.

quote:

Just concede, you lost a long time ago....



How idiotic. The fact that the dictionary agrees with me, the etymology agrees with me, and the usage that has been common for decades agrees with me, means, to you, that I have "lost". http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

quote:Incorrect.

An agnostic states that he does not know whether a god exists or not. A weak-atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. The two are not the same. One can lack a belief in a god for agnostic reasons, as well as other reasons. Thus the two are not synonymous at all; to say that they are is to say that one can only lack a belief in a god because of lack of knowledge in their existence/non-existence, which is false.

What is the difference between not knowing, and saying you don't know ? THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

Just because someone STATES that they don't know, all of the sudden they fall into a different category ? That's retarded, and a completely weak argument (as opposed to a "strong" argument http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) ).

You're absolutely right: one can only lack belief in God if they lack knowledge of Him. Once that knowledge is obtained, it is a CHOICE to accept or reject Him.

You have yet to prove how this is false.

"Nuh uh !!!" is not a sufficient argument.

quote:A strong atheist.

Round and round we go !!

From Dictionary.com:

ATHEIST (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist) - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ATHEISM (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism) - 1A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1B.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

From Meriam-Webster.com:

ATHEIST (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheist) - One who believes that there is no deity.

ATHEISM (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism) - 1. archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS. (emphasis is not mine) 2A. A disbelief in the existence of deity. 2B. The doctrine that there is no deity.

Whether you like it or not, the definition of "atheist" remains the same. Not according to YOU, but according to the author's of the dictionary's referenced above.

If you don't feel that this applies to you, or any of the atheists YOU know, then you should be calling yourselves agnostics.

Otherwise, you are simply wrong.

quote:Wrong. He would be a weak-atheist who lacks a belief for agnostic reasons.

Show me where the internationally accepted definition of "weak" atheist can be found. Not according to you. Not according to Talk Origins. A reputable source, please.

There is no differentiation between the different levels of atheism you claim exist, based on the definitions we (the world) have. An atheist is an atheist. If a person DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DISBELIEVE, AND ARE THEREFORE AN ATHEIST.

You "saying so" is, again, not a valid argument.

quote:Ridiculous. I'm not doing anything of the sort. Both definition of atheism, as well as it's etymology, are clear. You are the one who purposely ignore both of these in order to fulfill your ridiculous desires.

I have no desire, other than to set a definition in stone.

You're the only one (well, aside from Fundo) who seems to think that making up definitions is a logical way to prove a point.

While we're discussing etymology: "1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

quote:I stand behind my definition of atheism because that's exactly what the etymology suggests, and exactly what has been used in numerous philosophical discussions and texts for decades.

Maybe you should stick to the etymology that is internationally accepted, which is consequently NOT found in the Atheist's Handbook (How to Seem Like A Fair and Balanced Person in Less Than 30 Days).

See above.

You have given NO SUPPORT for your assertions. You think we're just going to believe you ?

quote:What an idiotic claim.

1. If atheism were what you claim it is, which it clearly is not, then I would then consider myself an agnostic, and thus absolutely nothing has changed save for fulfilling your childish penchant!

If you would like to be considered logical, I would strongly suggest that you claim agnosticism.

What is accomplished by you admitting to this is that the statements Christians have made regarding atheism and it's tenets are correct.

They will remain correct, whether you concede, or not.

quote:It is completely ludicrous to think that atheists don't want atheism associated with "faith" simply because they really really like the word "atheism" which is what you're suggesting.

It is NOT ludicrous to expect people to want a firm foundation for their beliefs.

Without objective scientific logic behind them, atheists haven't got a foot to stand on, when they attack people of faith, because they THEMSELVES rely on faith !!

quote:2. Lacking a belief in a god does not require faith.

No ?

Prove 100% that a god, God, deities, etc. do not exist.

Oh, wait...you can't. Which means you have to have faith that they don't, based on the science and knowledge we currently have, WHICH IS CHANGING EVERYDAY.

Humanity cannot even agree on what gravity actually is. We know what it does, but we cannot study it, other than to test the effects of it.

To prove that there is no God is no more achievable than proving that there IS a God.

Just gotta have faith !

quote:Why?

Why, what ?

quote:1. I do not feel compelled to use your ignorant notation, a notation which does away with the very etymology, meaning and usage of the word "atheism"; especially not when it is the product of such a disgusting form of intellectual stupidty and apathy which apparently finds it too dificult to add the words "strong" or "weak" when using to a term.

Ah, yes.

When an atheist's argument is in trouble, he resorts to ad hom !

Hehehe....nice. *thumbs up*

quote:2. Strong atheists are a minority among atheists, and thus the distinction serves to show how trivial and meaningless your objections truly are, when they are aimed at only a small percentage of atheists.

Oh, now you're a minority ? How convenient !

How do you know ? Based on YOUR definition, to which the majority of the world does not accept ? PROVE IT.

My objections are aimed at ALL people who reject God, because they haven't got a good reason to reject Him, other than personal opinion.

No matter what you call these people, they reject God. Based on the definition accepted internationally, these people are called atheists.

It doesn't get simpler than this, Rust.

quote:Originally posted by :

What is the difference between not knowing, and saying you don't know ? THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME.

Just because someone STATES that they don't know, all of the sudden they fall into a different category ? That's retarded, and a completely weak argument (as opposed to a "strong" argument ).

You're absolutely right: one can only lack belief in God if they lack knowledge of Him. Once that knowledge is obtained, it is a CHOICE to accept or reject Him.

You have yet to prove how this is false.

"Nuh uh !!!" is not a sufficient argument.



You didn't read what I said, at all. I never said that they fell in different categories because one is "not knowing" and the other is "saying you don't know."

I said they are different because weak-atheism is lacking a belief in a god (i.e. not believing in a god) while agnosticism is a reason why they do not believe in a god. A weak-atheism could lack a belief in a god for agnostic reasons, or he could lack a belief for completely different reasons. Thus, we cannot say that they are the same. They are very different.

quote:Round and round we go !!

From Dictionary.com:

ATHEIST - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

ATHEISM - 1A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1B.

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

From Meriam-Webster.com:

ATHEIST - One who believes that there is no deity.

ATHEISM - 1. archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS. (emphasis is not mine) 2A. A disbelief in the existence of deity. 2B. The doctrine that there is no deity.

Whether you like it or not, the definition of an atheist remains the same. Not according to YOU, but according to the author's of the dictionary's reference above.

If you don't feel that this applies to you, or any of the atheists YOU know, then you should be calling yourselves agnostics.

Otherwise, you are simply wrong.

1. The dictionary is a poor reference for the definition of a philosophical term.

2. I never once said that the definition would include "weak-atheism".

3. I said that atheism is sub-divided into two categories, the weak-atheist, and the strong-atheist. The dictionary definitions you give already support that. One is a positive assertion that there is no deity, and one is a disbelief in a deity. They are different, and the difference nets us the categorization of "strong-atheism" and "weak-atheism" respectively.

quote:Show me where the internationally accepted definition of "weak" atheist can be found. Not according to you. Not according to Talk Origins. A reputable source, please.

There is no differentiation between the different levels of atheism you claim exist, based on the definitions we (the world) have. An atheist is an atheist.





You have already done that for me. Your own dictionary source already gives two different definitions of atheism, and thus it acknowledges two different forms of atheism. The outright denial that a deity exist, and simply the disbelief in a deity. Two different definitions, corresponding to two different categories of atheism.

quote:I have no desire, other than to set a definition in stone.

You're the only one (well, aside from Fundo) who seems to think that making up definitions is a logical way to prove a point.

While we're discussing etymology: "1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

Thank you for posting the etymology which completely agrees with me. a- "without" + theos - "a god". Being without a god leaves two possibilities: one simply lacks a belief in a god, or one denies the possibility of their existence.

quote:Maybe you should stick to the etymology that is internationally accepted, which is consequently NOT found in the Atheist's Handbook (How to Seem Like A Fair and Balanced Person in Less Than 30 Days).

See above.

You have given NO SUPPORT for your assertions. You think we're just going to believe you ?





Wrong. I'll quote specifically where it supports my position in the hopes that you actually read your own contribution:

from a- "without" + theos "a god"



quote:If you would like to be considered logical, I would strongly suggest that you claim agnosticism.

What is accomplished by you admitting to this is that the statements Christians have made regarding atheism and it's tenets are correct.

They will remain correct, whether you concede, or not.

Your self-righteous statements are not going to change the fact that:

1. The dictionary supports two different definitions off atheism, which correspond to different categories of atheism.

2. The etymology of atheism also supports these two distinctions.

3. Considering agnosticism to be equal to atheism is completely idiotic. One can lack a belief in god for other reasons besides lack of knowledge, and therefore, the two, out of strict logical necessity, are not one and the same. To claim otherwise would be illogical, which is why your statement is hilarious.

quote:It is NOT ludicrous to expect people to want a firm foundation for their beliefs.

Without objective scientific logic behind them, atheists haven't got a foot to stand on, when they attack people of faith, because they THEMSELVES rely on faith !!

There is a firm foundation for my usage, which is exactly what I have proven, and exactly what you have wilfully ignored.

quote: No ?

Prove 100% that God does not exist.

Oh, wait...you can't. Which means you have to have faith that He doesn't, based on the science and knowledge we currently have, WHICH IS CHANGING EVERYDAY.

Humanity cannot even agree on what gravity actually is. We know what it does, but we cannot study it, other than to test the effects of it.

To prove that there is no God is no more achievable than proving that there IS a God.

Just gotta have faith !

1. You made the claim first, thus it would be up to you to prove it. Go ahead.

2. A lack of belief is not a position in favor or against the existence or non-existence of a god, thus it would require absolutely no faith in order to lack a belief.

quote:Ah, yes.

When an atheist's argument is in trouble, he resorts to ad hom !

Hehehe....nice. *thumbs up*



Says the person who used it one the first place, and in that very reply of yours no-less? Good one.

quote:Oh, now you're a minority ? How convenient !

How do you know ? Based on YOUR definition, to which the majority of the world does not accept ? PROVE IT.

My objections are aimed at ALL people who reject God, because they haven't got a good reason to reject Him, other than personal opinion.

No matter what you call these people, they reject God. Based on the definition accepted internationally, these people are called atheists.

It doesn't get simpler than this, Rust.

Proof possitive you're not reading. I didn't say that I was a minority, I said strong atheists are the minority among atheists. Seeing as I am not a strong atehist, guess what that makes me...

Please read what I have said, since it is obvious you have failed to do so, or at least failed to do so in any fruitful manner.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*applauds*

Ah, moral relativism knows no bounds.

"WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP TO AVOID GUILT !" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Who here said he/she was a moral relativist? Nobody. Try again.

rust is correct. you fucks need to take a philosophy class.

quote:athe·ism:

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.



right there are weak atheism (disbelief) and strong athiesm(denial)

agnostic means that they are not committed either way. perhaps a visual aid?

2________1_____0_____-1_____-2

religion spirtual gnostic weaka stronga

i know that big words are hard to read but try to comprehend what he rust is saying instead of just looking for holes and ways to 'refute' it. (it being accepted terms across the fucking world)



[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 02-21-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Who here said he/she was a moral relativist? Nobody. Try again.

I am saying YOU are a moral relativist.

Ken, source ?

Rust can't provide one, so it would be kinda cool to see you pull one out.

care to support your claim?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Rust can't provide one, so it would be kinda cool to see you pull one out.

Can't provide a source for what? The claim that there are two distinct definitions of atheism? You already provided one. Your own dictionary source shows the two distinct definitions of atheism; that is enough to justify what I've said.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

well, here are some links, but it is probably useless since you apparently can't read or use google.

Strong Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism) Weak Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism)

quote:Says the person who used it one the first place, and in that very reply of yours no-less? Good one.

Where did I use an ad hom attack ?

I'll get to the rest of your post later. *catching a train*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am saying YOU are a moral relativist.

And I am saying who here (... this includes me if you didn't notice) said he/she was a moral relativist? Nobody.

We can therefore safely abandon your statement as baseless and irrelevant.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Where did I use an ad hom attack ?

I'll get to the rest of your post later. *catching a train*

"This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad."

That is a statement, aimed at me, which is both irrelevant, and insulting - an ad-hominem.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

well, here are some links, but it is probably useless since you apparently can't read or use google.

Strong Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism) Weak Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism)



I asked for a legitmate, unbiased source.

Wikipedia is user defined, and I bet you all the money in the world that the author(s) of these pages are people just like Rust, who have a vested interest in proving the validity of these ridiculous titles.

Also, it is evident I can read just fine, and no I don't use Google, since they support censorship in China.

What's the mattah ? Can't have a debate without spitting insults at your opponent ? Why is it too much to ask people to SUPPORT their assertions ?

I do all of my own homework. You do yours.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

"This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad."

That is a statement, aimed at me, which is both irrelevant, and insulting - an ad-hominem.

Uhhh, no. I am pointing out that it is so simple that it is impossible for you to NOT understand it, thus proving that you are purposely ignoring the point. I wasn't saying you are stupid. Read it again.

You took it as insulting, which I cannot control. However, you directly attacked me by saying that I suffer from a "disgusting form of intellectual stupidty" (spelling errors left intact).

What YOU said is ad hominem. What I said is not.

What is insulting to me is completely up to me to determine not you.

You implying that I must be either stupid, or dishonest enough to purposely ignore something is insulting.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I asked for a legitmate, unbiased source.



"Atheism, the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. The term atheism comes from the Greek prefix a-, meaning "without," and the Greek word theos, meaning "deity." The denial of god's existence is also known as strong, or positive, atheism, whereas the lack of belief in god is known as negative, or weak, atheism. Although atheism is often contrasted with agnosticism -- the view that we cannot know whether a deity exists or not and should therefore suspend belief -- negative atheism is in fact compatible with agnosticism."

-- Encarta

your's is an argument of ignorance:

linky1 (http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html)

linky2 (http://www.amadan.org/atheism/terms.html)

linky3 (http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/sects1.htm)

there is nothing wrong with wikipedia. if there is a dispute they will tell you and freeze the entry until it is resolved.

edit: now why don't you provide some sources?

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 02-22-2006).]

Here's a new term: cognitive relativist--one who believes that all cognitive content (belief) is equal, regardless of evidentiary support.

Don't see how that position supports religion, but it does level the playing field for those without evidence. Afterall, belief in gravity requires just as much faith as belief in the FSM. Evidence shmevidence.

do you honestly believe that no opinion is better or worse than any other? that's rather lazy, don't you think?

we need no more evidence for the existence of gravity than what we can observe a posteriori. we stick to the ground.

the mechanism for gravity is a different story all together, but gravity quite clearly exists; or would you also call such standards as light and trees into question?

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 02-22-2006).]

Atheist infact means you lack the belief in any form of surpreme being at all, and thus you do not believe in any God or religion, nor any form of afterlife or anything associated thereof. Anyone who claims "I don't know" or says "There maybe" is NOT an Atheist, but rather is an Agnostic.



Agnosticism is the belief that there maybe a God/Gods/Godesses/Godess, but they don't have enough proof to decide and thus are unwilling to say if there is or not.



Quote from Dictionary.com:

Agnostic:

quote:

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)

n.

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.



Athiest:

quote:

a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)

n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.



Anyone who claims they are Atheist and says they are not sure about God, or are even willing to conceed to any form of belief of a God or supernatural diety in any form is in fact Agnostic or belonging to a certain faith. Atheism, by definition means you are certain that there is no God or any diety as taught by any religion past or present.

Strong Atheism, Weak Atheism, in the end you're either, Atheist or you're Agnostic, or you belong to a religious faith.

[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 02-22-2006).]

you conveniently forgot about the next entry:

quote:atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God (strong atheism) quote:2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods(weak atheism)

can you not see the difference?

quote:...who have a vested interest in proving the validity of these ridiculous titles...

your use of 'validity' here only illustrates your ignorace of philosophy and logic.

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:



Strong Atheism, Weak Atheism, in the end you're either, Atheist or you're Agnostic, or you belong to a religious faith.



Agnosticism is a form of atheism, and someone can still be religious and atheist. All it means is they don't believe in god. Buddhism, for example, is atheistic. You all need to get your terminilogy straight.

Let me put this VERY simply. If something is NOT theistic then is MUST BE atheistic. If someone is NOT A THEIST then they are by definition an ATHEIST. THAT IS ALL!!! The world can be divided into two groups: THEISTS and ATHEISTS. Agnostic is not theist so it is atheist.

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 02-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

can you not see the difference?

Actually, I can't. They both mean, in the end, you don't believe in a God. "Belief that there is no" is the exact same as "lack of the belief in the existance of". The former means there is no and lack of existance means there is no. I mean, I can say "I lack belief in the pink unicorn", or I can say "I don't believe in the pink unicorn." In the end, they both mean the same thing. Call it strong, call it weak, in the end, it's all Atheism.

quote:

Agnosticism is a form of atheism, and someone can still be religious and atheist. All it means is they don't believe in god. Buddhism, for example, is atheistic. You all need to get your terminilogy straight.



Athiesm is a religion/belief of it's self, as is Agnostic. That's like saying Islam and Judaism are the same because they both have the same God and are born from the same story. They are very different faiths.

Buddhism, yes, there is no God - in the original. There are forms now who do have the Buddha as a God. Also, Athiesm gives the idea that there is no afterlife, where as Buddhism beliefs that there is an afterlife - Nirvana - and then the Dharma wheel, etc. It does have a Theology behind it, where as Atheism does not.





[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 02-22-2006).]

Let me put this VERY simply. If something is NOT theistic then is MUST BE atheistic. If someone is NOT A THEIST then they are by definition an ATHEIST. THAT IS ALL!!! The world can be divided into two groups: THEISTS and ATHEISTS. Agnostic is not theist so it is atheist.

quote:Originally posted by Some Old Drunk Guy:

^rust basically ended the thread

"Strong Atheist" is the name for people who dont believe a god exists.



Wrong "Strong Atheist" is the name for people who believe and make the claim that god doesn't exist

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ah, moral relativism knows no bounds.

"WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP TO AVOID GUILT !" http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Stupid bitch.

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:

Actually, I can't. They both mean, in the end, you don't believe in a God. "Belief that there is no" is the exact same as "lack of the belief in the existance of". The former means there is no and lack of existance means there is no. I mean, I can say "I lack belief in the pink unicorn", or I can say "I don't believe in the pink unicorn." In the end, they both mean the same thing. Call it strong, call it weak, in the end, it's all Atheism.



Err, no. The two are very different.

One position is actually a claim, 'No gods exist. The other position is simply not believing in gods, whether they actually exist or not (thus not making a claim of whether they exist or not). Hence the two are not the same things; you have quite simply wrongly interpreted what they mean.

As Real.PUA said, agnostics are athests, weak-atheists to be exact. Only those who make the possitive claim that gods do not exist are strong atheists.

i disagree with you there rust. agnosticism can hold that the existence or non-existence of god is unknowable, but still retain the belief in god.

even barring that line of reason, all agnostics may be weak athiests, but not all weak athiests are agnostic.

Well, technically you're right. If they simply say that it is impossible to know whether a god exists or not, they could be either theists or atheists.

DOUBT:

Subject to or causing doubt: a doubtful claim; doubtful prospects.

Experiencing or showing doubt: Doubtful that the cord would hold, we strengthened it.

Of uncertain outcome; undecided.

Raising doubts as to legitimacy, honesty, or respectability; suspicious: the candidate's doubtful past. See Usage Note at doubt

DENIAL:

A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.

A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.

Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.

A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.

Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.

The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.

Abstinence; self-denial.

Here's where your idealogy doesn't fit the criteria you've portrayed for us. You say that you are not disavowing the possibility of the existence of God, but rather, you're raising serious doubts. Where Atheism stands, it is a DENIAL of the existance of God/god/goddeses/purple-flying elephants/flying spaghetti monsters, etc...

Believe me, I know exactly what you are saying. You're saying that you use atheism in a positive connotation, rather than a negative one. What you're not understanding is that weak or strong atheism is essentially a made up terminology so as to allow an atheist the ability maintain his or her title as an atheist as opposed to agnostic. But the way you describe yourself, is as an agnostic. I'm sorry if you disagree, but the definition you gave me would prove otherwise.

What's your aversion to being an agnostic anyway? Its definately the smarter option. With all your self-congratulatory hubris, I figured agnosticsim would appeal to your pragmatism.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Here's where your idealogy doesn't fit the criteria you've portrayed for us. You say that you are not disavowing the possibility of the existence of God, but rather, you're raising serious doubts. Where Atheism stands, it is a DENIAL of the existance of God/god/goddeses/purple-flying elephants/flying spaghetti monsters, etc...

This is just another attempt on your part to dance around the dictionary in hopes of finding a definition which supports your ridiculous position. Yet again, you failed.

You completely ignored the definition of disbelief which your very own dictionary sources gives which clearly states: "Refusal or reluctance to believe". Refusing to believe in a god, or being reluctant to believe in a god is in no way, shape or form equal to claiming that there are no gods. The two are so different in fact, that your very own dictionary sources makes it a point in distinguishing the two definitions! If they meant the same, there would be absolutely no point in providing both redundant definitions.

The point still stands. Your very dictionary source distinguishes between two forms of atheism. One being the stance that no god(s) exist(s), the other being simply the disbelief in gods.

quote:What you're not understanding is that weak or strong atheism is essentially a made up terminology so as to allow an atheist the ability maintain his or her title as an atheist as opposed to agnostic. But the way you describe yourself, is as an agnostic.

Ridiculous. Like I've showed, the two distinct definitions of atheism have been used for decades, and are used in your very own dictionary definition as the word "atheism".

Furthermore, it is obvious you did not read what I said at all (yet again) because I stated that a weak-atheist can lack his belief for agnostic reasons, and therefore be an agnostic as well. As such your claim that this is somehow a ploy to not be labeled agnostic is blatantly without any sort of merit.

quote:

I'm sorry if you disagree, but the definition you gave me would prove otherwise.

Obviously not.

The definition I gave you completely vindicates my usage of the term. In fact, the definition you gave does that as well; which is exactly why you have ignored what I said completely and decided instead to search for other definitions which leads to a long-winded, irrelevant sequence of definitions.

quote:

What's your aversion to being an agnostic anyway? Its definately the smarter option. With all your self-congratulatory hubris, I figured agnosticsim would appeal to your pragmatism.

There is none. A weak-atheist can lack a belief in gods because of agnostic reasons, By definition he would be an agnostic. It is your erroneous understanding of what I have said that somehow fabricates this idea that I have some adverse feelings to the term "agnostic". My only opposition is that of ignorantly using the terms atheist and agnostic in such erroneous ways as yours.

P.S. Talking about hubris when you were the one who so arrogantly claimed that I had "lost" is both ironic and amusing.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-22-2006).]

A weak-atheist can lack a belief in gods because of agnostic reasons, By definition he would be an agnostic.

Thank you for proving my only point. You like the title of Atheism... It suits you, and so, you aren't willing to call yourself an agnostic because it would mean that you have to abandon the title, 'Atheist.' As a matter of fact, most atheists really, really like the title of Atheism and as I said, they went to great lengths to invent different forms of atheism that would allow them to retain that title.

We already know. And just know that we know. Maybe some of the teeny-boppers in here are falling for this ruse and enjoy watching you go around in circles, trying hard to refute it, but some of us see right through your transparency.

So let me ask you one final question, because I'm tired of beating a dead horse...

Is 'strong atheism' something you don't recommend to fledgling atheists, for obvious reasons?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Thank you for proving my only point. You like the title of Atheism... It suits you, and so, you aren't willing to call yourself an agnostic because it would mean that you have to abandon the title, 'Atheist.' As a matter of fact, most atheists really, really like the title of Atheism and as I said, they went to great lengths to invent different forms of atheism that would allow them to retain that title.

We already know. And just know that we know. Maybe some of the teeny-boppers in here are falling for this ruse and enjoy watching you go around in circles, trying hard to refute it, but some of us see right through your transparency.

I haven't proven anything of the sort, and that you say that shows, without a shadow of a doubt, how you have either failed to read what I have said, or how the act of reading simply eludes you.

He would be agnostic, yet "agnostic" only serves to describes the reason why he lacks a belief. His position is that of a lack of belief in gods, for the reason that he does not know whether he exists or doesn't exist; yet he could hold that position (the lack of belief in gods), but for other reasons. Moreover, one can say that we cannot know whether a god exists or not (thus be agnostic), yet believe in a god (be a theist). Thus, "agnostic" does not serve at all to describe the weak-atheist; not only because they are two different things (one is a reason while the other is the actual position of either the lack of belief in a god and/or the claim that no god exists), but because the weak-atheist can lack his belief for completely different reasons that are not agnostic ones! Hence, it is clear that this in no way proves what you're saying, since it in no way proves that agnosticism is the same as atheism. It actually serves to show the opposite; it shows how one can be a weak-atheist without being agnostic or agnostic without being a weak-atheist.

Now either provide a meaningful reply or kindly do yourself a favor and stop replying all together. Your arguments are getting more pathetic with each consequent reply.

quote:

So let me ask you one final question, because I'm tired of beating a dead horse...

Is 'strong atheism' something you don't recommend to fledgling atheists, for obvious reasons?

I recommend it. I do not recommend it for all possible gods, but there are gods we can safely say cannot exist.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-22-2006).]

there are so many straw men in this thread i'm afraid to light a cigarette.

How about "Realistic"?

i don't think any god exists.

i don't believe in the supernatural, the very idea of the supernatural existing is a contradiction, "super" means "outside of" and nature means (in this context) "everything we can detect" once you start to detect something, it becomes part of "nature" so it is no longer supernatural.

also, i will believe there is a god when i see some kind of real evidence, if for instance god made the cup i have here lift off the table.

i do appreciate that some people need their "faith" or whatever delusion they have to keep them company, they would probably go mad without it. but please! leave the rest of us to get on.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

there is nothing wrong with wikipedia. if there is a dispute they will tell you and freeze the entry until it is resolved.

Wikipedia sucks. It's accurate in a lot of things, but I've also found things that are just wrong. What if something is wrong and no one brings up a dispute? Then it stays wrong. There's no way to make sure that everything is 100% accurate.

Also, this entire thread has absolutely no point. People believe what they believe, it doesn't matter what you label them. Stop arguing over stupid insigificant words.

quote:Originally posted by chubbyman25:

[QUOTE]

Wikipedia sucks. It's accurate in a lot of things, but I've also found things that are just wrong. What if something is wrong and no one brings up a dispute? Then it stays wrong. There's no way to make sure that everything is 100% accurate.



there is nothing on the internet, in print or on t.v. that you can know is 100% acccurate. In fact, the one thing you can be sure of is that it is not 100% accurate!

In my eyes there is no god, there was no god and there never will be a god. What am I?

quote:Originally posted by Bisdale:

In my eyes there is no god, there was no god and there never will be a god. What am I?

Ignorant.

an atheist

quote:Originally posted by Deoz:

Ignorant.

yes, because the mass of evidence that there is a god is soooo overwhelming http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I dont believe in any god, i believe (which is more likely than not) that humans are just organisms, made of cells, and are just like every other animal that there has been, because we have such a strong belief that we are somehow special we think that we must have been created by some mystical being and we are his chosen ones.

We are just animals, we are born, we are made to carry on the race, we die....its simple as.