Bumble Bee Tuna

Well in the post that you just replied to, he says:

And I do remember him doing exactly what he said here. He acknowledged typing something he did not mean and retracted the statement.

As for atheism vs. antitheism as a term, antitheism would imply to theists that antitheists "really believe in God, but are just rebelling against him", an obnoxious theist view that is far too prevalent already. The anti would imply rebellion to these idiots.

-B

Soul Invictus

Perhaps you are being dense. I'll help you. At the top of page 7, the very first post is by me.

I said:
"BBT,

I think you've been able to address issues important to my stance...especially with this example with the toggle for me being the strong atheism-weak atheism distinction. I think Goliath alluded to it before, however w/o an additional commentary for me to reflect on. Re-reading the thread, I'm seeing the importance of the strong-weak issue for my assertion, which although the concept of two atheist views is not totally unfamiliar to me, I've never really given it a terrible amount of consideration. Like I said in the beginning, I said I could concede my stance or the thread if the refutation was clear for me to reason out, (or to quote myself correctly if it were "strong enough" (implications the same)

Goliath,
I'm sure you are not an antagonistic person by nature, however your style of exchange appears so. My misunderstanding of your views were not intentional and although you may have been annoyed by my continual reposting of the same material it was because my stance was unchanged. This meant that your dispute of my information gave me nothing to reflect with or counter for me to relate to...just a rebut to try again and get it right next time. I even gave examples in case my wording were unclear, and I think the personal attacks that CJD and I were subject to wouldn't have even been necessary if the dialogue were genuinely a friendly exchange instead of a large type (emphasis added you said) retort match. Your information again was beneficial, however a bit more info exchange savvy may allow for a more conducive discussion.


In conclusion, BBT's last reply concerning the positive stance would have important for my display, but to no avail given this weak atheist position (I think it is) that Goliath is. If anything, my points is probably suited for the strong atheist, if I read BBT's post correctly.

Thank you all for the input...it's been interesting"

Are you telling me that you weren't able to infer in my response that,

1) The reason I claimed that you and I were getting nowhere is since the strong-weak distinction is fundamental to my stance, your succinct retort lacked any comparative substance nor commentary on this phenomenon to aid in my seeing how we weren't able to reconcile my fallacious conclusions. Your reply were quick retorts of the nature of "you're wrong, try again" (my phrase) How would I see the differences if this is all you were willing to contribute as a reply?

2)BBT's ability to discuss the strong-weak debate was critical for my stance (By comparing my example, I was able to see the fallacy in my comparisons of my Iraq example with that of my examples for this posts)

3)My reaffirming that I would concede my stance if the dialogue/refutation was substantive

I find it interesting that BBT and your buddy SteveD were able to surmise this from my reply. It's not that I am unwilling or uncapable to give a straight answer...It's just that I felt any reasonably competent person would be able to deduce that from my writing, even with mediocre analytical skills. I did not know that I would have to spell it out. What do you think I typed all that for, to feign my concession? You are an interesting character Goliath, however alluding to a previous post you made, I shall amuse you (with your pretty please on top) if that will satisfy you, fair enough?

I, Soul Invictus, concede that weak atheism is not a belief,due to its negative stance. After being made privy to the distinctions between strong and weak atheism I am responsibly retracting my stance regarding this issue relative to weak atheism. In light of new information, I have no qualms in doing this. I would like to thank those that aided in my understanding, with the major contributors being BBT, SteveD, and Goliath....

Goliath,

If this fails to meet your criteria of a direct and clear concession let me know...I'll do my best to modify my statements.


SteveD,

You wrote:
"I have also asked Soul Invictus to respond directly wether he concedes that weak atheism does not constitute a belief. He has not answered this question directly. I think the closest he has come is this."

That first sentence is problematic for me. Earlier on you typed:

"Based on some of your recent posts it appears that you are willing to concede that weak atheism is not a belief. If so, I congratulate you on your understanding. this seems to be a significant hurdle for some people. "

I assumed you deduced the same as BBT, that I had already conceded the argument. Are you now unsure? Also, in reference to you directly asking me anything I must have missed it. I do remember you asking Goliath a question and that was if he could give a qualifier for his claim. Where did you directly ask me to respond? It's possible I may have missed it, however if your question was in that last quote, I apologize because I was not able to infer that you needed confirmation for your assuming that I had conceded, (although your prior posting inclined me to think that you came to that conclusion altogether, thus not needing any confirmation.) On that end I thought you and BBT were in clear with my concession...

-edited to add bold and italics

Invictus

SteveD

Soul Invictus,

You're right! Upon reviewing my post I see that I did not frame it as a question to you. I stated my conclusions and assumed that you would respond if you did not agree.

My apologies.

Steve

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

This has nothing to do with you conceding your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

This has nothing to do with you conceding your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

This has nothing to do with you conceding your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.


.....are you picking up on a pattern here?

WHOA! Hold it right there, xian! SteveD is not my buddy (nothing personal, SteveD, it's just that the titles of "buddy" and "friend" mean far more to me than "some person with whom I've had an internet discussion").

Well, I have spent the better part of a decade studying Mathematics in college, and people who know me consider me to be fairly intelligent. However, I have yet to see you give a straightforward answer to any question.

Concession accepted.

Sincerely,

Goliath

frebrd

Having been an Atheist for my entire lifetime, I regard Atheism as freedom from any theistic belief (not "lack" of - it's definitely _not_ a lack).

I was raised by nutcase religionists and was in my thirties before it dawned on me that some people actually believed that "god stuff".

Prior to that time, I assumed that some simply paid lip service to religious "belief" because it was considered the proper thing to do, like learning which fork to use for which dinner course.

Soul Invictus

Goliath,

I notice how my initial qualm that I had with you is the very thing that you accuse me of....getting to the heart of the matter, which is in and of itself very interesting. After I constantly implored that you answer my questions, you dilligently chose to deal with the semantics of an issue....such as the definition of atheism (which you said that my definition was wrong, however your definition was not materially any different) then you harped on about differentiating a belief from an opinion, which you failed to make any substantive difference - all this for what? To evade the questions I posed? You're still doing it now. Instead of responding to the questions I posed, your only response has been:
"This has nothing to do with you conceding your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists."

So yet you still continue to harp on a typing error from way back well after clarifying this as well as acknowledging typing something I did not mean. There was no mistake in my stance, just in how I keyed it in. I have clearly stated this on several occasions, yet you insist on misappropriating my stance on this issue, in what appears to be your only line of defense. Were you confused when I explained this the last two times?
Since clarity is so important to you and we don't want to assume, I'm taking that concession accepted=yes, correct? Lastly, I would appreciate it if you don't call me christian, because I'm not. Just because I choose to differ from you, doesn't mean you can go about making wild assertions like that. I am not christian and would appreciate it if you do not call me that. Clear enough?

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

I have addressed your every argument. It is you, sir, who took several pages to finally admit that you cannot prove that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

Incorrect. The definition of atheism that you used (that of a belief that no gods exist) is very different from what atheism is: The lack of belief that any gods exist. They are very different, as there is a large difference between holding a belief and not holding a belief.

Excuse me!? You, sir, were the one that kept blathering on about "fact vs. opinion," even after being repeatedly asked to explain the relevance of the blathering to the discussion at hand.

Yes to what?

My apologies. It will not happen again.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Soul Invictus

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goliath
Soul Invictus,



I have addressed your every argument. It is you, sir, who took several pages to finally admit that you cannot prove that it is impossible to prove that a god exists.

I guess that's why I'm still waiting for the material difference between a belief and an opinion, right? You're a mathematician right? How many times will you [i]continue[i] to erroneously display my stance. I see you're continually reverting back to the oft-repeated error in typing....you continue to deny that this was never my stance in the first place.


Incorrect. The definition of atheism that you used (that of a belief that no gods exist) is very different from what atheism is: The lack of belief that any gods exist. They are very different, as there is a large difference between holding a belief and not holding a belief.

My first reply to this thread was:
By definition atheism is a lack of a belief in a God.
Turned around, atheism is can also be phrased as a belief in the non-existence of God.

The second sentence is referring to the strong-weak debate that was discussed and that I'm now clear on, so naturally I'm not alluding to this definition, Goliath. In the initial definition I wrote, you wrote something to the effect that it actually was the lack of believe in any gods...which is fine however does the definition that I gave fall outside of the scope of atheism or outside of the context of the thread? Would it not convey the meaning of the discussion? Does it disallow discussion on the topic? (Basically, was it really worth it to go back and forth over it before we could get to the pertinent issues?)



[b] Excuse me!? You, sir, were the one that kept blathering on about "fact vs. opinion," even after being repeatedly asked to explain the relevance of the blathering to the discussion at hand.

Is diatribes and blathering terms you use when you don't want to respond to a claim? (This was another claim I made that got no reply....just the conventional "What's the relevance?" reply.


Yes to what?

The concession, Goliath...the concession. Never mind....

My apologies. It will not happen again.

Thank you

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Again, you accuse me of what you yourself are most guilty! Again, it is you who has blathered on about "fact vs. opinion" and it is you who has refused time and time again to explain the relevance of your blatherings to the discussion at hand. I'm getting so damnedably sick and tired of repeating myself, that I've almost forgotten what the original discussion was about!

And I showed that your first reply was absolutely incorrect when I stated that I am an atheist, and that I do not believe in the nonexistence of any god of any kind!

It doesn't fall outside the scope of anything. It's merely incorrect.

No, they are terms that I use when someone else goes off on a seemingly irrelevant tangent and then repeatedly refuses to explain the relevance of the tangent to the discussion at hand!

In that case, yes, it's an acceptance of your concession.

Since you've conceded, I am somewhat confused as to why you've bothered to keep the thread going...C'est la Vie...*shrug*

No problem.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Radcliffe Emerson

I like to say religions are belief and atheism is fact.