Amie

yes Goliath I think I kind of understand...
If I said a strong atheist maintains they know no Gods exist where as a weak atheist does not believe in God, would I be correct in saying that? or am I bit off base here? According to the technical definition I am assuming if one was an agnostic atheist then they would be considered a weak atheist? Is this correct?

Goliath

Brian,

Put up or shut up. If you can't prove your claim, then please stop repeating yourself. You're starting to sound like Jim Mitchell.

Where? In the article that has nothing to do with this topic? Or was it when you repeatedly assumed what you were trying to show? Please, point out this evidence to me, because I have not seen a shred of it from you in this thread (and I'm not trying to be facetious--I really haven't seen any actual evidence from you whatsoever).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Amie,


Three things:

1. A strong atheist is not someone who believes that God doesn't exist. A strong atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist. See the difference? A pagan may believe that your god doesn't exist, but that wouldn't make said pagan a strong atheist.

In other words: your god is not special (at least not to a strong atheist). It is one of many god concepts. The strong atheist believes that none of them exist.

2. I would say that a strong atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist, not necessarily someone who knows that no gods exist. I'm not sure that anyone actually knows that no gods exist.

3. An agnostic is someone who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Damn dude.

Where did this attitude pop out of?

As I said already, I provided *what I considered to be* evidence for my position, although it is not surprising that *you did not consider it to be* evidence. The consideration of something to be "evidence" is a highly subjective one, as I thought was already crystal clear with both of us. To be even more clear about it, you have provided no evidence (or what *I* consider to be evidence) for your most relevant claims. That's the way "evidence" works. It is a decision that is very personal, very subjective, and very susceptible to our own personal biases. You say potato, I say tomato.

Brian

Goliath

It popped out of frustration. The same kind of frustration that I encounter with a theist who continually asserts what he/she is trying to prove.

Oooohkay, and what was this evidence? Why are you avoiding my question?

When you find a way to mind-meld with me, let me know.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

I am not avoiding your question. I answered it both in the last post and in much of the previous 2 pages of this thread. What *I* consider to be evidence is found in my personal experiences/observations and the bit of research I have done in this issue. You do not consider it to be evidence, of course. What *it* is can be summarized in that numbered sequence I posted on the bottom of the 2nd page. I believe that to be a sensible description of how beliefs are formed in general, and beliefs about the supernatural in particular. Not surprisingly, you disagree with it, posing what you consider to be legitimate objections. I, in turn of course, believe those objections are not legitimate. You disagree with my responses, I disagree with yours, you disagree with mine, etc. etc., then we get over ourselves.



I do not need to mind-meld with you to form beliefs (based on what I consider to be evidence) about how your own mind works. I can do that based upon other observations. You can likewise form beliefs about how other people think without jumping inside their heads, based upon external observations. Whether those beliefs are coincidental with reality is another matter. You can form beliefs (based on what you consider to be evidence) though.

Brian

Goliath

Then I guess we're at an impasse.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Brian63

Last word.

Brian

Stephen T-B

“Belief” in the context of deities is a misleading term: in general usage it implies a personal opinion based upon a conjecture, thus: “I believe my keys are in the fridge” is not to be compared with the statement
“I believe in god” which doesn’t mean “I think there’s a god,” but rather “I know there’s a god.”
Believers therefore assume that people claiming to be agnostic/ atheist / realist / rationalist are in a state of denial.
In another thread in this forum, Zentraedi wrote “Can beliefs in atheism hold its own?” (sic)
This notion that atheism is a “belief” system is very difficult to dislodge from the brain of someone for whom belief isn’t belief but knowledge.

So what we need is a succinct rebuttal of the claim that Atheism is a mirror version of theism. The point needs to be made - repeatedly no doubt - that it isn’t a case of “I don’t believe in your god” so much as “I don’t share your fantasy.”

That’s why I’m a bit confused as to why there’s this need to accurately define all the different degrees of unbelief: I don’t see how trying to put me into a pigeon hole helps anyone,
Those who don’t believe - and I include agnostics - have this in common: Gods of any description are not personally important to them; beliefs in gods may well irritate them and impinge on their lives, but the gods themselves are a matter of such indifference that the sky, if you like, has opened above their heads and all they perceive in it are the stars.
In their heads is a total absence of the wishful thinking which makes Believers imagine they see a god gazing down on them.
For all of us infidels, the gods don’t exist because the god-fantasy has nothing to offer.