Theli

free12thinker...
I might have missinterpreted your post... I stand corrected.

So you are saying that some bablies are born with a god belief?
Even if they don't even know the word "god" nor the concept of "deity" or "creation"?
I was not aware that knowledge such as that was programed into the childs mind prior to birth.

I'm not finished yet.

Theli

ReasonableDoubt...
"Weak atheists" simply has no god belief.
"Strong atheist" claim that no gods exists at all.

Therefore the best definition is "lack of god belief" since it covers both the "weak" and the "strong" atheist.

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.com/writ/smithdef.htm" target="_blank">Here's a good article me thinks</a>

I don't see the point in duplicating the word "really" to differentiate between weak and strong atheism. If that's what you were trying to do, that is.

I would rather use these phrases...
Weak atheist - "I don't believe in any god(s)"
Strong atheist - "There are no gods"

Yes I agree with your point here.
Although your example with the Phlyxnoth doesn't excacly fit argument or the definition of (A)theism. You have to have a god there somewhere .

The question "does god exist?" can't excacly answer weither you're a weak or a strong atheist.
Although the question "can god exist?" would give a good answer.

Thanks for replying and sorry for the bad english.

Jayhawker Soule

If atheist is defined as the absense of a belief, how can such an absence be 'weak or 'strong'?

While I'm not convinced of any "there" in your "therefore", I appreciate the link. As for the topic itself, it may make more sense to pursue it via the jlowder thread.

jj

Atheism is a default position.

Your second clause is purely suborned, and once again shows what appears to be willfull trolling. What is more, the "intended to prove" statement is a falsehood, showing that once again, you not only engage in fallacious reasoning, but also insist on placing false positions on those you would debate.

If you are truly a christian, please consider the effects you are having on your own immortal soul when you do this. I think you should go talk to your priest or minister, and try to figure out why you must falsify others positions.

WJ

I think finally things are making sense. This is one of the points I've been trying to make.

"Atheism, which Ayer construed positively as the denial of God's existence, presupposes that the concept of God has meaning. But "if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted."[11]"

Beyond this, it seems in previous threads, the following conclusions are/were emmerging.

1. Theism cannot be objecively proved thru formal logic and deduction.
2. Atheism cannot be objectively proved thru formal logic and deduction.
3. An atheist's default position can only be invoked, and consequently has 'meaning', only when someone [ie, theist] asserts some thing about it first.
4. In the default positon, according to logical positivism, an athiest cannot 'sell' or market atheism as it would become an oxymoron (or a religious belief) or otherwise nonsensical to do so.

This was my main point. If God doesn't exist, there is no point in debating it. Otherwise, it is more a favor to agnosticism. Does that not make sense now?

Walrus

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theli:
[QB]free12thinker...

quote:
So you are saying that some bablies are born with a god belief? Even if they don't even know the word "god" nor the concept of "deity" or "creation"? I was not aware that knowledge such as that was programed into the childs mind prior to birth.

Of course God is not programmed into their minds. But here's the thing.

Atheists do not believe in God (strong or weak), theists believe in god (whatever god that may be). Newborns are neither. Newborns have not made the decision. There is no "belief" or lack of "belief". One can't decide on what they believe without any train of thought or concept of the ideas surrounding the subject.

That's why I argue with WJ that atheism is not a default.

There isn't always an either "they do believe" or "they don't believe". They simply don't have the ability or information in front of them to make a decision either way.

Example: If someone asks me whether I believe that ritalin is the best drug for 12 years old with attachment disorder, I say, I don't know. There's no sense in asking me whether I believe one side or the other.

Get it now?

I will say that I like your distinction between strong and weak atheist. Even though I find a hard time distinguishing a weak atheist from an agnostic.

Weak atheist - do not believe in god
Question for a weak atheist - But do you believe that one could possibly exist?
Agnostic - does not believe in any particular god, but believes one may exist

If the weak atheist does not believe that one could exist, than they are a strong atheist, in my opinion (and yours it seems). If they believe that one could possibly exist, than does that make them partially agnostic? Is the level of "potential belief" that only thing that differentiates them?

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]</p>

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WJ:
[QB]I think finally things are making sense. This is one of the points I've been trying to make.

"Atheism, which Ayer construed positively as the denial of God's existence, presupposes that the concept of God has meaning. But "if the assertion that there is a god is nonsensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally nonsensical, since it is only a significant proposition that can be significantly contradicted."[11]"

My Reply:
How can atheism be contradicted, without anything to contradict it? Or are you simply stating that an atheist arguing against the possibility of god's existence is ludicrous since there is no sense in arguing that which one does not believe to be true anyway. Is that what you are getting at?

If so, I will respond by noting that; If we always left alone, that which we did not believe to be true, than we would be a would without progress. It is permissable, and in fact, healthy to question authority. And, make no mistake about it, the word God, and the idea behind God, is authority. It's also murderous. Its also intolerant and everything in between.

--------------------------------------------------

Beyond this, it seems in previous threads, the following conclusions are/were emmerging.

1. Theism cannot be objecively proved thru formal logic and deduction.
2. Atheism cannot be objectively proved thru formal logic and deduction.

My Reply:
Here's where I have a problem. You don't seem to understand that the Atheist position does not have to be proven. The only thing that has to be proven is that God exists. There is no proving an argument, until an argument is made. God is the argument that was made. By starting the argument of God, questions and proofs can begun being raised. Atheism did not rise before the assertions of God, but in fact, the opposite happened. And if you don't agree with me here, explain why. Explain how anyone can be expected to come up with the burden of proof, when there's nothing to prove. Without the initial assertion of God, there is no Atheism, and in that, there is nothing to prove.

--------------------------------------------------

3. An atheist's default position can only be invoked, and consequently has 'meaning', only when someone [ie, theist] asserts some thing about it first.

My Reply:
Refer to my previous post

--------------------------------------------------

4. In the default positon, according to logical positivism, an athiest cannot 'sell' or market atheism as it would become an oxymoron (or a religious belief) or otherwise nonsensical to do so.

My Reply:
Atheism is not a default position.

--------------------------------------------------
This was my main point. If God doesn't exist, there is no point in debating it. Otherwise, it is more a favor to agnosticism. Does that not make sense now?

Are you telling me that you don't debate anything that you find false? If this is what you're saying than:
1.) I feel sorry for you as you are simply a follower
&
2.) I guess we won't be seeing your name around here anymore
WALRUS [QUOTE]

jj

No. As usual, you left out something. The FACT that people routinely, exhaustively, and rudely continue to posit not only deism, but threats against atheists based on deism, completely subverts your "logical positivism".

You are quite a sophist, but you still remain wedded to misrepresentations, suborned logic, and to the placing of positions on those who do not hold such a position.

You do imply one point, though, that may people miss, that being that atheists have no 'common ground', their atheism being a LACK of agreement with a 3rd party's assertions.

WJ

"My Reply:
How can atheism be contradicted, without anything to contradict it? Or are you simply stating that an atheist arguing against the possibility of god's existence is ludicrous since there is no sense in arguing that which one does not believe to be true anyway. Is that what you are getting at?"

Yes!

"If so, I will respond by noting that; If we always left alone, that which we did not believe to be true, than we would be a would without progress. It is permissable, and in fact, healthy to question authority. And, make no mistake about it, the word God, and the idea behind God, is authority. It's also murderous. Its also intolerant and everything in between."

But as Ayer points out, it is nonsensical to do so. Personally, I think also you are hung-up with this idea of 'authority'.


"My Reply:
Here's where I have a problem. You don't seem to understand that the Atheist position does not have to be proven. The only thing that has to be proven is that God exists. There is no proving an argument, until an argument is made. God is the argument that was made. By starting the argument of God, questions and proofs can begun being raised. Atheism did not rise before the assertions of God, but in fact, the opposite happened. And if you don't agree with me here, explain why. Explain how anyone can be expected to come up with the burden of proof, when there's nothing to prove. Without the initial assertion of God, there is no Atheism, and in that, there is nothing to prove."

Agreed!


"Are you telling me that you don't debate anything that you find false? If this is what you're saying than:
1.) I feel sorry for you as you are simply a follower
&
2.) I guess we won't be seeing your name around here anymore"

I don't debate anything that doesn't exist. You seem to though... .

Does that help clarify my position any?

Walrus

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

WJ

jj!

Actually, though I'm not a fideist in the absolute sense, when it comes to debating the existence of God, I'll use those/other existential principles, along with revelation and epistemic subjectivity and a dash of Berkely-ism thrown in, to name a few...

Oops, don't forget about phenomenology!

Make sense?

Walrus