Mad Kally

Fictional creatures do not exist.

philechat

Strong toward Yahweh or Allah or any supposedly omnipotent creator of the universe who is concerned with human behavior and favors one group of people over another.

Weak toward local, tribal gods or spirits, since the definitions of these gods tend to be vague.

Agnostic toward an impersonal Life Force or transcendental Consciousness of the universe. That is, I don't know if this universe has some form of consciousness which is completely different from that of humans and indifferent to human affairs.

WinAce

Well, anything that exists is natural... Hence, 'supernatural' is something that trancends nature and is thus non-existent. Next!

rebelnerd

I'm not a fan of pigeonholing definitions, but I would probably fall under the weak atheist category. I do not believe in any omnipotent dieties and I do not believe in anything supernatural. Having said that, I would like to think I have an open mind to unexplained phenomenon and the possiblility of some other type of intelligence and/or beings.

I will not believe in any such unexplained phenomenon or beings until I have proof. To me proof would consist of the event/thing/whatever being reproducible and measurable.

My two cents.

Filo

Edited 'cause I can't speel.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

HelenM

Fair enough

I see I overtook your post count again, Kally

love
Helen

Jimmy Higgins

Atheist: They can say to everyone that Strong Atheist: They say

Philosoft

Jimmy, what is the difference between those two statements?

Jimmy Higgins

The difference is quite clear. While the atheist says "Your god does not exist", they do not conclude, prematurely that &lt;i&gt;a&lt;/i&gt; "god" can't exist. However, they are certain all gods on earth are made in the minds of man.

The strong atheist believes that no god exists PERIOD! Not only are they positive that all gods on earth are in the minds of man, but that it is impossible for a god to exist.

Now some people may say that my definition of an atheist is actually an agnostic, but I don't believe so. The reason being, the atheist is sure of their idealism. An agnostic is on the fence.

Philosoft

I still think the common definition of 'strong atheist' is incorrect. I can't conceive of a position that says, "I declare all gods non-existent, including those whose concepts I am currently unaware." This seems to be the belief attributed to strong atheists and it's simply incorrect.

The Messiah

Quote Reasonable Doubt:

I don't understand your definition, and I certainly don't agree with your conclusion. My rejection of God has absolutely nothing to do with specifics: I don't reject the Goddess Sarasvati, on the one hand, because I don't believe in female dieties with four hands, and YHWH, on the other, because I don't like ill-tempered old men with beards. On the contrary, I reject God because of the presumed supernatural quality shared by both.

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

I think this is main point that I'm getting at. A thousand years ago you can imagine that the number of people that didn't believe in a God would be very small. Today there are millions of 'non-believers' and I suspect a great many of them found their belief system on the explanations and the findings of science. Old superstitions are being systematically replaced by robust explanation that are demonstrable and testable. The main reason for the success of science has been the application of the scientific method. What I am suggesting is that the scientific method should be applied here. If there is a theory or law to be establish here one must be very specific about one's definitions or progress will be somewhat stifled if not impossible.

If all you want to do is slag off the god squadders then I suspose the abiguities in the definitions make the dialogue possible.