Soul Invictus

In my opinion, outside of any confrontational issues, I think it would set a whole circular argument stemming around it being a "belief". That, to me would be the problematic issue.It would make numerous this type of thread..the splitting hairs that MBS referred to.

Soul Invictus

Steve,

As with BBT, your examples are invaluable. For the strong-weak threads(ters), those two counterexamples (of yours and BBT's) to mine should be beneficial for that topic in and of itself.

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

You god damn right I'm still on that!

Are you finally willing to concede your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

Although I'm not easy to get along with, I wouldn't describe myself as antagonistic. Most of this was due to the large text, which I only meant to use as emphasis, not yelling. For that, I apologize.

However, throughout several weeks of this thread's existence, you have yet to explain how your "fact vs. opinion" diatribe is relevant to the issue at hand, and you still seem to be searching for some kind of "positive stance" in my weak atheism, when I have told you again and again and again and again *and again* that no such stance exists!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you look for that which does not exist?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Soul Invictus

Goliath,

See my replies a few responses up...WAYYYYY up on this same 7th page.

Goliath

Soul Invictus,

I don't see it. I will ask the question again: Are you finally willing to concede your claim that it is impossible to prove that a god exists?

Are you incapable or unwilling to give a straightforward answer to this question?

Furthermore, you never answered this question:

Sincerely,

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna

Goliath, he already did concede that, a long time ago. And if I interpret correctly, I led him to concede the whole argument, as well. Yay.

Daleth, I wouldn't use antitheism both because most people haven't heard it before, and because it's more confrontational. While it doesn't have to, I'm sure some theists would take it to imply hatred of theists. And you would definitely hear fallacious arguments about etymology. (I'm meaning to say "the study of words and roots of words" but am getting the vague feeling that etymology is actually "the study of bugs". Forgive me if that's the case). "atheist" works just fine for me.

-B

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna,

Really? Perhaps I'm being dense, but I haven't seen him do that yet. Since Soul Invictus doesn't seem to want to give me a straightforward answer, perhaps you could point out where he made said concession?

Sincerely,

Goliath

SteveD

Goliath,

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.

He is a theist, after all.

Steve

Daleth

Thanks for that, BBT. That's pretty much what I suspected. Etymology is correct. Entomology is the study of bugs.

Hrmmm? Isn't that exactly what we're doing? The reason I brought up the word is that by strict (etymological ) definition 'atheism' is definitely not a belief and 'antitheism' definitely is a belief.

If it were not for the confrontational aspect and the fact that it's a seldom-used word which would require explanation, it would actually clear up the distinction between those who use 'atheism' to express a belief and those who use it to express a lack of belief. Instead of using one word for 2 concepts, we'd use 2 words. Still, I can understand why it might seem like an uncomfortable word choice for a lot of people.

Thanks for the comments.

Dal