GeoTheo

From this forum. No one seems to want to admit that they believe there is no God. Most seem to want to leave the impression that they are really an agnostic or merely lack a belief in God. To me that looks like leaving the subject open indefinately. For example If you were trying to decide whether or not to go to the movies and you decided to not decide one way or the other, but leave the option indefinately open, I would say you were indecisive. Sooner or later you would have to decide to take action. You could never actually go, but just say you haven't decided yet and are leaving your options open.

GeoTheo

You seem kind of dogmatic about it starboy.
Are you a "dogmatic freethinker"? Should I take what you say "on authority"?

sakrilege

This link leads to an essay written by Jeffery Jay Lowder.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html" target="_blank">Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist?</a>

edited for formatting, when will there be a preview mode???

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: sakrilege ]</p>

Amos

Christianity is just opposite to religious dogma. Freedom in Christ is freedom from religion is freedom from the law is freedom from sin, is freedom from desire, sickness and pain.

So Starboy, if you study dictionaries make sure you do it right.

Christianity is not an -ism nor a dictionary definiton but it is an irreversible state of being.

HelenM

What Jeff Lowder wrote .

Helen

Starboy

GeoTheo, call yourself a freethinker if you like.

Starboy

Philosoft

Clearly not true. I have gone on record before stating that I see no fundamental difference between 'lack of belief' and 'belief in nonexistence.' It's not inaccurate to say I believe there is no God, if it makes any difference.

The difference is there is irrefutable empirical evidence that the movie exists. "I'm not going to the movie because I don't believe it exists" is a nonsensical statement. What the 'weak atheists' around here claim is that the lack of empirical and logical evidence for God renders the God-concept logically useless. However, a positive claim like "God does not exist" is logically indefensible for a number of reasons. Hence, the 'weak atheist' deliberately avoids making said claim.

Starboy

It is hilarious how many Christians want to be free thinkers! What is the point of calling yourself a Christian if you are not dogmatic in your faith? Or perhaps being a Christian freethinker is just one more step closer to becoming an a-theist? Ya know, if you start hanging out with a-theists soon you start thinking like one.

Starboy

Starboy

Helen, if it suits you to adopt a definition that allows you to call yourself a freethinker then have at it. Apparently it is not enough for you to think of yourself as just a Christian.

Starboy

galiel

I challenge that assertion. I am happy an unhesitant to state that I have concluded that, given our current scientific knowledge of the universe, there is no God.

(The qualifier, incidentally, is not there because of any meaningul uncertainty or fudge factor. It is there as a basic requirement of scientific rigour. Unlike religion, science does not definitively and dogmatically assert anything to the exclusion of disproof--there is always room, no matter how remote or unlikely, for a counter-example to disprove a theory. Science is about developing workable models for human experience, not asserting "truths".

Thus, I hold to the theory of the nonexistence of god, or any supernatural entity or force in the universe, with the same degree of certainty with which I hold to the theory of the helocentricism of the Solar System, or the existence of gravity, or photosynthesis, or evolution.)

I do not use the word "belief" because my conclusion is based upon rational application of the scientific method, not a gut feeling or revelation.

There are generally accepted to be two kinds of atheists, commonly terms "Strong" and "Weak". Strong being those, like myself, who have concluded that there is no God, and weak asserting that there is no reason to believe in God.

You are correct that most who call themselves atheists are "weak" atheists, because, as consistent skeptics, they assert that it is not possible to *prove* the nonexistence of god (any more than it is possible to prove the nonexistence of anything), and therefore, though they do not believe in god's existence, they cannot rule it out.

Those of us who are "strong" atheists argue that the existence of god is a testable hypothesis, and that it can be demonstrated to have failed the test, by the measure of the three tools of critical thinking: empiricism, rationalism and skepticism.

(By the way, many people, including myself believe that there isn't really an "agnostic" position anymore than there is a "semi-pregnant" position; one either acts as if there is or may well be a god (theism) or acts as if, for all intents and purposes, there is not (at least weak atheism).