Totalitarianist

Okay, okay. I should have considered exact definitions.

(Howbeit I've read several times about the existence of weak atheism and strong atheism, and by the definitions which you deny.)

So:--

Replace "weak atheism" with "atheism";

replace "strong atheism" with "the denial of God" or something.

It is illogical to deny God.
It is illogical to accept God.

It is only logical to lack a belief in God; denying him (I will not capitalise "him" because I do not acknowledge "him") is illogical.

I'd like to add one more thing.

According to dictionary.com, the definition of "atheism" is:--

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief in or denial.

So there are in fact two definitions of atheism. Call them what you like--e.g., weak atheism, strong atheism.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Because it is an extraordinary claim. Simply lacking a belief in God but not denying him is logical.

Being certain that such a thing exists is highly illogical.

And the same goes for the opposite belief.

himynameisPwn

Lets post a simple definition of logical:

Look closely at definition number 4.

To be logical doesnt mean it has to have 100% certainty. It just has to have sound reasoning behind it.

Theism is illogical because there is no need for a creator, and its all based on blind faith.

Atheism is logical because there is no proof for a god or creator. So, the reasoning behind strong atheism stands.

John Page

That I know (rather than imagine) it to exist and can reasonably prove so to a third party.

Reasonable proof? Subject to rigorous scrutiny and there are a number of methods to choose from.

What does it mean to a theist for god to exist?

Cheers, John

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Denial equals 100% certainty and therefore is illogical. Believing in God has nothing to do with having "faith" in it. You're refering to a personal God. Subscribing to a personal God is the most illogical bowelcruddle in existence. Lacking or denying a personal God is logical. Denying a creator, a God, a first causer, an unmoved-mover, whatever, with 100% certainty is illogical on so many levels, and even moreso if you believe in a finite universe.

How can you deny with certainty that something--sentient or otherwise--created the universe? How can you be so certain of this? You just "know"? There is no logical basis for this assertion.

It is only logical to merely lack a belief in God.

Autonemesis

Then what is the point of rational inquiry if it does not allow us to make definite statements about the world? Must we adopt the modes of speech of the <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/rel4hell.htm" target="_blank">RNADNA</a> (Reformed Non-Aristotelian Druids of North America), in order to avoid making illogical statements? That gets tiresome very quickly.

"God seems not to exist", while free of illogic, also lacks falsifiability. Of course, the RNADNA is a joke. But you seem not to be joking.

AtlanticCitySlave

"As mentioned earlier by myself on this thread, it is illogical to believe in something you cannot define (theism); it is equally illogical to deny the existence of what you cannot define (strong atheism)."

-Well, this is obviously question begging. Strong atheism and theism would obviously not be good choices if the term "God" was meaningless. But, everyone already knows this, hence why many people (ex: Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism) argue that the term "God" is coherent. The only thing you seem to have is a SGO (strong grasp of the obvious).
But, oddly enough, many strong atheists say they are so EXACTLY for the same reason you claim they shouldn't be, i.e. they think the term God is meaningless, so they label themselves atheist. Regardless, simply asserting the term "God" is meaningless doesn't really get us anywhere. Rather, proving it is (as many philosophers try to) would.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: AtlanticCitySlave ]</p>

John Page

All:

Infallibility. Ultimately, theism and logic are both the creations of mankind. To believe in the infallibility of either (especially in the minds of mankind) is to rank them the same.

Evidence. As an atheist, I do not think there is a requirement for any free thinker to "believe" anything where they do not consider the evidence sufficient. If it were otherwise, where would be the freedom in our thoughts?

Freedom of Thought. My inquiries have led me to spurn the notion of free will. Where then comes my "freedom" to think or believe? Let me answer by saying that if I was a theist I would be chained by dogma that restricted my ability to seek truth.

Proof. Beware, then, merely emulating the behavior of theists who think they have found an anchor, a convenient and beneficial explanation.

I beseech you to debate this topic based on the (phenomenal) evidence. To those of you who would argue using logic alone, I suggest you find the reasons why logic works. Then you'll have soemthing theists (Xians, IPU supporters, George the Turnip etc.) don't.

Good Luck! John

Cheers, John

AdamWho

It is with absolute certainty that I don't believe in any gods
This is no more of an extraordinary claim than I believe cheerios is the best cereal ever. Maybe in the future I will find a better cereal, but given the state of evidence, cheerios and no other is my favorite.

Jayhawker Soule

It is only logical to merely lack a belief in Leprechauns.
It is only logical to merely lack a belief in Alien abductions.
It is only logical to merely lack a belief in Pyramid power.
It is only logical to merely lack a belief in Astrology.
It is only logical to merely lack a belief in Clairvoyance.
It is only logical to merely lack a belief in ...

Of course Pseudonym, not wishing to be illogical, would not hold any of the above positions with 100% certainty ...