this is for the atheists out there…
there are 2 kinds of atheism
tell us if you are either a positive/strong atheist, or a negative/weak atheist
if you are not atheist you can join in, but leave out the “atheism is bullshit” bullshit and contribute constructive conversation.
negative atheism: “god is a bastard and the bible is bogas, therefore i dont beleive”
positive atheism: “there exists no god therefore there was never a bastard in the first place”
tell us why you are the way you are
i am a positive atheist because i have come to the conclusion that throughout human history, religion has been shaped to fit the times, and before it all started, god was created in man’s image, not the other way around.
there is no god/gods/goddesses/clockmakers/yadayada
there exists nothing beyond our tangible world
i’m not saying that it coudlnt, i’m saying that it DOESNT
i was once told that it would be near impossible to define yourself as either weak or strong atheism, as most weak atheists do not know that that is indeed what they are. therefore, how is it possible to answer this question, monsieur, when you, in a round about way, told me that it was a question near impossible to answer? having said that, and as a newly converted atheist, i have yet to come to a conclusion as to which category i should place myself in. if you have any suggestions that would aide me in my search for an answer, then i would welcome your suggestions.
I think you got your definitions a little mixed up, Deep Sandwich.
Weak Atheism- Lack of belief in God, gods, deities, etc.
Strong Atheism- A belief that God. gods. deotoes, etc. do not exist.
I would know, I was an atheist once (Now I am a weak agnostic) But, my opinion is, out of the two, weak atheism is the more logical, because they are not making any claims, they just lack belief.
I’m a weak atheist. I think a god may exist, but not an all powerful one. A limited god… a limited god, I could forgive. I could love a limited god. But I would hate an all powerful one.
There exists everything, when possible, in its own place.
I am not an atheist, I am not a theist, I am not an agnostic, I have no faith, I have no disbelief.
Fighting against or for a religious delusion, both of these are a waste of time and motion in the wrong direction.
As I’ve said before, “the truth” is invinsible, and should be impersonal.
Wait… what?
nothing false about that fact.
thus you are human.
I agree.
as for lies?
I am a weak atheist based on strong atheist arguments.
I find the arguments of strong atheism convincing, but I also recognise that very much finer minds than mine have managed to believe in god(s).
I think it basically comes down to what you find convincing at a personal level. Some are convinced, some are not.
There are no conclusive arguments or proofs, you must simply believe or not. One of the reasons I don’t believe in god is the logical positivist objection that the claim “god exists” is not a truth apt statement. It can’t be proven either way. But, by the same token, the claim the claim “god does not exist” is the same… so I can’t make it.
All I can say is that I have found what I feel to be good reason to believe that god doesn’t exist.
I recognize of course that this is in many ways the same sort of claim that a religious person would make about their belief in god. I don’t have a problem with that though because we are so limited in our capacities - we must take many things on faith.
Cheers,
gemty
gah, i really dont like this kind of senseless division; this word play. Be more specific about what the terms apply to.
a better model:
the belief: there is a god
you either have it, or you dont. You can be sure of this or you can be unsure (to various degrees). These are two seperate issues.
from this there are only three interesting positions
atheist (i dont have the belief, and im reasonably sure)
agnostic (i am unsure of the belief)
theist (i have the belief, and im reasonably sure)
Of course, you can further categorise if you like, but you are no longer talking about the status of the belief itself:
How much the person has considered the belief (implicit:not considered or no evidence considered possible / explicit:considered)
On what grounds they reject the belief (strong:evidence against / weak:no evidence for)
Or on what grounds they accept the belief (strong:evidence for / weak:no evidence against).
etc.
The way to go is what I call Pascal’s Agnostic Wager. (is that an oxymoron? If it is, ignore it)
Forget about any argument against “God’s” existence. One cannot say “you cannot prove that God exists,” but only ““you cannot say that God exists to be proven.”” But this is begging, I think.
We are trapped in a language web where if we have a word in our vocabulary we cannot treat it as if it isn’t conceptual. All words signify something. The problem with the word “God” is not whether or not “God” exists but whether or not ““God”” exists.
Its all very complicated. Anyway, I don’t see how one could lose with Pascal’s bet.