Weak and Strong Atheism?

At 6/22/2010 4:35:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:19:30 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is not such think as weak or strong atheist.

TYes there is.

How?

There is a smart atheist and there is a dumb one.

So you would agree that there is a smart Theist and a dumb theist?

I suppose.

Also stop calling agnostics ‘weak atheists', agnosticism is not an atheism.

And this was mentioned where?

Anna.

At 6/22/2010 4:35:33 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:25:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:23:34 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:19:30 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is not such think as weak or strong atheist.

There is a smart atheist and there is a dumb one.


Also stop calling agnostics ‘weak atheists', agnosticism is not an atheism.


Also Agnosticism is open to the epistemological fact the all knowledge is quasi-objective. Atheist(usually) don't think there's a god under rationality. How is that to say there is no god ever and there could never be one. Agnosticism is the way of the rational open minded.

So I'm a dumb atheist? And because I'm open to debate about religion but not about believing in one?

I wouldn't know. Can you make a good anti theist argument?

Well, that's really open to interruption of what you think a "good" argument would be. Does proof make it good or does "rhetoric"? Some would think that not being able to see, hear, feel, touch, or smell God is a good argument. Some believe that he shouldn't be experienced like that since he's omnipotent/omniscient .... What you think is good could be unsubstantial to someone else like DACTMOTO. But then again I can't make a good argument that a God does exist from my own experiences with religion so does that negate theism for me as well?

Good being correct, Rational. I think most atheists on site can so are strong or correct.

By strong do you mean a vehement atheist?

At 6/22/2010 4:36:00 PM, belle wrote:
zets- if anyone is a fool its you. quit while you're ahead.

Reasons... being???

At 6/22/2010 4:36:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:32:00 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Gnostic atheism is a logical contradiction.

Gnostic = Knowing

No that like saying theist means god. God is Thoes.

Gnos means knowing not gnostic. Gnostic is a word of itself.

Agnostic = Not Knowing

No. That A-gnos.
Agnostic is also a world of itself.

Pretty clear cut.

Learn to use words. Same for Geo, Puck and another person I don't remember(belle). For new concepts make technical compound words, look at German for an example.

Gnos-atheist.
Knowing atheist.

Like
Axio-fidest.
Worth Fidest.

Lrn2think before you criticize.

At 6/23/2010 12:03:26 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:36:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:32:00 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Gnostic atheism is a logical contradiction.

Gnostic = Knowing

No that like saying theist means god. God is Thoes.

Gnos means knowing not gnostic. Gnostic is a word of itself.

Agnostic = Not Knowing

No. That A-gnos.
Agnostic is also a world of itself.

Pretty clear cut.

Learn to use words. Same for Geo, Puck and another person I don't remember(belle). For new concepts make technical compound words, look at German for an example.

Gnos-atheist.
Knowing atheist.

Like
Axio-fidest.
Worth Fidest.

Lrn2think before you criticize.

Wow dude. I know the etymological meaning of Gnostic. Gnosis = know.

But I constantly criticize your usage because it's misleading and is commonly used to refer to the mystical sect of Christianity based on the Gnostic Gospels.

The way you described your version of Gnosticism was a form of absolute certain Deism.

At 6/23/2010 12:03:26 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Learn to use words. Same for Geo, Puck and another person I don't remember(belle). For new concepts make technical compound words, look at German for an example.

lol wut? You wish to criticise my use of English? Agnostic when dealing with knowledge claims is the position of incomplete knowledge. Agnostic with belief claims is the position of being unsure. A 'true' agnostic, one that has both a agnostic belief and knowledge claim in regards to god is rare.

At 6/22/2010 11:41:59 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
No, no, no...

Theist: God exists.
Ignostic: What do you mean by God?
Agnostic: I don't know if God exists.
Strong-Agnostic: I don't/can't know if God exists, and you don't/can't either.
Atheist: God doesn't exist.
Apatheist: Who the hell cares?

Those are knowledge claims, not belief claims. :P A position will include both a belief and a knowledge claim.

At 6/22/2010 11:56:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Reasons... being???

because theres a coherent distinction to be made between someone who claims there are absolutely no gods and someone who lacks belief in any god. and you insist that there is not. thats foolish.

At 6/23/2010 12:20:43 AM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 11:56:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Reasons... being???

because theres a coherent distinction to be made between someone who claims there are absolutely no gods and someone who lacks belief in any god. and you insist that there is not. thats foolish.

Zetsubou, you should know this more than anyone. You are a perfect example of this distinction, except on the opposite end of the spectrum.

I am a "Gnostic" Atheist (to use your terms) and claim that there is absolutely no God just as you are a Gnostic Theist and claim there is absolutely a God.

Alternatively, there are those who say God probably doesn't exist and those who say I believe God exists, but don't know for sure.

I think anyone who is a strong atheist may be assuming too much. It is impossible to disprove something that has never been proven, right? However, there is a shred of a chance that such a being may exist, so I cannot, and never will be able to say with 100% certainity that there is no God. I can simply say it is highly improbable. Saying there certainly is no God, is basically going on some sort of faith, because how could you 100% possibly know? Which make's me think that those who do say there is certainly no god, are in the same category as strong theist's.

However, just because I accept that there is a chance I am wrong, does not mean that if there was a God I would happily submit, I still disagree with the concept of religion, and the divine ruler.

At 6/23/2010 2:05:21 AM, vivalayeo wrote:
I think anyone who is a strong atheist may be assuming too much. It is impossible to disprove something that has never been proven, right? However, there is a shred of a chance that such a being may exist, so I cannot, and never will be able to say with 100% certainity that there is no God. I can simply say it is highly improbable. Saying there certainly is no God, is basically going on some sort of faith, because how could you 100% possibly know? Which make's me think that those who do say there is certainly no god, are in the same category as strong theist's.

However, just because I accept that there is a chance I am wrong, does not mean that if there was a God I would happily submit, I still disagree with the concept of religion, and the divine ruler.

Reasonable position.

I thought Dawkins was a Weak Atheist, but it appears he identifies as a "de facto Atheist."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 6/22/2010 4:15:06 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 3:58:37 PM, Puck wrote:
Asking questions isn't stupid.

Thank you. And to CN... was that last comment to me? And if so, were you implying that it was a stupid question? Just so I know...

Puck said that asking questions isn't stupid so I purposefully asked a stupid question. Thats all!

At 6/22/2010 4:25:32 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:23:34 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:19:30 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is not such think as weak or strong atheist.

There is a smart atheist and there is a dumb one.


Also stop calling agnostics ‘weak atheists', agnosticism is not an atheism.


Also Agnosticism is open to the epistemological fact the all knowledge is quasi-objective. Atheist(usually) don't think there's a god under rationality. How is that to say there is no god ever and there could never be one. Agnosticism is the way of the rational open minded.

So I'm a dumb atheist? And because I'm open to debate about religion but not about believing in one?

I wouldn't know. Can you make a good anti theist argument?

Seriously?

At 6/22/2010 4:38:36 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:36:00 PM, belle wrote:
zets- if anyone is a fool its you. quit while you're ahead.

No, he's not a fool. He's just good at pointing out things for clarification. Why do people succumb to name calling and disregard for debate in favor of prepubescent banter? Zets, go ahead. I welcome the debate! :)

You are new here, zets does not debate. The more he cares about a subject the more evasive he gets.

At 6/22/2010 9:00:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

At 6/22/2010 8:11:41 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 8:03:30 PM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 7:58:42 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 7:43:08 PM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 7:34:40 PM, annhasle wrote:
To say it's completely impossible would be stupid but I'm strong enough in my belief to be 99% sure.

then strictly speaking you are a weak atheist. that doesn't imply that you are even a little bit religious or that you think a god is likely or necessary. only that you are realistic in your appraisal of what we are able to know.

I do not consider myself to be a weak atheist. People have been telling me all day (even you) that it's impractical to believe 100%. I'm willing to concede 1% that there may be something out there but I STRONGLY doubt there is. I do this out of respect to those religious and to show that I can be, albeit very little, open-minded. Am I kidding myself, most likely. But that 1% is probably what keeps me coming on this site to see new perspectives...

i understand and i even agree. but the strong atheist believes it is 100% certain that there is no god. as you don't believe that, i don't understand why you would call yourself that. the value in the weak atheist position is that you can still argue strongly against popular conceptions of god without having to claim anything you can't back up with evidence or logic. on the other hand, the strong atheist position requires that you assert things that you can't support. you can be a weak atheist and an anti-theist a la christopher hitchens if you like... but to call yourself a strong atheist when you aren't one is to misuse the distinction.

Ugh... I just hate the name "weak atheist". It sounds as though I don't believe in atheism when I could be a friggin' poster child for it. Therefore, I will call myself an atheist... This is why I had problems in the beginning, about dealing with the different sects of atheism. My level of belief is high and yet I'm "weak"... WTF. >.>

These distinctions are important and necessary because the distinction is real between people who say there is absolutely no God and those who say God probably doesn't exist but its possible.

Then there's anti-theists and people like Cerebral who I consider wishful-atheists.

Surely I should have the right to form and state my own opinions? I am in no way shape or form either of those things. I am an atheist.

I'm actually disappointed at Dawkins for taking the weak Atheist position by conceding he can't say 100% there is no God.

Sometimes he has an attack of rationality.

At 6/23/2010 4:49:37 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:15:06 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 3:58:37 PM, Puck wrote:
Asking questions isn't stupid.

Thank you. And to CN... was that last comment to me? And if so, were you implying that it was a stupid question? Just so I know...

Puck said that asking questions isn't stupid so I purposefully asked a stupid question. Thats all!

Oh okay.... I thought you were saying that your question and mine were on the same level of stupidity. My bad. :)

Oh... There's no such thing as a stupid question. Only stupid people. :D

At 6/23/2010 4:52:52 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:38:36 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 4:36:00 PM, belle wrote:
zets- if anyone is a fool its you. quit while you're ahead.

No, he's not a fool. He's just good at pointing out things for clarification. Why do people succumb to name calling and disregard for debate in favor of prepubescent banter? Zets, go ahead. I welcome the debate! :)

You are new here, zets does not debate. The more he cares about a subject the more evasive he gets.

hmm... I did notice that. I just wanted to have a debate without the "You're a jerk!" "Well, you're a fool!" stuff... >.<

At 6/22/2010 7:21:39 PM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 6:55:25 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 5:19:58 PM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 5:16:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
Truth is so subjective. You believe you have the truth; I believe I do. And look at that, they're different beliefs. Once again; subjective. So...why do you even bother to post that? o_0

so how come even though i believe i am eating a ham sandwich i am still hungry? :(

Believing it and actually experiencing it is a little different. If you believe you are eating a sandwich when you're not.... hopefully you're getting help. If you are eating a sandwich and believe you are...good. If you're still hungry after that, make another one. :P

well you implied that the truth of a statement is dependent on belief that it is true. if thats not what you mean you should clarify, because "truth is subjective" is an extremely loaded statement.

I was talking about religion there. It wasn't a broad statement. So no, it does not go for everything. Just because you believe it, doesn't mean it's true; that;s why we have a thing called "proof". The idea that you have the truth is subjective.

Weak Atheist: I don't give a flying fuc* if God exists or not. Now get off my lawn.
Strong Atheist: Jehovah's Witness you say? Be right back. -Five minutes later-
Now, get off my lawn before I vaporize you with my plasma cannon.

At 6/23/2010 1:35:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
Weak Atheist: I don't give a flying fuc* if God exists or not. Now get off my lawn.
Strong Atheist: Jehovah's Witness you say? Be right back. -Five minutes later-
Now, get off my lawn before I vaporize you with my plasma cannon.

Nicely put.

At 6/23/2010 12:20:43 AM, belle wrote:

At 6/22/2010 11:56:10 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Reasons... being???

because theres a coherent distinction to be made between someone who claims (i)there are absolutely no gods and someone (ii)who lacks belief in any god. and you insist that there is not. thats foolish.

He named them wrong my argument is Semantical.

Thats

(i)Atheism
(ii)Agnosticism or Apatheism(unconventional)

At 6/23/2010 12:14:52 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Wow dude. I know the etymological meaning of Gnostic. Gnosis = know.

But I constantly criticize your usage because it's misleading and is commonly used to refer to the mystical sect of Christianity based on the Gnostic Gospels.

The way you described your version of Gnosticism was a form of absolute certain Deism.

My definition of deist was messed up. You have Hume and Napoleon to blame for that. If it was right I would have called it deism. My bad.

All I'm saying is the usage of 'Gnostic Atheism' is a horribly misleading. Though I understand what you guys mean, the use of Gnostic is just wrong.

At 6/23/2010 2:12:59 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/23/2010 1:35:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
Weak Atheist: I don't give a flying fuc* if God exists or not. Now get off my lawn.
Strong Atheist: Jehovah's Witness you say? Be right back. -Five minutes later-
Now, get off my lawn before I vaporize you with my plasma cannon.

Nicely put.

It's a joke.

At 6/24/2010 8:27:22 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

At 6/23/2010 2:12:59 PM, annhasle wrote:

At 6/23/2010 1:35:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
Weak Atheist: I don't give a flying fuc* if God exists or not. Now get off my lawn.
Strong Atheist: Jehovah's Witness you say? Be right back. -Five minutes later-
Now, get off my lawn before I vaporize you with my plasma cannon.

Nicely put.

It's a joke.

LOL and it made me laugh so it was nicely put. :D