| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Are you a strong or weak atheist? |
| Strong Atheist |
|
72% |
[ 27 ] |
| Weak Atheist |
|
27% |
[ 10 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 37 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Daggett
Forum Leader
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 553
Local time: 5:44 PM
Location: Kansas
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: |
  |
|
I'm a strong atheist.
Empirically testable definitions of gods have failed.
Definitions of gods fail in general, as they turn up inconsistent, illogical, or ad hoc.
Can't find a god whose existence should, by definition or by historical attribution of events be apparent? Then there's no god like that.
Can't even define what a god is? Then there's definitely no god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: | | tonyman1989 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Agnostics are people who want their cake and eat it. I put them in the same class of believers, whether they like it or not. |
Really? I put them into the unbelievers class. |
Not if they're diddling as to whether they believe or not. If they have doubts, then they unconsciously believe as most of them were believers to start with, and they have not made the full step to cross the threshold. |
I consider them unbelievers because they have no postive belief in god.
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | I consider them unbelievers because they have no postive belief in god. |
That may be technically true, but it's rhetorical trickery of the kind theists use, as Julian Baggini points out.
The only reason I can see for so forcefully arguing that agnostics are "really" atheists is to increase our count. Any other reason seems to fail on any reasonable grounds.
People who are undecided are people who are undecided. To argue that we should call them "atheists" is no worse than Ray Comfort arguing that those who aren't 100% sure of god's nonexistence should be called "agnostic." Same strategy, different wants.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | People who are undecided are people who are undecided. To argue that we should call them "atheists" is no worse than Ray Comfort arguing that those who aren't 100% sure of god's nonexistence should be called "agnostic." Same strategy, different wants. |
Thats true.
Then we should stop using them as the pop count under the Atheist/Agnostic/non-religious.
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 6:44 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | tonyman1989 wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: | | Agnostics are people who want their cake and eat it. I put them in the same class of believers, whether they like it or not. |
Really? I put them into the unbelievers class. |
Not if they're diddling as to whether they believe or not. If they have doubts, then they unconsciously believe as most of them were believers to start with, and they have not made the full step to cross the threshold. |
I consider them unbelievers because they have no postive belief in god. |
The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. I'm with Daggett: "Empirically testable definitions of gods have failed. Definitions of gods fail in general, as they turn up inconsistent, illogical, or ad hoc. " And considering that fantastic claims demand fantastic evidence, I have no sympathy for Agnostics POV. Their inability to decide seems to me to be a cop-out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | Quote: | | People who are undecided are people who are undecided. To argue that we should call them "atheists" is no worse than Ray Comfort arguing that those who aren't 100% sure of god's nonexistence should be called "agnostic." Same strategy, different wants. |
Thats true.
Then we should stop using them as the pop count under the Atheist/Agnostic/non-religious. |
As long as the distinction's made, grouping doesn't hurt as long as it's explicit as mentioned above.
I simply don't appreciate the underhanded tactic of saying that agnostics are "really" atheists. It's a silly argument at the end of the day which is politically motivated, and mistakes the finger for the moon.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I simply don't appreciate the underhanded tactic of saying that agnostics are "really" atheists. It's a silly argument at the end of the day which is politically motivated, and mistakes the finger for the moon. |
I wasn't saying they where atheist just that they are not believers.
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philosophos
Do it
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 9289
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: Where Scum Are
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tonyman1989 wrote: | | Quote: | | I simply don't appreciate the underhanded tactic of saying that agnostics are "really" atheists. It's a silly argument at the end of the day which is politically motivated, and mistakes the finger for the moon. |
I wasn't saying they where atheist just that they are not believers. |
Meh. Okay. That's true enough.
_________________
The whores and politicians will shout 'save us'...
...and I'll whisper 'no'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 3:44 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daggett wrote: | I'm a strong atheist.
Empirically testable definitions of gods have failed.
Definitions of gods fail in general, as they turn up inconsistent, illogical, or ad hoc.
Can't find a god whose existence should, by definition or by historical attribution of events be apparent? Then there's no god like that.
Can't even define what a god is? Then there's definitely no god. |
I will agree that all definitions of a literal supernatural god have failed. How about a metaphorical god? Not like that is a common definition, but some do use it.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12826
Local time: 3:44 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philosophos wrote: | As long as the distinction's made, grouping doesn't hurt as long as it's explicit as mentioned above.
I simply don't appreciate the underhanded tactic of saying that agnostics are "really" atheists. It's a silly argument at the end of the day which is politically motivated, and mistakes the finger for the moon. |
We got some Bruce Lee philosophy goin down!
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonyman1989
Forum Master
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 2461
Local time: 7:44 PM
Location: I was hoping you could tell me.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | Daggett wrote: | I'm a strong atheist.
Empirically testable definitions of gods have failed.
Definitions of gods fail in general, as they turn up inconsistent, illogical, or ad hoc.
Can't find a god whose existence should, by definition or by historical attribution of events be apparent? Then there's no god like that.
Can't even define what a god is? Then there's definitely no god. |
I will agree that all definitions of a literal supernatural god have failed. How about a metaphorical god? Not like that is a common definition, but some do use it. |
By this do you mean "God is nature" these kind of definitions?
_________________
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." Albert Einstein
"For then we will know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes." Richard Dawkins
http://www.atheistforums.com/weblog.php?w=22 Tonyman1989 blog's - updated on 8/28/07 - An interview of steven weinberg on religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaoslord2004
Logician
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 8411
Local time: 6:44 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm actually surprised by how many strong atheists there are here. I thought, perhaps naive, that I was one of the few strong atheists.
_________________
An artist sees beauty in a painting. I see beauty in a logical proof.
"All error is due to extraneous factors, reason itself does not err"
~Kurt Gödel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paranoia21
Weird Fish
Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 1216
Local time: 5:44 PM
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm slightly confused. With everybody saying you can't define God, then what are you talking about when you enter an arguement and mention God? You can't say "God doesn't exist" without even knowing the definition first...
_________________
VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT
Keep YOUR religion in YOUR churches and YOUR homes and out of OUR government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23062
Local time: 6:44 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paranoia21 wrote: | | I'm slightly confused. With everybody saying you can't define God, then what are you talking about when you enter an arguement and mention God? You can't say "God doesn't exist" without even knowing the definition first... |
precisely.
and, any definition of god that has ever been given (that i have heard) is self-contradictory, illogical, and/or purely made up.
Either there IS NO description of god OR the description is not godlike OR the description is nonsensical.
The very same arguments for unicorns, leprechauns and fairies also apply to god. Are you agnostic about any of those things? or would you say to someone "those things simply do not exist"?
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaoslord2004
Logician
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 8411
Local time: 6:44 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paranoia21 wrote: | | I'm slightly confused. With everybody saying you can't define God, then what are you talking about when you enter an argument and mention God? You can't say "God doesn't exist" without even knowing the definition first... |
This is precisely what makes the God meme so fit. All monotheistic religions I know of pride themselves on God being an incomprehensible entity. For this blocks all rational inquiry into the God concept. How often have you asked a serious question, and been met with "God has his reasons, and we are not meant to understand them." Or take Rick Warren's book, The Purpose Driven Life. In it he says something to the effect of "people of God obey his word, even if it doesn't make sense." This satisfies most people. Most religious people are satisfied by this. Why did God make AIDS? Well, God has his reasons and he is surely more intelligent that you."
Its easy to see how this part of the God meme makes it so evolutionarily fit.
_________________
An artist sees beauty in a painting. I see beauty in a logical proof.
"All error is due to extraneous factors, reason itself does not err"
~Kurt Gödel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
