Some Questions Concerning Atheists.

[Deoz]

"Atheists lack a belief in God, they do not claim that a god does not exist.

Atheists are refuting beliefs or positions, not "refuting something that doesn't exist"

I quote this because I am not entirely shure if everyone would agree. So if atheists lack a belief in God, but do not claim a God doesn't exists then there is a possibility that a God may exist. Now sometimes some people go out of their way to argue that there is no God, or it may be the opposite and they're just responding. Now if atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God then what would be a proper name to label these individuals who argue that there is no God ?

[This message has been edited by Deoz (edited 02-21-2006).]

[Fundokiller]

Strong Atheists

[Rust]

Here's another quote of mine:

" A"weak"-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, yes. A strong atheist simply denies that one or more gods exist exist; though that is a less common position among atheists I would say.

Now, the reasons for why they lack a belief (or deny the possibility of a god existing) may vary. Many atheists take the agnostic approach, and lack a belief because they do not know; yet they could lack a belief for other reasons."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004998-2.html

Those who argue that there is no god would be "strong atheists".

In the statement you quote, I'm stating the position of the weak-atheist because that was the position being dealt with in that post.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

[Some Old Drunk Guy]

^rust basically ended the thread

"Strong Atheist" is the name for people who dont believe a god exists.

[hyroglyphx]

Athiests had to invent the terms, "Strong athiest" and "weak atheist" because they realized the implications for making such a claim. They should just be agnostics and be done with it.

[Rust]

As I already showed you, and you willfully refuse to accept, that's completely false and a very ignorant understanding of what "atheism" is/was.

The very etymology of "atheism" (i.e. From the Greek 'atheos' which means 'godless') suggests two possible results: Either the individual is godless because he lacks a belief in god (for whatever reason), or because he actively denies the possibility of gods existing; thus the two positions are completely inherent in the initial term.

[Digital_Savior]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Here's another quote of mine:

"A "weak"-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, yes.

Otherwise known as AGNOSTIC.

Small children. Labotomy patients. People with down syndrome.

quote:A strong atheist simply denies that one or more gods exist...

Otherwise known as ATHEIST.

Everyone else.

quote:Now, the reasons for why they lack a belief (or deny the possibility of a god existing) may vary. Many atheists take the agnostic approach, and lack a belief because they do not know; yet they could lack a belief for other reasons."

An agnostic claims he doesn't know, and therefore cannot assert whether there is or isn't a god(s). This is lack of belief out of ignorance. Truly, "weak" atheists are agnostic.

A "strong" atheist claims there is no proof of existence, and therefore he can assert that there IS NO DEITY. This is denial of existance out of ignorance.

Agnostics and atheist's are completely separate groups. Stop trying to soften the image of the traditional atheist.

quote:Those who argue that there is no god would be "strong atheists".

No, they are simply an "atheist".

Whether they argue or not, a person who says, "There is no god, God, deity, etc." is an atheist.

A person who says, "I do not know, therefore I believe nothing." is an agnostic.

As soon as a person hears about gods, God, deities, etc. (therefore gaining knowledge about the possibility of their existence), they begin the process of choosing to believe, or not believe.

If they choose not to believe, they are atheist.

If they choose to believe, they are [insert religion here].

This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad.

Admitting that you deny the existence of god(s), God, or deities based on nothing other than personal opinion makes your position weak, at best. You can never abide such a perception. Science does not validate your position, because it cannot prove that atheists are 100% correct. Atheists must rely on faith, just like everyone else does.

Also, you know damn well which kind of "atheist" Christians argue about. Why would we bother to argue about small children and people with down syndrome, who cannot believe in anything since they are incapable of making such decisions or processing that kind of information ?

Any time the designator "atheist" comes up, it is known (at least here on totse) that the sort of person being referred to is a "strong" atheist (I will use your over-complication here, just to make sure you follow).

Muddling it up with semantics ("Well, that's not REALLY an atheist because blah blah blah") only serves to detract from the original intent, which is to say that ATHEIST'S CHOOSE TO DISBELIEVE, though they have no concrete proof of non-existence !

Obviously, this doesn't apply to "weak" atheists.

You know this, every time this topic comes up.

[Rust]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Otherwise known as AGNOSTIC.

Small children. Labotomy patients. People with down syndrome.

...

An agnostic claims he doesn't know, and therefore cannot assert whether there is or isn't a god(s). This is lack of belief out of ignorance. Truly, "weak" atheists are agnostic.

A "strong" atheist claims there is no proof of existence, and therefore he can assert that there IS NO DEITY. This is denial of existance out of ignorance.

Agnostics and atheist's are completely separate groups. Stop trying to soften the image of the traditional atheist.

Incorrect.

An agnostic states that he does not know whether a god exists or not. A weak-atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. The two are not the same. One can lack a belief in a god for agnostic reasons, as well as other reasons. Thus the two are not synonymous at all; to say that they are is to say that one can only lack a belief in a god because of lack of knowledge in their existence/non-existence, which is false.

quote:No, they are simply an "atheist".

Whether they argue or not, a person who says, "There is no god, God, deity, etc." is an atheist.

A strong atheist.

quote:

A person who says, "I do not know, therefore I believe nothing." is an agnostic.

Wrong. He would be a weak-atheist who lacks a belief for agnostic reasons.

quote:

As soon as a person hears about gods, God, deities, etc. (therefore gaining knowledge about the possibility of their existence), they begin the process of choosing to believe, or not believe.

If they choose not to believe, they are atheist.

If they choose to believe, they are [insert religion here].

This is such a simple concept, that I cannot believe it is lost on you. You are choosing to purposely ignore the implications, because it makes you look bad.

Ridiculous. I'm not doing anything of the sort. Both definition of atheism, as well as it's etymology, are clear. You are the one who purposely ignore both of these in order to fulfill your ridiculous desires.

I stand behind my definition of atheism because that's exactly what the etymology suggests, and exactly what has been used in numerous philosophical discussions and texts for decades.

quote:

Admitting that you deny the existence of god(s), God, or deities based on nothing other than personal opinion makes your position weak, at best. You can never abide such a perception. Science does not validate your position, because it cannot prove that atheists are 100% correct. Atheists must rely on faith, just like everyone else does.

What an idiotic claim.

1. If atheism were what you claim it is, which it clearly is not, then I would then consider myself an agnostic, and thus absolutely nothing has changed save for fulfilling your childish penchant!

It is completely ludicrous to think that atheists don't want atheism associated with "faith" simply because they really really like the word "atheism" which is what you're suggesting.

2. Lacking a belief in a god does not require faith.

quote:

Also, you know damn well which kind of "atheist" Christians argue about. Why would we bother to argue about small children and people with down syndrome, who cannot believe in anything since they are incapable of making such decisions or processing that kind of information ?

Any time the designator "atheist" comes up, it is known (at least here on totse) that the sort of person being referred to is a "strong" atheist (I will use your over-complication here, just to make sure you follow).



Muddling it up with semantics ("Well, that's not REALLY an atheist because blah blah blah") only serves to detract from the original intent, which is to say that ATHEIST'S CHOOSE TO DISBELIEVE, though they have no concrete proof of non-existence !

Obviously, this doesn't apply to "weak" atheists.

You know this, every time this topic comes up.

Why?

1. I do not feel compelled to use your ignorant notation, a notation which does away with the very etymology, meaning and usage of the word "atheism"; especially not when it is the product of such a disgusting form of intellectual stupidty and apathy which apparently finds it too dificult to add the words "strong" or "weak" when using to a term.

2. Strong atheists are a minority among atheists, and thus the distinction serves to show how trivial and meaningless your objections truly are, when they are aimed at only a small percentage of atheists.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

[hyroglyphx]

So let me get this straight by sifting through the detritus of your verbal rantings:

You think that weak atheism, which was invented to stave off stupidity, is different from agnosticism?

Differentiate between the two for us...

a·the·ism:

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

The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

Godlessness; immorality.

ag·nos·tic:

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

The dictionary has no terminology for your invented theory of 'weak atheim' to support your assertion of etymology. So if the dictionary dosen't recognize weak atheism, why should we give any credence to you, speaking from an etymological view?

Just concede, you lost a long time ago....

[Digital_Savior]

*applauds*

Ah, moral relativism knows no bounds.

"WE HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP TO AVOID GUILT !"