¿The faith and denial of Strong Atheists?
Hu...@whytheabsurdity.???
of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
Christopher A. Lee
>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
No, moron.
It is the philosophical strength of their argument - which is only
made in response to theist assholes who can't live and let live.
>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
No, liar.
Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>exist,
What "faith that God does not exist" are you lying about, in-your-face
aggressively stupid moron?
> which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
Stop lying, serial liar who is too stupid to grasp that there is a
real world in which your religion is merely one of hundreds whose
tenets are only taken seriously by their believers.
Which word are you pretending you are too stupid to understand?
>I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
>about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
I'm curious what you imagine you achieve by coming here and lying
about atheists to our faces.
>person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
>instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
>God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
No, liar.
What part of THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION are you pretending
you don't understand?
>impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
>their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
>the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
>they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
Are you really, honestly this sociopathically stupid?
--
Agent 5 users can filter 90% of Usenet spam using
message-id: {google}
walksalone
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> . . .
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to
any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> . . .
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
> person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
Erm, no. Weak atheist myself, & a far as I can tell, gods do not exist,
so therfore I have no belief in either them or the probability that they
exist. Could I be wrong, based on the evidence at hand, no. Based on a
rip in the deminsional fabric, an alien that is so far advanced in
technology they may as well be gods. But are they gods? No, & when the
evidence does not support it, I can't believe it. When the evidence
changes, then I could believe, but until then, it's a form of mental
masturbation to pretend the question hjas any meaning to someone that
does believe in gods, or god, or the goddess.
> impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
But do they? I rather suspect that your posturing in the atheist
newsgroup is just that, posturing. You see, they may not believe, or
buhlllleeeeeeeve, but unlike the followers of the revealed gods of the
desert, in particular, they can change their minds when the evidence is
there. Until then, nbased on the lack of need or evidence, I concur with
their position, though I don't use it for myself.
IOW, considering the headers, Thou art a shithead out to stir the bucket.
Our troll quota is filled right now, so take a number & be seated.
Am I wrong, mayube. But probably not if you continue in this vein.
walksalone who is by far not the most knowledgable individual on the
planet. But I do know what atheism is, & it is not what buhlleevers
claim it is.
The funny thing, they are atheists as well, & are ashamed to admit it.
I can live with doubt and uncertainty. I think it's much
more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers
which might be wrong.
—richard P. Feynman
Sanity's Little Helper
If lies, calumnies and distortions of the language in which you are
expressing your thoughts is all you have, then who is the one with the
problem?
Here's a clue: Peas are not red, water will not burn you, the sun is
extremely hot. All the above are not matters of faith, any more than the
fact that there is no God, a fact easily extrapolated from the intrinsic
absurdity of the concept.
Provide a cogent explanation as to why the concept of God is not
intrinsically absurd, or shut the fuck up.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
http://dave-grumpygit.blogspot.com/
Not authentic without this signature.
L.Roberts
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> . . .
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
> person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
> impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
How do ass fucked religi-idiotic bastards like you get 'I believe that
there is not a god' from 'I do not believe that there is a god?' Just
curious.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
panam...@hotmail.com
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> . . .
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> exist,
snip
I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
aleprechaunists also want to deny their own faith that leprechauns do
not exist.
Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
important to me. If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
You believe something silly. I tell you it's silly, and I don't
believe you. That's all there is to it.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
pba...@worldonline.nl
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> . . .
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
> person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
> impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
Considering myself a strong Atheist I think I can explain.
I think that god(s) do not exist, because I have good reason to think
so.
The main reason is the absolute lack of verifyable evidence.
However I have no faith in this matter, and if evidence would be
forthcoming I would consider it. I do not expect evidnce to be
forthcoming, but I would consider it.
A second strong reason for thinking there is no god, is the fact, that
those who believe in one, all seem to be wrong. In the case of the
monotheistic God they claim he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent
and omnibenevolent,
Omniscience however is scientifcally impossible Omnispresence makes it
impossible to have a personality, and omnipotence and omnibenevolence
together create the problem of the origin of evil.
Furthermore the supposition of a god is not helpfull in either
scientific or moral debate.
Love,
Peter van Velzen
March 2009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Syd
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
Since you got it wrong in the first sentence of the first paragraph, I
have no need to read further.
<Snip usual BS>
PDW
John Baker
>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
Damn, Sport. You've shot down whatever slight trace of credibility you
may have had in your first sentence.
You're going to have to do better than this.
MarkA
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> _________________________________________________________
> . . .
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> . . .
I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
that no gods exist, based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
they would change that belief if new evidence became available. So, is a
"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
evidence?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Christopher A. Lee
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
What "chosen belief" was the imbecile pretending we had?
>> . . .
>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> . . .
>
>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>that no gods exist, based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>they would change that belief if new evidence became available. So, is a
>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>evidence?
It's the strength of the argument, not of some non-existant belief or
faith.
And it depends on what the theist says, that he is responding to.
Even strong atheism, is like "there are no ghosts".
But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
ed wolf
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct
> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
Funny how you see at the world through your Christian X-Ray-Specs:
To you Atheists come in different sects like RCC (weak) and
Pious Brotherhood (strong) , a great revelation thanks to Wiki.
I wonder in which subdivision I belong.
If it where not for people like you that need to be opposed for
their backwards attitude, I would not call myself an atheist.
I have nothing to do with any Theo.I don't even know which
gods I don't believe in. I would not define myself through
something I dont care about, like "a-SUV-driver" or
"Nonsmoker". I like the word "Vegetarian" They don't call
themselves "Acarnivors".
To me the proper word for an atheist is "homo sapiens".
why the absurdity indeed!
ed
I found this translation of a "Herr Keuner " story by the great
B.Brecht:
A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said:
“I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer,
your behavior would change. If it would not change, then
we can drop the question. If it would change, then I can
at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have
already decided: you need a God.”
Robibnikoff
<Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.???> wrote in message
news:hclsr45cc2gn75qj0...@4ax.com...
> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
Whatevah.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
raven1
>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>_________________________________________________________
>. . .
>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>. . .
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
Are you weak or strong in your belief that leprechauns don't exist?
Does it require faith? Why or why not?
dh
If that were the case it would be me, but since it's not the
case it's not me. That was so easy even a strong atheist should
have been able to figure it out.
>Here's a clue: Peas are not red, water will not burn you, the sun is
>extremely hot. All the above are not matters of faith,
The degree of faith you have in them being correct certainly
is a matter of faith.
>any more than the
>fact that there is no God,
This will be extremely difficult for you, but try to explain why
you want to deny your faith that the possibility God does not
exist is the correct possibility.
>a fact easily extrapolated from the intrinsic
>absurdity of the concept.
If you have faith that it's a fact, why are you so obviously ashamed
of your faith that it's a fact, do you have any idea at all? Can any
of you psycology or sociology people explain why these atheists are
in such absurd denial?
>Provide a cogent explanation as to why the concept of God is not
>intrinsically absurd, or shut the fuck up.
Since in the one star system we are somewhat slightly familiar with
we are aware of the existence of beings who are advanced to the
level that humans are, it seems more than likely that in some of the
other billions and billions of star systems there are gods associated
with them whether there are any associated with this one or not.
dh
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>
>>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>
>No
Yes that is "the" difference, as in the main difference
and possibly even the only one. Other than the particular
obvious difference you're absurdly trying to deny, what do
you think you want people to believe the main difference is,
do you have any idea about that?
>, moron.
>
>It is the philosophical strength of their argument
It is what they believe. Strong atheists believe God does
not exist. Weak atheists believe he might or might not but
don't have a true belief, meaning they would have to be
extra stupid to insult people for considering the possibility
of God's existence since they consider it themselves.
>- which is only
>made in response to theist assholes who can't live and let live.
LOL! Examining the absurd behaviors of other people
--INCLUDING that of strong atheists--is a fun part of life.
It may not be fun for those of you whose absurdity is
being examined, but it's fun to examine it and see how
much more absurd you can be than what I was already
amused by to begin with. Maybe the psyc people won't
want to tease and test your stifled little minds because
they think it would be unfair or something, but I think it's
good for you to at least have someone point out your
idiocy for you even if you never do learn to recognise
it or do anything to improve.
>>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>
>No,
In contrast to that: Yes.
>liar.
You poor fool, that was a definition quoted from Wikipedia.
>Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
>real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
to think about the topic are.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>>exist,
>
>What "faith that God does not exist"
All faith that God does not exist.
>are you lying about, in-your-face
>aggressively stupid moron?
>
>> which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>
>Stop lying,
If you want to lie that strong atheism is not faith that God
does not exist:
1. what do you want to lie that it is
and
2. how EXACTLY do you want to lie that strong atheism differs
from weak atheism?
>serial liar who is too stupid to grasp that there is a
>real world in which your religion is merely one of hundreds
That's exactly what strong atheism is: One of hundreds of
beliefs which is only taken seriously by those who put their
faith in it.
>whose tenets are only taken seriously by their believers.
>
>Which word are you pretending you are too stupid to understand?
Since I consider the possibility that God does not exist I do
consider the belief you put your faith in (and amusingly try to
deny for some as yet uneplained reason(s)), but only consider
it to be one of countless possibilities. It is most likely only taken
seriously by those of you who put your faith in it, IF you can be
considered to take seriously something that you also deny.
>>I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
>>about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
>
>I'm curious what you imagine you achieve by coming here and lying
>about atheists to our faces.
I'm asking psyc people if they can explain the reason(s)
for your absurd seeming denials, and sharing it with you in
case it can help you people out or in case one of you is able
to say something intelligent about the fact some day. Neither
are likely of course, but it's fun to see you try to deny it as you
prove it etc, and that means something too.
>>person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
>>instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
>>God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
>
>No, liar.
People who give the clear impression they disbelieve in God
do give the clear impression they disbelieve in God, even though
you apparently can't comprehend how that could be the case.
>What part of THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION are you pretending
>you don't understand?
I understand the possibility you shamefully put your faith in and
do consider it to be a possibility, but I consider it to be unlikely that
there are no gods in the universe and certainly don't put my faith
in the guess that there are none associated with this star system
as you apparently have done.
>>impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
>>their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
>>the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
>>they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>
>Are you really, honestly this sociopathically stupid?
I am ignorant as to why you are ashamed instead of proud of
what you have so very obviously chosen to put your faith in. It's
obvious to everyone you have put your faith in disbelief, so the
question arrises: Why are you so very ashamed of it? In fact, that
particular question is the topic of this particular thread.
dh
If you don't have a belief, then you must consider the possibility
that God does exist unless you're an idiot of some sort. Not having
a belief is weak atheism. Strong atheism is the BELIEF that God
does not exist, and some people even go so far as to believe that
no gods exist anywhere. That belief is idiotic enough on its own,
but then to make it even more retarded the people who clearly
disbelieve that there are any gods anywhere, almost always want
to deny their own belief. To them I guess there is nothing wrong
with completely contridicting themselves and blatantly dishonestly
denying something anyone can clearly see is true...in fact they
must feel such absurd dishonesty is the best approach to take
since they so often take it. And that is the topic of this thread:
WHY the dishonest denial? WHY the obvious shame?
dh
>On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> . . .
>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>> exist,
>
>snip
>
>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>aleprechaunists also want to deny their own faith that leprechauns do
>not exist.
It would be about as stupid as the atheists' denials. I have faith
that leprechauns don't exist, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. In
fact, I would be more ashamed if I didn't.
>Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
>important to me.
One important aspect of that is that it doesn't matter. We know
you can't consider the existence of God in a realistic way, but from
my pov that doesn't mean much of anything at all. The chair I'm in
can only do it about as well as you can't, but it doesn't hinder me.
>If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
>leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
>Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
>
>You believe something silly.
I don't have a belief. You do. I don't put faith in your belief. You are
obviously ashamed of your own belief. It's quite amusing to people who
don't share your faith. I can consider what little you can, and much more.
>I tell you it's silly,
Do you think it's silly to consider that there may be gods anywhere
in the universe, or only to think there could be any associated with
this galaxy, or star system, or planet or whatever?
dh
>On 16 mrt, 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> . . .
>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>> exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
>> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
>> person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
>> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
>> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
>> impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
>> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
>> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
>> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>
>Considering myself a strong Atheist I think I can explain.
Good luck.
>I think that god(s) do not exist, because I have good reason to think
>so.
>The main reason is the absolute lack of verifyable evidence.
>However I have no faith in this matter,
"I have faith in my conviction that Atheism is right."
- Peter van Velzen
>and if evidence would be forthcoming I would consider it.
Apparently not since you don't consider any evidence of
God's existence, it seems unlikely that you "would" since you
do not.
>I do not expect evidnce to be forthcoming,
If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he can't
go around proving his existence to people.
>but I would consider it.
>
>A second strong reason for thinking there is no god, is the fact, that
>those who believe in one, all seem to be wrong. In the case of the
>monotheistic God they claim he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent
>and omnibenevolent,
>Omniscience however is scientifcally impossible Omnispresence makes it
>impossible to have a personality, and omnipotence and omnibenevolence
>together create the problem of the origin of evil.
Since I take it for granted that everyone has incorrect beliefs
about God whether he exists or not, I'm certainly not going to
put faith in the possibility that he doesn't exist just because people
have incorrect beliefs about him. In fact, I try not to let stuff like
that have any more impact on my thinking than to be amused
by the absurdity.
>Furthermore the supposition of a god is not helpfull in either
>scientific or moral debate.
That's one of the ways things would change if God were to
prove his existence.
dh
>On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> _________________________________________________________
>
>
>Since you got it wrong
Wrong.
dh
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>
>>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>
>
>Damn, Sport. You've shot down whatever slight trace of credibility you
>may have had in your first sentence.
dh
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> _________________________________________________________
>> . . .
>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> . . .
>
>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>that no gods exist,
Those are different ideas, the former being that of weak atheists and
the latter that of strong atheists. The latter requires whatever degree of
faith a person has that his or her belief is the correct one.
>based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>they would change that belief if new evidence became available.
1. What new evidence do you think theists have been exposed to
that has not changed their beliefs?
2. Since atheists can't recognise *any* evidence of God's existence,
what would make anyone believe they would recognise some "new"
evidence if it came along?
>So, is a
>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>evidence?
A strong atheist is a person who puts his faith in the possibility that
God does not exist. Amusingly, in a most pathetic way, most such people
also appear to be extremely ashamed of their own faith to the point of
absurdly trying to deny it. The point of this thread is to question what it is
that causes such absurd behavior, and what if anything a person could
hope to gain by such dishonest and seemingly pointless denial.
dh
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:53:19 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>
>What "chosen belief" was the imbecile pretending we had?
>
>>> . . .
>>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>> . . .
>>
>>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>>that no gods exist, based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>>they would change that belief if new evidence became available. So, is a
>>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>>evidence?
>
>It's the strength of the argument,
It is not, you ignorant fool.
>not of some non-existant belief or faith.
The beliefs and faiths are what the terms describe you poor mutt,
not the supposed strength of someone's argument. That idea is idiotic
and you can't support it with anything other than your own hollow claims.
>And it depends on what the theist says, that he is responding to.
In contrast to that: It has nothing to do with anything any theist
has to say.
>Even strong atheism, is like "there are no ghosts".
I've known a strong atheist who even though he disbelieved in
the possibility of God's existence, he still felt that there is life after
death. Truly idiotic, imo.
>But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
From my pov it's good that you can't get them to believe your
lies and completely idiotic interpretations of how things really are.
You obviously are clueless about the difference between strong
and weak atheism, and it's good when people disbelieve things
you are so wrong about.
dh
>On 16 Mrz., 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct
>> . . .
>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>
>Funny how you see at the world through your Christian X-Ray-Specs:
The definition is from Wikipedia you poor ignoramus.
>To you Atheists come in different sects
To people who write accepted reference materials there are
different types of atheists, and I believe them instead of the fools
who absurdly insist there are not.
>like RCC (weak) and
>Pious Brotherhood (strong) , a great revelation thanks to Wiki.
>I wonder in which subdivision I belong.
Judging by your inability to comprehend what you've been trying
to talk about so far, I'm guessing you're another strong atheist who
is ashamed of your own faith and therefore in denial about it.
>If it where not for people like you that need to be opposed for
>their backwards attitude, I would not call myself an atheist.
The very idea of that is lame, no doubt.
>I have nothing to do with any Theo.I don't even know which
>gods I don't believe in.
That much is probably true. Strong atheists are necessarily
the most ignorant and clueless people on Earth regarding the
possibility of God's existence.
>I would not define myself through
>something I dont care about, like "a-SUV-driver" or
>"Nonsmoker". I like the word "Vegetarian"
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>They don't call
>themselves "Acarnivors".
>To me the proper word for an atheist is "homo sapiens".
What an absurd idea.
>why the absurdity indeed!
>ed
Yes: WHY??? As yet no one has been able to answer, but
maybe some day, maybe...probably not, but maybe...
>I found this translation of a "Herr Keuner " story by the great
>B.Brecht:
>A man asked Mr. K. whether there is a God. Mr. K. said:
>“I advise you to consider whether, depending on the answer,
>your behavior would change.
You act as if you like the story, yet you almost certainly can't
appreciate that if God exists he most likely doesn't prove his
existence because it would change everything if he did.
>If it would not change, then
>we can drop the question. If it would change,
Yours and most certainly your beliefs would change if God
proved his existence to you, yet when applied to yourself you
can't appreciate such things.
>then I can
>at least be of help to the extent that I can say, you have
>already decided: you need a God.”
Do you think he denied his own disbelief too, or do you
think he was one of the extremely few who are not too
ashamed to acknowledge it?
dh
>
><Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.???> wrote in message
>news:hclsr45cc2gn75qj0...@4ax.com...
>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>
>Whatevah.
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Dear d..@
Sorry, but I do not understand you, what evidence of God's existence?
I did not know that any real evidence existed. I only knonw of some
hearsay, bubt without any objective facts to support that hearsay I
have thusfar dismissed it (as hearsay).
The possibility that their is a God that does not want me to believe
in him/her is indeed a triffle greater than the possibility that one
exists who does. But it is still to small to take it serious. But
indeed: If there were a god, I would probably comply to it's will by
not believing in it! So Pascal's wager apparently supports Atheism!
Virgil
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:50:28 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
> >
> >>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> >
> >No
>
> Yes that is "the" difference, as in the main difference
> and possibly even the only one. Other than the particular
> obvious difference you're absurdly trying to deny, what do
> you think you want people to believe the main difference is,
> do you have any idea about that?
>
> >, moron.
> >
> >It is the philosophical strength of their argument
>
> It is what they believe. Strong atheists believe God does
> not exist. Weak atheists believe he might or might not but
> don't have a true belief, meaning they would have to be
> extra stupid to insult people for considering the possibility
> of God's existence since they consider it themselves.
It is is not so much the mere possibility as the "necessity" usually
claimed by theists, claimed by them that agnostics reject, particularly
creationists (now hiding under the alias of "intelligent design").
Among other things, why do theists almost always refer to their notion
of god as "HE" rather than "SHE"?
>
> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>
> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
> to think about the topic are.
If either "side" is unrealistic and childish, they both are equally so,
as both claim certainty without sufficient evidence to support certainty.
panam...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> . . .
> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
> >> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> >> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> >> exist,
>
> >snip
>
> >I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> >aleprechaunists also want to deny their own faith that leprechauns do
> >not exist.
>
> It would be about as stupid as the atheists' denials.
One can not "deny" something not proven to exist. Or do you "deny"
fizzits?
> I have faith
> that leprechauns don't exist, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. In
> fact, I would be more ashamed if I didn't.
That's because you're not very bright.
I suspect you're playing semantic games with the word "faith" here.
And you're still making the same basic mistake in this reply that
you've done in the original post...you misunderstand the difference
between caring if something exists, and simply not placing any
creedence upon it.
> >Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
> >important to me.
>
> One important aspect of that is that it doesn't matter. We know
> you can't consider the existence of God in a realistic way, but from
> my pov that doesn't mean much of anything at all. The chair I'm in
> can only do it about as well as you can't, but it doesn't hinder me.
>
> >If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
> >leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
> >Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
>
> >You believe something silly.
>
> I don't have a belief. You do.
Beg pardon? Repeating this lie will not make it true.
> I don't put faith in your belief. You are
> obviously ashamed of your own belief.
Except for the part about not having one, of course.
> It's quite amusing to people who
> don't share your faith. I can consider what little you can, and much more.
About what? The nature (no pun intended) of the "supernatural"? To me,
excrement is excrement, and there is no need to brag about how great a
volume of it one can `consider'. It's better left in the toilet where
it belongs.
> >I tell you it's silly,
>
> Do you think it's silly to consider that there may be gods anywhere
> in the universe,
Given the complete lack of evidence for such creatures, and humanity's
penchant for telling fanciful stories, yes. Absolutely silly.
> or only to think there could be any associated with
> this galaxy, or star system, or planet or whatever?
Location is irrelevant, when dealing with figments of the human
imagination.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Virgil
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT), ed wolf <eduar...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
...
> >To me the proper word for an atheist is "homo sapiens".
>
> What an absurd idea.
A good deal less absurd than the theist idea that any human can know
which of the many versions of godliness is any more likely than the
others.
ed wolf
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT), ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >On 16 Mrz., 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct
> >> . . .
> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>
> >Funny how you see at the world through your Christian X-Ray-Specs:
>
> The definition is from Wikipedia you poor ignoramus.
> >To you Atheists come in different sects
>
> To people who write accepted reference materials there are
> different types of atheists, and I believe them instead of the fools
> who absurdly insist there are not.
>
> >like RCC (weak) and
> >Pious Brotherhood (strong) , a great revelation thanks to Wiki.
> >I wonder in which subdivision I belong.
Imagine, unlike you I don't have to look up in wiki what atheism
means.
It is almost impossible for a religious mind to understand atheism.
People like you seem to think it is like the opposite of your
believe,
or against it. In fact it has nothing to do with it at all. To me,
gods are a
silly and unnecessary construct, like hollow earth, or alien
ancestors.
Its nothing I worry about.
> Judging by your inability to comprehend what you've been trying
> to talk about so far, I'm guessing you're another strong atheist who
> is ashamed of your own faith and therefore in denial about it.
Does your crystal ball also tell you I'm laughing about you?
> >If it where not for people like you that need to be opposed for
> >their backwards attitude, I would not call myself an atheist.
>
> The very idea of that is lame, no doubt.
lack of content noted
> >I have nothing to do with any Theo.I don't even know which
> >gods I don't believe in.
>
> That much is probably true. Strong atheists are necessarily
> the most ignorant and clueless people on Earth regarding the
> possibility of God's existence.
I wonder how many gods you don't believe in, with me it is just n+1.
> >I would not define myself through
> >something I dont care about, like "a-SUV-driver" or
> >"Nonsmoker". I like the word "Vegetarian"
snip anti vegan rant. I said vegetarian, obviously to
point out I envy the nice word they coined.
Try reading for comprehension while I eat my schnitzels.
> >They don't call
> >themselves "Acarnivors".
> >To me the proper word for an atheist is "homo sapiens".
>
> What an absurd idea.
I suggest HS, because it means wise or thinking as
opposed to believing.
Only joking, homo sapiens and homo pew are one
species, of course.
> >why the absurdity indeed!
> >ed
>
> Yes: WHY??? As yet no one has been able to answer, but
> maybe some day, maybe...probably not, but maybe...
just make sure you are listening, then, and not just preparing an
exited reply.
>(snip)
Don´t worry. Brecht goes right over your head,
but you would not like him anyway.
Ex Catholic, atheist, poet, communist, not your sort of guy.
Maybe Wiki tells you what you should think about him.
ed
Sanity's Little Helper
Thanks for what is effectively nothing in response to my request.
Cognitive psychology gives us great insights into the nature of
consciousness, all of which concur with what is revealed by neuroscience.
One concrete and indivisible fact emerges from these two disciplines:
material existence is a _pre-requisite_ of anything that can be accurately
defined as consciousness. This is also intuitively and trivially obvious
from personal witness and common experience of all living human beings.
What we can only honestly conclude from all of this is that there is zero
possibility that any gods exist.
Get it? No? Then you're way out of your depth.
--
David Silverman
aa #2208
Defender of Civilisation
http://dave-grumpygit.blogspot.com/
Not authentic without this signature.
MarkA
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:53:19 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>>> _________________________________________________________
>>> . . .
>>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>> . . .
>>
>>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>>that no gods exist,
>
> Those are different ideas, the former being that of weak atheists and
> the latter that of strong atheists. The latter requires whatever degree of
> faith a person has that his or her belief is the correct one.
>
>>based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>>they would change that belief if new evidence became available.
>
> 1. What new evidence do you think theists have been exposed to
> that has not changed their beliefs?
See below.
>
> 2. Since atheists can't recognise *any* evidence of God's existence,
> what would make anyone believe they would recognise some "new"
> evidence if it came along?
So far, there has been no evidence of God's existence. If some evidence
were to appear that strongly points to the activity of a superpowerful,
intelligent being, many atheists that I know (myself among them), would
tentatively accept that it *could* be a god, versus a technologically
advanced civilization.
>
>>So, is a
>>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>>evidence?
>
> A strong atheist is a person who puts his faith in the possibility
> that
> God does not exist.
If you believe that it is not possible that God does not exist, you are
immune to being convinced by evidence (see your first question). I would
not consider it to be a matter of "faith" that one recognize a possibility
about which one does not have complete knowledge.
> Amusingly, in a most pathetic way, most such people
> also appear to be extremely ashamed of their own faith to the point of
> absurdly trying to deny it. The point of this thread is to question what
> it is that causes such absurd behavior, and what if anything a person
> could hope to gain by such dishonest and seemingly pointless denial.
You have yet to demonstrate that such "absurd behavior" exists outside of
your own imagination.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
MarkA
Apparently, you have never heard of Buddhism. There are several millions
of them in the world. You may want to start learning new ideas someday.
>
>>But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
>
> From my pov it's good that you can't get them to believe your
> lies and completely idiotic interpretations of how things really are.
> You obviously are clueless about the difference between strong and weak
> atheism, and it's good when people disbelieve things you are so wrong
> about.
It is obvious from this paragraph that you are not open to the possibility
that someone besides you can have valid reasons for their beliefs.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:28:09 -0200, dh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:01:13 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:53:19 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>>>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>>>
>>>What "chosen belief" was the imbecile pretending we had?
>>>
>>>>> . . .
>>>>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>>>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>>>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>>>>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>>>>that no gods exist, based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>>>>they would change that belief if new evidence became available. So, is a
>>>>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>>>>evidence?
>>>
>>>It's the strength of the argument,
>>
>> It is not, you ignorant fool.
The only inoratnt fool is the personally theist who has no grasp of
the world beyond his religion, who invents positions we don't have
based on presumptions that don't even apply outside h is religion.
So he repeats his lies about atheists, to atheists.
>>>not of some non-existant belief or faith.
>>
>> The beliefs and faiths are what the terms describe you poor mutt,
What "beliefs and faiths" was the liar lying about atheists having?
>> not the supposed strength of someone's argument. That idea is idiotic
>> and you can't support it with anything other than your own hollow claims.
Hardly, liar.
I suggest you read any book on atheism written by atheists.
But you won't because you arrogantly and nastily imagine you know what
it means to be atheist better than we do ourselves. And worse that you
imagine you get to tell us what our own POV is.
>>>And it depends on what the theist says, that he is responding to.
>>
>> In contrast to that: It has nothing to do with anything any theist
>> has to say.
A liar as well as an idiot.
If the nionsense you wipe in our faces is self-contradicting then it
reduces to zero.
As the abstract logic exercise that you have made it.
Which is over and above the fact that it is merely somebody else's
religious belief that we wouldn't give a shit sbout if you kept it to
yourselves.
>>>Even strong atheism, is like "there are no ghosts".
>>
>> I've known a strong atheist who even though he disbelieved in
>> the possibility of God's existence, he still felt that there is life after
>> death. Truly idiotic, imo.
Common in countries like India where it is a cultural belief separate
from their theistic beliefs.
>Apparently, you have never heard of Buddhism. There are several millions
>of them in the world. You may want to start learning new ideas someday.
Or any of the Astika schools of Hinduism. Jains don't have gods and
are therfore atheistic. They do however believe in reincarnation,
which is why they are vegetarian.
>>>But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
>>
>> From my pov it's good that you can't get them to believe your
>> lies and completely idiotic interpretations of how things really are.
What "lies", liar?
What "completely wrong interpretation", liar?
And you are the one so out of touch with reality that you don't know
how things really are - including the fact that to non-Christians,
Christianity and its beliefs are merely "somebody else's religion".
It's this last bit that tells us what a sociopathic idiot you and so
many other ignorant believers are.
>> You obviously are clueless about the difference between strong and weak
>> atheism,
You obviously are a persistant, arrogantly nasty in-your-face liar.
I've been an atheist all my life (more than sixty years) and have met
more varieties of atheist than you have brain cells in what passes for
your mind.
>> and it's good when people disbelieve things you are so wrong
>> about.
What am I supposed to be so wrong about, in-your-face liar?
>It is obvious from this paragraph that you are not open to the possibility
>that someone besides you can have valid reasons for their beliefs.
It is obvious that you are a functional illiterate
amateur-psychologising those who know better than you do, to come up
with even nastier personal falsehoods.
Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
Sorry Mark, this last was meant for the previous poster, not you.
L.Roberts
Dumbshit, the reason I don't have a god belief (and especially not
your 'God') is because I did consider it (raised pentalcuntalist) and
found no reason to believe.
Ya know, I might come to within a red pubic hair shaved off of a
barely legal young nymphette to believing that the moon is made of
green cheese, but I don't really feel that I can say, "Yes, I
believe!" So, short of that, I am not a believer in that the moon is
made of green cheese.
>Not having
> a belief is weak atheism. Strong atheism is the BELIEF that God
> does not exist, and some people even go so far as to believe that
> no gods exist anywhere.
Of all the stupid god stories I've heard, yours is the stupidest. No
wonder it gets scoffed at so hard.
> That belief is idiotic enough on its own,
> but then to make it even more retarded the people who clearly
> disbelieve that there are any gods anywhere, almost always want
> to deny their own belief. To them I guess there is nothing wrong
> with completely contridicting themselves and blatantly dishonestly
> denying something anyone can clearly see is true...in fact they
> must feel such absurd dishonesty is the best approach to take
> since they so often take it. And that is the topic of this thread:
> WHY the dishonest denial? WHY the obvious shame?
The argument of the 'strong atheist' against the existance of a god is
a far more sensible a take to take than the one taken by you ass-
fucked religi-idiotic wingnuts, but I will own that if anyone makes
such a claim they can be said to 'believe' what they say and should
own it. But who are you talking about? A fellow theist misrepresenting
himself to get attention from his fellows? Got any names, evidence?
And how do ass-fucked religi-idiotic wingnuts like you figure that a
person can choose what to believe and what not to believe? I can still
hears jackasses like you saying, No, I don't really believe, but mommy
says I should, so, I choose to believe, and am therefor a believer.
Your a bunch of fucking wingnuts is what you are. Not that that is a
bad thing, kept amongst yourselves, that is.
L.Roberts
aa # 2258
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dh
>In article <pkivr49ailp76benf...@4ax.com>, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:50:28 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >
>> >>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >
>> >No
>>
>> Yes that is "the" difference, as in the main difference
>> and possibly even the only one. Other than the particular
>> obvious difference you're absurdly trying to deny, what do
>> you think you want people to believe the main difference is,
>> do you have any idea about that?
>>
>> >, moron.
>> >
>> >It is the philosophical strength of their argument
>>
>> It is what they believe. Strong atheists believe God does
>> not exist. Weak atheists believe he might or might not but
>> don't have a true belief, meaning they would have to be
>> extra stupid to insult people for considering the possibility
>> of God's existence since they consider it themselves.
>
>It is is not so much the mere possibility as the "necessity"
That doesn't make a bit of sense if you think it through,
since even if God does exist it seems pretty clear that at
some point life would have had to develop from lifelessness
*without* the necessity of a god to begin it.
>usually
>claimed by theists, claimed by them that agnostics reject, particularly
>creationists (now hiding under the alias of "intelligent design").
If God exists it's also pretty clear that he made use of the
evolutionary method of creation/development.
>Among other things, why do theists almost always refer to their notion
>of god as "HE" rather than "SHE"?
Because they're encouraged to by canonical books, and if
God does exist that's most likely because it's the way he would
rather people refer to him. I don't believe he would be restricted
to any particular form or gender, but refer to God as he out of
convenience and also because if he exists it seems pretty clear
that's how he would like to be referred to better than "they", "she",
or "it".
>> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
>> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>>
>> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
>> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
>> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
>> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
>> to think about the topic are.
>
>If either "side" is unrealistic and childish, they both are equally so,
>as both claim certainty without sufficient evidence to support certainty.
I don't claim certainty, since I don't have anything to be certain
about. A person can know if God does exist if God lets him/her
know about it, but a person can not know if God does not exist.
There's no way they could find out, or even make an educated
guess. They can *only* make a clueless guess, and then put their
faith in it. Could that be why they're so ashamed of their faith? That's
what this thread is trying to find out.
dh
It's nothing to you but only because you can't comprehend the
significance of what I pointed out.
>Cognitive psychology gives us great insights into the nature of
>consciousness, all of which concur with what is revealed by neuroscience.
>One concrete and indivisible fact emerges from these two disciplines:
>material existence is a _pre-requisite_ of anything that can be accurately
>defined as consciousness. This is also intuitively and trivially obvious
>from personal witness and common experience of all living human beings.
>What we can only honestly conclude from all of this is that there is zero
>possibility that any gods exist.
LOL!!! Just the fact that we can do what we're doing shows it's more
likely than not that gods DO exist.
>Get it? No? Then you're way out of your depth.
That of course is how I feel about you. It's also more likely in your
case, since you're a person who can't think realistically about the
possibility of God's existence and I can. You're kinda' sorta' trying to
discuss a concept you can't truly comprehend, with someone who
can and does.
dh
>On Mar 17, 12:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> . . .
>> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> >> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>> >> exist,
>>
>> >snip
>>
>> >I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> >aleprechaunists also want to deny their own faith that leprechauns do
>> >not exist.
>>
>> It would be about as stupid as the atheists' denials.
>
>One can not "deny" something not proven to exist.
They deny their faith.
>Or do you "deny"
>fizzits?
>
>> I have faith
>> that leprechauns don't exist, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. In
>> fact, I would be more ashamed if I didn't.
>
>That's because you're not very bright.
If you think you can give me reason to abandon my faith then
you would have to give me reason to consider that they might exist.
>I suspect you're playing semantic games with the word "faith" here.
The amount of faith you have is the degree of confidence
you have that you're right about something.
>And you're still making the same basic mistake in this reply that
>you've done in the original post...you misunderstand the difference
>between caring if something exists, and simply not placing any
>creedence upon it.
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
>> >important to me.
>>
>> One important aspect of that is that it doesn't matter. We know
>> you can't consider the existence of God in a realistic way, but from
>> my pov that doesn't mean much of anything at all. The chair I'm in
>> can only do it about as well as you can't, but it doesn't hinder me.
>>
>> >If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
>> >leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
>> >Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
>>
>> >You believe something silly.
>>
>> I don't have a belief. You do.
>
>Beg pardon? Repeating this lie will not make it true.
>
>> I don't put faith in your belief. You are
>> obviously ashamed of your own belief.
>
>Except for the part about not having one, of course.
So do you feel that all you're doing is insulting me for
doing a better job of considering something you also try
to consider but really really suck at?
>> It's quite amusing to people who
>> don't share your faith. I can consider what little you can, and much more.
>
>About what? The nature (no pun intended) of the "supernatural"? To me,
>excrement is excrement, and there is no need to brag about how great a
>volume of it one can `consider'.
To me nothing is supernatural, so if God exists he's not
supernatural. Just that alone gives me a lot more room to
consider possibilities than you appear to have. You have
very little room, and are ashamed of what you believe.
>It's better left in the toilet where it belongs.
Yet earlier you acted like you were trying to pretend you
don't have a belief, and now you clearly indicate that you
certainly do have a belief. Why do you people do that?
That is the question this thread is based on: Why do you
deny your obvious belief?
>> >I tell you it's silly,
>>
>> Do you think it's silly to consider that there may be gods anywhere
>> in the universe,
>
>Given the complete lack of evidence for such creatures,
LOL! For one thing humans are evidence that superior
beings could very well be gods, and for another thing
humans can't even attempt to tell whether or not there is
any life in even the closest star systems to us.
>and humanity's penchant for telling fanciful stories, yes.
If you had a point there then it would be significant to
everything, which it is not just as it's not significant to this.
>Absolutely silly.
But if it's silly to consider then why are you so ashamed
of your disbelief, do you have any idea? THAT is the
question of this thread.
>> or only to think there could be any associated with
>> this galaxy, or star system, or planet or whatever?
>
>Location is irrelevant, when dealing with figments of the human
>imagination.
You certainly don't appear able to think about any part
of this in a realistic way.
dh
Humans and what they are capable of.
>I did not know that any real evidence existed.
What we're doing is evidence.
>I only knonw of some
>hearsay, bubt without any objective facts to support that hearsay I
>have thusfar dismissed it (as hearsay).
You were not ashamed of your faith at one point in
time. Are you ashamed now, or can you admit it?
>The possibility that their is a God that does not want me to believe
>in him/her is indeed a triffle greater than the possibility that one
>exists who does.
How about one who doesn't really care whether you do
or not?
>But it is still to small to take it serious. But
>indeed: If there were a god, I would probably comply to it's will by
>not believing in it!
If there is a God you are probably complying to Satan's
will by not believing in it. That much does make sense.
What doesn't make sense is that you want to deny it.
Why would you want to deny that?
>So Pascal's wager apparently supports Atheism!
It doesn't mean anything whether it does or not.
Sanity's Little Helper
It was word salad.
>>Cognitive psychology gives us great insights into the nature of
>>consciousness, all of which concur with what is revealed by neuroscience.
>>One concrete and indivisible fact emerges from these two disciplines:
>>material existence is a _pre-requisite_ of anything that can be accurately
>>defined as consciousness. This is also intuitively and trivially obvious
>>from personal witness and common experience of all living human beings.
>>What we can only honestly conclude from all of this is that there is zero
>>possibility that any gods exist.
>
> LOL!!! Just the fact that we can do what we're doing shows it's more
> likely than not that gods DO exist.
>
How? (I know I'm asking for more word salad. Can I have Caesar dressing
this time?).
>>Get it? No? Then you're way out of your depth.
>
> That of course is how I feel about you. It's also more likely in your
> case, since you're a person who can't think realistically about the
> possibility of God's existence and I can. You're kinda' sorta' trying to
> discuss a concept you can't truly comprehend, with someone who
> can and does.
I did think about God's existence at some length when I was a teenager,
then I got better - spontaneously and without medication. Intellectual
discipline and the ability to dissociate fact from viewpoint cured me.
dh
>On 17 Mrz., 17:32, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:17:58 -0700 (PDT), ed wolf <eduartw...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> >On 16 Mrz., 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct
>> >> . . .
>> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>
>> >Funny how you see at the world through your Christian X-Ray-Specs:
>>
>> The definition is from Wikipedia you poor ignoramus.
>
>> >To you Atheists come in different sects
>>
>> To people who write accepted reference materials there are
>> different types of atheists, and I believe them instead of the fools
>> who absurdly insist there are not.
>>
>> >like RCC (weak) and
>> >Pious Brotherhood (strong) , a great revelation thanks to Wiki.
>> >I wonder in which subdivision I belong.
>
>Imagine, unlike you I don't have to look up in wiki what atheism
>means.
LOL! We see people make up bullshit around here frequently,
so we don't have to imagine it.
>It is almost impossible for a religious mind to understand atheism.
>People like you seem to think it is like the opposite of your
>believe,
>or against it. In fact it has nothing to do with it at all.
You don't even seem able to comprehend that there are
different typse of atheism. There are different types of
agnosticism too.
>To me,
>gods are a
>silly and unnecessary construct, like hollow earth, or alien
>ancestors.
>Its nothing I worry about.
>
>> Judging by your inability to comprehend what you've been trying
>> to talk about so far, I'm guessing you're another strong atheist who
>> is ashamed of your own faith and therefore in denial about it.
>
>Does your crystal ball also tell you I'm laughing about you?
LOL!!! My monitor sure lets me laugh at you.
>> >If it where not for people like you that need to be opposed for
>> >their backwards attitude, I would not call myself an atheist.
>>
>> The very idea of that is lame, no doubt.
>
>lack of content noted
I was responding to a lack of content.
>> >I have nothing to do with any Theo.I don't even know which
>> >gods I don't believe in.
>>
>> That much is probably true. Strong atheists are necessarily
>> the most ignorant and clueless people on Earth regarding the
>> possibility of God's existence.
>
>I wonder how many gods you don't believe in,
I don't believe in any, but consider the possibility of many.
>with me it is just n+1.
>
>> >I would not define myself through
>> >something I dont care about, like "a-SUV-driver" or
>> >"Nonsmoker". I like the word "Vegetarian"
>
>snip anti vegan rant. I said vegetarian, obviously to
>point out I envy the nice word they coined.
Do you like the fact that they use the gross misnomer
"animal rights" to refer to their objective to eliminate
domestic animals too?
dh
They are both about the same.
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Dear d..@
What are we doing and what is it evidence of ?
Certainly evidence of our humanity, What else ?
As for the probaility of a God that doesn't care wether we believe in
him or not.
This woul be higher than the possibiliy of a god that does not want us
to believe in him, and lower than a that of a god that does want us to
believe in him, as he might offer proof of his existence accidentily,
bot not nescessarily
As for Satan. The word means ádversary. The chances of an adversary
are slimmer still, as god without an adversaty is possible, but the
adversary has to have someone to whom he is opposed.
So, as I already do not believe there is a fod, i certainlyI do not
think there is a Satan. By the way Satan is supposed to be less mighty
than god, so as fo messing with the evidence, he woulf has less
possibilies also, I presumr.
So if he existed he would probably only be able to write a book or so,
hardly able to create or destroy real objective evidence. . . .
Yap
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:50:28 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>
> >>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>
>
> Yes that is "the" difference, as in the main difference
> and possibly even the only one. Other than the particular
> obvious difference you're absurdly trying to deny, what do
> you think you want people to believe the main difference is,
Why do you have to lie about "no god" being a faith?
The very basis of "no god" is simply there is none being shown to
exist....by any one, any party, any organization, any government, any
pope, or any of you !
>
> >, moron.
>
> >It is the philosophical strength of their argument
>
> It is what they believe. Strong atheists believe God does
> not exist. Weak atheists believe he might or might not but
> don't have a true belief, meaning they would have to be
> extra stupid to insult people for considering the possibility
> of God's existence since they consider it themselves.
before mankind ?
There is none but you are banking on bible as the evidence since it
lied about the the existence of god.
However, you fail to dispute our contention that bible is a collection
of ancient fairy tales....which even yourself can reasonably and by
using common sense logic, tell yourself that all the tales were all
made up by ancient human living in the Middle-eastern region.
>
> >- which is only
> >made in response to theist assholes who can't live and let live.
>
> LOL! Examining the absurd behaviors of other people
> --INCLUDING that of strong atheists--is a fun part of life.
> It may not be fun for those of you whose absurdity is
> being examined, but it's fun to examine it and see how
> much more absurd you can be than what I was already
> amused by to begin with. Maybe the psyc people won't
> want to tease and test your stifled little minds because
> they think it would be unfair or something, but I think it's
> good for you to at least have someone point out your
> idiocy for you even if you never do learn to recognise
> it or do anything to improve.
Amuse as much as you want.
For if the pope has his way, he can condemn you to hell...even if he
knows there is no hell. He can play on your fear.
Luckily, sane society has confined him to his throne in his little
world, somewhere in Italy, right?
However, there is some success somewhere....the world of Christian
believers do donate vast amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....each year for
nothing.
>
> >>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>
> >No,
>
> In contrast to that: Yes.
No, we never draw a line. You don have any authority to do it, idiot.
>
> >liar.
>
> You poor fool, that was a definition quoted from Wikipedia.
>
> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>
> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
> to think about the topic are.
What guess? You mean we are guessing every day that is the sun going
to come out?
This is a physical world where things exist, system exist, materials
exists, events happened.....and we have solid, solid proof for them.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
> >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> >>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> >>exist,
>
> >What "faith that God does not exist"
>
> All faith that God does not exist.
>
> >are you lying about, in-your-face
> >aggressively stupid moron?
>
> >> which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>
> >Stop lying,
>
> If you want to lie that strong atheism is not faith that God
> does not exist:
What faith? God does not exist is not a faith...it is a fact.
>
> 1. what do you want to lie that it is
>
> and
>
> 2. how EXACTLY do you want to lie that strong atheism differs
> from weak atheism?
Don't need a person like you to draw the line....
May be to be clearer, atheist is the only term and there is no strong
and weak. All atheists are strong.
If you do need for a weak one, then it could be agnostic, OK?
>
> >serial liar who is too stupid to grasp that there is a
> >real world in which your religion is merely one of hundreds
>
> That's exactly what strong atheism is: One of hundreds of
> beliefs which is only taken seriously by those who put their
> faith in it.
Wish to be nasty by inserting and twisting words?
>
> >whose tenets are only taken seriously by their believers.
>
> >Which word are you pretending you are too stupid to understand?
>
> Since I consider the possibility that God does not exist I do
> consider the belief you put your faith in (and amusingly try to
> deny for some as yet uneplained reason(s)), but only consider
> it to be one of countless possibilities. It is most likely only taken
> seriously by those of you who put your faith in it, IF you can be
> considered to take seriously something that you also deny.
Its already know for a long time that you are just a believer of your
god, since you are quite capable to spew quotes from your bible.
May be you are influenced by the mormons that your god is out there
somewhere in the far away planet.
>
> >>I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
> >>about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
>
> >I'm curious what you imagine you achieve by coming here and lying
> >about atheists to our faces.
>
> I'm asking psyc people if they can explain the reason(s)
> for your absurd seeming denials, and sharing it with you in
> case it can help you people out or in case one of you is able
> to say something intelligent about the fact some day. Neither
> are likely of course, but it's fun to see you try to deny it as you
> prove it etc, and that means something too.
Denying what? What fact? Spell out clearly.
>
> >>person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
> >>instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
> >>God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
>
> >No, liar.
>
> People who give the clear impression they disbelieve in God
> do give the clear impression they disbelieve in God, even though
> you apparently can't comprehend how that could be the case.
Lee do not even have to doubt about the way how atheism works. You are
the one that is having a blurring vision.
>
> >What part of THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION are you pretending
> >you don't understand?
>
> I understand the possibility you shamefully put your faith in and
> do consider it to be a possibility, but I consider it to be unlikely that
> there are no gods in the universe and certainly don't put my faith
> in the guess that there are none associated with this star system
> as you apparently have done.
You are so deluded and assuming a lot of guesses here and there.
We are so tired of your silly arguments, just like having to tackle an
issue you dreamed last night.
>
> >>impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
> >>their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
> >>the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
> >>they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>
> >Are you really, honestly this sociopathically stupid?
>
> I am ignorant as to why you are ashamed instead of proud of
> what you have so very obviously chosen to put your faith in. It's
> obvious to everyone you have put your faith in disbelief, so the
> question arrises: Why are you so very ashamed of it? In fact, that
> particular question is the topic of this particular thread.
You can try to provoke as much as you like.\
We do recognize that you are a lying child who wants to be treated
with a nice spank.
Yap
If god exists, the god is the entity who give rise to life. How could
he allow for life to begin with lifelessness?
If that is the case, where is the need for a god?
>
> >usually
> >claimed by theists, claimed by them that agnostics reject, particularly
> >creationists (now hiding under the alias of "intelligent design").
>
> If God exists it's also pretty clear that he made use of the
> evolutionary method of creation/development.
The Creationism is a sect of christianity, no different from thousands
of other sects.
All looking for easy money to survive in this cut throat world of
competition.
>
> >Among other things, why do theists almost always refer to their notion
> >of god as "HE" rather than "SHE"?
>
> Because they're encouraged to by canonical books, and if
> God does exist that's most likely because it's the way he would
> rather people refer to him. I don't believe he would be restricted
> to any particular form or gender, but refer to God as he out of
> convenience and also because if he exists it seems pretty clear
> that's how he would like to be referred to better than "they", "she",
> or "it".
to ?
Must be like god was made in man image that he was "he"?
>
> >> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
> >> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>
> >> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
> >> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
> >> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
> >> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
> >> to think about the topic are.
>
> >If either "side" is unrealistic and childish, they both are equally so,
> >as both claim certainty without sufficient evidence to support certainty.
>
> I don't claim certainty, since I don't have anything to be certain
> about. A person can know if God does exist if God lets him/her
> know about it, but a person can not know if God does not exist.
> There's no way they could find out, or even make an educated
> guess. They can *only* make a clueless guess, and then put their
> faith in it. Could that be why they're so ashamed of their faith? That's
> what this thread is trying to find out.
a god exist", why should you guess ?
In human history, no god had made himself useful to mankind.....!!
In way way a worship, a prayer, a wish and a relationship with an
imagination of a god would be useful to your welfare?
panam...@hotmail.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
> >> >important to me.
>
> >> One important aspect of that is that it doesn't matter. We know
> >> you can't consider the existence of God in a realistic way, but from
> >> my pov that doesn't mean much of anything at all. The chair I'm in
> >> can only do it about as well as you can't, but it doesn't hinder me.
>
> >> >If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
> >> >leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
> >> >Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
>
> >> >You believe something silly.
>
> >> I don't have a belief. You do.
>
> >Beg pardon? Repeating this lie will not make it true.
>
> >> I don't put faith in your belief. You are
> >> obviously ashamed of your own belief.
>
> >Except for the part about not having one, of course.
>
> So do you feel that all you're doing is insulting me for
> doing a better job of considering something you also try
> to consider but really really suck at?
What? My refutation of *your* insult, you find insulting?
You lack the imagination to realize that what you're `considering' is
no more relevant to me than the things to which I've compared it. I'm
trying to share some reality with you, but if you find that reality
"insulting" simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived worldview,
all I can suggest is that you post someplace where people might
actually agree with you.
> >> It's quite amusing to people who
> >> don't share your faith. I can consider what little you can, and much more.
>
> >About what? The nature (no pun intended) of the "supernatural"? To me,
> >excrement is excrement, and there is no need to brag about how great a
> >volume of it one can `consider'.
>
> To me nothing is supernatural,
I was using the word in its most basic sense, definition #1 below:
su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: \ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from
Latin super- + natura nature
Date: 15th century
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible
observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god,
demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear
to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent
(as a ghost or spirit)
> so if God exists he's not
> supernatural.
It is, by the few people to define what a "god" is. Perhaps here, I
should ask you for your definition of what you consider a "god" to be.
Just to insure I'm not arguing a strawman, of course..
What are its properties? What are its characteristics?
> Just that alone gives me a lot more room to
> consider possibilities than you appear to have.
That remains to be seen, until you can define your "god", and can cite
the evidence that it exists in the natural universe.
> You have
> very little room,
I do not require "room" to dither about things that have not been
proven extant.
> and are ashamed of what you believe.
Insult me in this way again, and you shall `reap what you sow'.
> >It's better left in the toilet where it belongs.
>
> Yet earlier you acted like you were trying to pretend you
> don't have a belief, and now you clearly indicate that you
> certainly do have a belief.
And your evidence for this is?....
I was attempting to help you understand why I do not care about your
experience with the "supernatural". Now that you've claimed your god/s
is/are not "supernatural", my comment is irrelevant. BTW: I await the
evidence for your new claim. I highly suspect you're just shoving the
goalposts right `round the field, but I'll wait for your evidence of
your new claim before I accuse you of it.
> Why do you people do that?
"I don' no, Massa! Sumtimes we all jus' git tired o'ridin in da back
ob de bus! Pleez don' sen' me bak to da cotton field!!"
> That is the question this thread is based on: Why do you
> deny your obvious belief?
Because you're too fucking stupid to understand that to people not
under the spell of your insipid superstition, it is NOT a belief.
> >> >I tell you it's silly,
>
> >> Do you think it's silly to consider that there may be gods anywhere
> >> in the universe,
>
> >Given the complete lack of evidence for such creatures,
>
> LOL! For one thing humans are evidence that superior
> beings could very well be gods,
This old canard again? The only reason this ratty old concept still
survives is because the people who post apologia for their gods have
such an abysmal record of actually *defining* them.
> and for another thing
> humans can't even attempt to tell whether or not there is
> any life in even the closest star systems to us.
I was about to say that this comment was irrelevant. And then I
recalled your new claim that "god/s" is/are not a
"supernatural" (i.e., something that exists outside the natural
universe) phenomenon. I cannot refute your comment before you provide
your evidence for your new claim, since this comment seems to be a
reaction to a statement I made while under the impression you were
defending the usual theists' claim of a "supernatural" being.
> >and humanity's penchant for telling fanciful stories, yes.
>
> If you had a point there then it would be significant to
> everything, which it is not just as it's not significant to this.
It's difficult to tell just *what* would be significant to you, since
you redefine your apologia after every refutation.
> >Absolutely silly.
>
> But if it's silly to consider then why are you so ashamed
> of your disbelief, do you have any idea? THAT is the
> question of this thread.
I am no more "ashamed" of my disbelief in gods than I would be in my
disbelief of any claim someone might make (without evidence) that they
own the Brooklyn Bridge.
> >> or only to think there could be any associated with
> >> this galaxy, or star system, or planet or whatever?
>
> >Location is irrelevant, when dealing with figments of the human
> >imagination.
>
> You certainly don't appear able to think about any part
> of this in a realistic way.
When dealing with someone who not only speculates that gods exist, but
also implies that they might simply be other life forms humanity
hasn't discovered yet, I can't help but wonder WTF realism has to do
with anything they might say.
You may not be a fool, but your posts lead me to believe you're on a
fool's errand.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
Plonked by Kadaitcha Man, Sep 06
Yap
No, we really must allow for you and your kind to be insane and
deluded.
This is the way how nature works....some gain some loss.
Some are contributing like all the scientists and atheists, some are
useless and dreamers like all the loons.
Nature says:" If I don't have this system in place, there would not be
enough place for in this universe for the human to conquer".
You must agree with my assessment here.
Yap
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> . . .
> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
> >> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
> >> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
> >> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
> >> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
> >> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
> >> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
> >> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
> >> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>
>
> Good luck.
>
> >I think that god(s) do not exist, because I have good reason to think
> >so.
> >The main reason is the absolute lack of verifyable evidence.
> >However I have no faith in this matter,
>
> "I have faith in my conviction that Atheism is right."
> - Peter van Velzen
>
> >and if evidence would be forthcoming I would consider it.
>
> Apparently not since you don't consider any evidence of
> God's existence, it seems unlikely that you "would" since you
> do not.
>
> >I do not expect evidnce to be forthcoming,
>
> If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he can't
> go around proving his existence to people.
profession....i.e. you are not working.
You see, if you work for any organization, the CEO/your boss would
certainly want things to be as they are, progress as they are, done as
they are.....and he will make sure he is existing there to make sure
things get completed as they are.
This is contrary to your "thoughts" for your god, in this real world.
You live in a world where you imagine there is a god and you think for
your god. A pathetic god that requires thinking from a human.....just
like the god required Jesus as a human for him?
You are in fact a proof that there is no god.
MarkA
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:32:54 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>>> and it's good when people disbelieve things you are so wrong
>>>> about.
>>
>>What am I supposed to be so wrong about, in-your-face liar?
>>
>>>It is obvious from this paragraph that you are not open to the possibility
>>>that someone besides you can have valid reasons for their beliefs.
>>
>>It is obvious that you are a functional illiterate
>>amateur-psychologising those who know better than you do, to come up
>>with even nastier personal falsehoods.
>
> Sorry Mark, this last was meant for the previous poster, not you.
I'm another innocent civilian victim of "collateral damage"!
No problemo.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
dh
>On Mar 18, 12:07 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:50:28 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>>
>> >>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>>
>> >No
>>
>> Yes that is "the" difference, as in the main difference
>> and possibly even the only one. Other than the particular
>> obvious difference you're absurdly trying to deny, what do
>> you think you want people to believe the main difference is,
>> do you have any idea about that?
>Why do you have to lie about "no god" being a faith?
Disbelief is a belief.
>The very basis of "no god" is simply there is none being shown to
>exist....by any one, any party, any organization, any government, any
>pope, or any of you !
>>
>> >, moron.
>>
>> >It is the philosophical strength of their argument
>>
>> It is what they believe. Strong atheists believe God does
>> not exist. Weak atheists believe he might or might not but
>> don't have a true belief, meaning they would have to be
>> extra stupid to insult people for considering the possibility
>> of God's existence since they consider it themselves.
>What insult
Most insults are about intelligence.
>when since know human culture, there is no god appeared
>before mankind ?
So you guess.
>There is none but you are banking on bible as the evidence since it
>lied about the the existence of god.
That's just a guess.
>However, you fail to dispute our contention that bible is a collection
>of ancient fairy tales....which even yourself can reasonably and by
>using common sense logic, tell yourself that all the tales were all
>made up by ancient human living in the Middle-eastern region.
I don't know which ones are true and which aren't. If God
doesn't exist, then maybe none of them are true. If he does
exist, then they probably all are based on truth even if humans
have't been able to figure out how yet.
>> >- which is only
>> >made in response to theist assholes who can't live and let live.
>>
>> LOL! Examining the absurd behaviors of other people
>> --INCLUDING that of strong atheists--is a fun part of life.
>> It may not be fun for those of you whose absurdity is
>> being examined, but it's fun to examine it and see how
>> much more absurd you can be than what I was already
>> amused by to begin with. Maybe the psyc people won't
>> want to tease and test your stifled little minds because
>> they think it would be unfair or something, but I think it's
>> good for you to at least have someone point out your
>> idiocy for you even if you never do learn to recognise
>> it or do anything to improve.
>Amuse as much as you want.
LOL! Thank you.
>For if the pope has his way, he can condemn you to hell...even if he
>knows there is no hell.
Personally, I don't believe it has a thing to do with the pope.
>He can play on your fear.
Maybe, but I doubt he'll ever go to the effort.
>Luckily, sane society has confined him to his throne in his little
>world, somewhere in Italy, right?
He goes where he wants to go, from what I've heard.
>However, there is some success somewhere....the world of Christian
>believers do donate vast amount of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.....each year for
>nothing.
It's for something, you just don't know what.
>> >>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>
>> >No,
>>
>> In contrast to that: Yes.
>No,
Yes.
>we never draw a line.
That just shows lameness and ignorance. It's like bragging that
you don't draw a line between shit and ice cream.
>You don have any authority to do it,
I didn't do it. I just showed you what Wikipedia explained about
the distinction.
>idiot.
You can't comprehend as much as I can apparently, making
you an even bigger idiot.
>> >liar.
>>
>> You poor fool, that was a definition quoted from Wikipedia.
>>
>> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
>> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>>
>> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
>> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
>> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
>> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
>> to think about the topic are.
>What guess?
The particular guess I was referring to there is your guess that
God does not exist.
>You mean we are guessing every day that is the sun going
>to come out?
It never does, but people often say it does. People guess a
lot of things about what it's going to "do", and usually they
are wrong. The sun never sets, never rises and never comes
out.
>This is a physical world where things exist, system exist, materials
>exists, events happened.....and we have solid, solid proof for them.
We also make guesses from things we learn from events that
take place.
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> >>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> >>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>> >>exist,
>>
>> >What "faith that God does not exist"
>>
>> All faith that God does not exist.
>>
>> >are you lying about, in-your-face
>> >aggressively stupid moron?
>>
>> >> which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>>
>> >Stop lying,
>>
>> If you want to lie that strong atheism is not faith that God
>> does not exist:
>What faith? God does not exist is not a faith...it is a fact.
LOL!!!
>> 1. what do you want to lie that it is
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2. how EXACTLY do you want to lie that strong atheism differs
>> from weak atheism?
>Don't need a person like you to draw the line....
I didn't. Other people did. All I'm doing is showing you what
it is, and you're in severe denial for some odd, unexplainable
reason. Why should you even care?
>May be to be clearer, atheist is the only term and there is no strong
>and weak.
There are differences.
>All atheists are strong.
No they're not. The question is: Why are strong atheists
ashamed of their faith?
>If you do need for a weak one, then it could be agnostic, OK?
No. There are differences between agnosticism and atheism.
I'm a weak agnostic, but I'm closer to a weak atheist than I am
to a strong agnostic.
>> >serial liar who is too stupid to grasp that there is a
>> >real world in which your religion is merely one of hundreds
>>
>> That's exactly what strong atheism is: One of hundreds of
>> beliefs which is only taken seriously by those who put their
>> faith in it.
>Wish to be nasty by inserting and twisting words?
Who else do you want us to pretend takes it seriously?
>> >whose tenets are only taken seriously by their believers.
>>
>> >Which word are you pretending you are too stupid to understand?
>>
>> Since I consider the possibility that God does not exist I do
>> consider the belief you put your faith in (and amusingly try to
>> deny for some as yet uneplained reason(s)), but only consider
>> it to be one of countless possibilities. It is most likely only taken
>> seriously by those of you who put your faith in it, IF you can be
>> considered to take seriously something that you also deny.
>Its already know for a long time that you are just a believer of your
>god, since you are quite capable to spew quotes from your bible.
I consider the possibility, and in order to do it realistically it seems
that a person needs to read canonical material. Since you can't
think about it realistically, you can't appreciate anything that would
go along with realistic thinking...or at least you can only have tiny
little glimpes almost certainly resulting in distorted interpretations
of things related to the idea, at "best".
>May be you are influenced by the mormons that your god is out there
>somewhere in the far away planet.
What makes you think the Mormons encourage that idea? If
God does exist, what would make you think it's anywhere other
than far away from this planet?
>> >>I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
>> >>about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
>>
>> >I'm curious what you imagine you achieve by coming here and lying
>> >about atheists to our faces.
>>
>> I'm asking psyc people if they can explain the reason(s)
>> for your absurd seeming denials, and sharing it with you in
>> case it can help you people out or in case one of you is able
>> to say something intelligent about the fact some day. Neither
>> are likely of course, but it's fun to see you try to deny it as you
>> prove it etc, and that means something too.
>Denying what? What fact? Spell out clearly.
You referred to the possibility that God does not exist as a
fact, meaning you have faith that he does not exist. You also
want to deny the faith you clearly showed that you have. Your
denial of your own faith is the fact I was referring to. Why you
do it is the question behind this thread.
>> >>person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
>> >>instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
>> >>God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
>>
>> >No, liar.
>>
>> People who give the clear impression they disbelieve in God
>> do give the clear impression they disbelieve in God, even though
>> you apparently can't comprehend how that could be the case.
>Lee do not even have to doubt about the way how atheism works.
Anyone who can't distinguish between different types of atheism
is clueless from the ground up.
>You are
>the one that is having a blurring vision.
>>
>> >What part of THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION are you pretending
>> >you don't understand?
>>
>> I understand the possibility you shamefully put your faith in and
>> do consider it to be a possibility, but I consider it to be unlikely that
>> there are no gods in the universe and certainly don't put my faith
>> in the guess that there are none associated with this star system
>> as you apparently have done.
>You are so deluded and assuming a lot of guesses here and there.
The impressions I'm given are given by the people I'm getting
them from.
>We are so tired of your silly arguments,
LOL! I'm just pointing out facts and asking why the absurdity
of them. It's the strong atheists who are trying to argue the facts
I point out that conflict with what they want to believe.
>just like having to tackle an
>issue you dreamed last night.
Speaking of stuff like that, do you even know why you WANT
all atheism to be the same? Why do you think you even care?
>> >>impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
>> >>their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
>> >>the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
>> >>they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>>
>> >Are you really, honestly this sociopathically stupid?
>>
>> I am ignorant as to why you are ashamed instead of proud of
>> what you have so very obviously chosen to put your faith in. It's
>> obvious to everyone you have put your faith in disbelief, so the
>> question arrises: Why are you so very ashamed of it? In fact, that
>> particular question is the topic of this particular thread.
>You can try to provoke as much as you like.\
>We do recognize that you are a lying child
There is nothing I've been dishonest about yet, AFAWK.
>who wants to be treated with a nice spank.
I'm amused by the ways people try to attack the truth.
dh
You can't comprehend the significance of what I pointed out.
>>>Cognitive psychology gives us great insights into the nature of
>>>consciousness, all of which concur with what is revealed by neuroscience.
>>>One concrete and indivisible fact emerges from these two disciplines:
>>>material existence is a _pre-requisite_ of anything that can be accurately
>>>defined as consciousness. This is also intuitively and trivially obvious
>>>from personal witness and common experience of all living human beings.
>>>What we can only honestly conclude from all of this is that there is zero
>>>possibility that any gods exist.
>>
>> LOL!!! Just the fact that we can do what we're doing shows it's more
>> likely than not that gods DO exist.
>>
>
>How?
By showing what can be done, and how much much much much much....
more is possible whether humans ever manage to do it or not.
>(I know I'm asking for more word salad. Can I have Caesar dressing
>this time?).
>
>>>Get it? No? Then you're way out of your depth.
>>
>> That of course is how I feel about you. It's also more likely in your
>> case, since you're a person who can't think realistically about the
>> possibility of God's existence and I can. You're kinda' sorta' trying to
>> discuss a concept you can't truly comprehend, with someone who
>> can and does.
>
>I did think about God's existence at some length when I was a teenager,
>then I got better - spontaneously and without medication.
That probably means you had been thinking about it in an unrealistic
and stupid way, and finally figured it out. So as we see you really never
have been able to think about it realistically, and you certainly still are
not able to do it today.
>Intellectual
>discipline and the ability to dissociate fact from viewpoint cured me.
You just finally figured out that you were thinking about it unrealistically.
You still can't think about it realistically...LOL...but you might never figure
it out again this time...lol...
dh
>On Mar 17, 12:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:44:08 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> . . .
>> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> >> I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>> >> atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>> >> exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>> >> I'm curious what psycology and sociology minded people think
>> >> about this seemingly absurd and blatantly dishonest denial. A
>> >> person could think maybe these people are really weak atheists
>> >> instead, but that would require considering the possibility that
>> >> God does exist and the people in question give the very clear
>> >> impression they are convinced that he does not. So why deny
>> >> their own faith, and what do they think they gain by denying
>> >> the faith they so clearly do have and everyone is aware that
>> >> they have? Should they not be proud of it, instead of ashamed?
>>
>> >How do ass fucked religi-idiotic bastards like you get 'I believe that
>> >there is not a god' from 'I do not believe that there is a god?' Just
>> >curious.
>>
>> >L.Roberts
>> >aa # 2258
>>
>> If you don't have a belief, then you must consider the possibility
>> that God does exist unless you're an idiot of some sort.
>
>Dumbshit, the reason I don't have a god belief (and especially not
>your 'God') is because I did consider it (raised pentalcuntalist) and
>found no reason to believe.
So you couldn't find one and put your faith in non-existence.
The question is: Why are you ashamed of your faith?
>Ya know, I might come to within a red pubic hair shaved off of a
>barely legal young nymphette to believing that the moon is made of
>green cheese, but I don't really feel that I can say, "Yes, I
>believe!" So, short of that, I am not a believer in that the moon is
>made of green cheese.
If you jump off the ground you believe gravity will return you to it.
>>Not having
>> a belief is weak atheism. Strong atheism is the BELIEF that God
>> does not exist, and some people even go so far as to believe that
>> no gods exist anywhere.
>
>Of all the stupid god stories I've heard, yours is the stupidest.
I was pointing out different people's beliefs, so which belief
do you think you're trying to refer to, do you know?
>No
>wonder it gets scoffed at so hard.
Try scoffing at it.
>> That belief is idiotic enough on its own,
>> but then to make it even more retarded the people who clearly
>> disbelieve that there are any gods anywhere, almost always want
>> to deny their own belief. To them I guess there is nothing wrong
>> with completely contridicting themselves and blatantly dishonestly
>> denying something anyone can clearly see is true...in fact they
>> must feel such absurd dishonesty is the best approach to take
>> since they so often take it. And that is the topic of this thread:
>> WHY the dishonest denial? WHY the obvious shame?
>
>The argument of the 'strong atheist' against the existance of a god is
>a far more sensible a take to take than the one taken by you ass-
>fucked religi-idiotic wingnuts
LOL...
>, but I will own that if anyone makes
>such a claim they can be said to 'believe' what they say and should
>own it.
Yet are you still ashamed of your own faith? Do you deny it,
even to the point of pretending you don't know what the fuck
I'm asking you about?
>But who are you talking about?
Strong atheists who are ashamed of their faith.
>A fellow theist
You're a theist?
>misrepresenting
>himself to get attention from his fellows? Got any names, evidence?
>
>And how do ass-fucked religi-idiotic wingnuts like you figure that a
>person can choose what to believe and what not to believe?
Because we can. It's not that hard if you can think it through.
It explains why God would not prove his existence...because if
he did then we wouldn't get to choose. If he exists, I believe some
people don't get to choose.
>I can still
>hears jackasses like you saying, No, I don't really believe, but mommy
>says I should,
LOL.
>so, I choose to believe, and am therefor a believer.
I'm a weak agnostic who considers many possibilities. You
appear to be a strong atheist who can consider only one, and
is ashamed of your belief in it.
dh
>On Mar 18, 11:28 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:07:42 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >On Mar 17, 12:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT), panamfl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> >> . . .
>> >> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> >> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >Buy a clue. Your gods may be important to you, but they are not
>> >> >important to me.
>>
>> >> One important aspect of that is that it doesn't matter. We know
>> >> you can't consider the existence of God in a realistic way, but from
>> >> my pov that doesn't mean much of anything at all. The chair I'm in
>> >> can only do it about as well as you can't, but it doesn't hinder me.
>>
>> >> >If I'm "denying" your gods, I'm also "denying"
>> >> >leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Aldebaran Alien UFO
>> >> >Full Tilt Boogie Blues Band.
>>
>> >> >You believe something silly.
>>
>> >> I don't have a belief. You do.
>>
>> >Beg pardon? Repeating this lie will not make it true.
>>
>> >> I don't put faith in your belief. You are
>> >> obviously ashamed of your own belief.
>>
>> >Except for the part about not having one, of course.
>>
>> So do you feel that all you're doing is insulting me for
>> doing a better job of considering something you also try
>> to consider but really really suck at?
>
>What?
You claim not to have a belief which means you must
consider more than one, but you suck so badly at considering
anything other than the one that there's no evidence you can
do it at all. In contrast to that I consider many possibilities and
encourage you to try to move beyond the one you appear to
have faith in.
>My refutation of *your* insult, you find insulting?
You can't refute anything I've pointed out afawk.
>You lack the imagination to realize that what you're `considering' is
>no more relevant to me than the things to which I've compared it. I'm
>trying to share some reality with you, but if you find that reality
>"insulting"
You did call it silly. That's insulting. It's good though.
That's what we're here for...to point out each other's
idiotics...or more realistically for me to point out yours
and for you to deny them. Insults are part of the game.
>simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived worldview,
What do you think you're referring to?
>all I can suggest is that you post someplace where people might
>actually agree with you.
I'm here to point out significant things that people
should take into consideration but want to ignore
or deny. It's a good place for it, though I don't believe
the supposed psyc people have been of any help
with it at all.
>> >> It's quite amusing to people who
>> >> don't share your faith. I can consider what little you can, and much more.
>>
>> >About what? The nature (no pun intended) of the "supernatural"? To me,
>> >excrement is excrement, and there is no need to brag about how great a
>> >volume of it one can `consider'.
>>
>> To me nothing is supernatural,
>
>I was using the word in its most basic sense, definition #1 below:
>
>su·per·nat·u·ral
>Pronunciation: \?sü-p?r-?na-ch?-r?l, -?nach-r?l\
>Function: adjective
>Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from
>Latin super- + natura nature
>Date: 15th century
>1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible
>observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god,
>demigod, spirit, or devil
>2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear
>to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent
>(as a ghost or spirit)
>
>
>> so if God exists he's not
>> supernatural.
>
>It is, by the few people to define what a "god" is.
Not to me, and to me that is a significant part of thinking about
it realistically.
>Perhaps here, I
>should ask you for your definition of what you consider a "god" to be.
A being who has deliberate influence on the development of life
on a planet. Just because a person shits in the woods and colonies
of microbes grow on it doesn't make him a god to me even if he
only did it to begin those colonies, so it would have to be on a lot
higher level than that imo. Humans aren't doing it by raising billions
of livestock animals either, imo.
>Just to insure I'm not arguing a strawman, of course..
>
>What are its properties? What are its characteristics?
I believe God would have to be an alien, and would not be
restricted to any particular form or gender.
>> Just that alone gives me a lot more room to
>> consider possibilities than you appear to have.
>
>That remains to be seen, until you can define your "god", and can cite
>the evidence that it exists in the natural universe.
I consider more possibilities than you do, but now that you
mention it why do you want to pretend you can consider more
than the one, and which other(s) do you want people to think
you can consider, do you have any idea about that?
>> You have
>> very little room,
>
>I do not require "room"
You allow yourself virtually none, yet appear to want to
pretend that you have plenty of it.
>to dither about things that have not been
>proven extant.
>
>> and are ashamed of what you believe.
>
>Insult me in this way again, and you shall `reap what you sow'.
It appears very obvious you are ashamed of your own belief,
and only you could change that. Since you don't even make
an attempt to change it, it seems you should be proud of it
and try to defend your faith in it. It's not necessarily an insult
to you to point that out. It's just the way it is. This thread is
questioning WHY??? the shame not just that you feel, but
that the majority of supposed strong atheists appear to feel.
>> >It's better left in the toilet where it belongs.
>>
>> Yet earlier you acted like you were trying to pretend you
>> don't have a belief, and now you clearly indicate that you
>> certainly do have a belief.
>
>And your evidence for this is?....
"It's better left in the toilet where it belongs."
>I was attempting to help you understand why I do not care about your
>experience with the "supernatural".
I've said nothing about experience with the "supernatural".
>Now that you've claimed your god/s
>is/are not "supernatural",
I don't feel that anything would be supernatural if it exists.
>my comment is irrelevant. BTW: I await the
>evidence for your new claim. I highly suspect you're just shoving the
>goalposts right `round the field, but I'll wait for your evidence of
>your new claim before I accuse you of it.
>
>> Why do you people do that?
>
>"I don' no, Massa! Sumtimes we all jus' git tired o'ridin in da back
>ob de bus! Pleez don' sen' me bak to da cotton field!!"
You can clean hog pens for a while.
>> That is the question this thread is based on: Why do you
>> deny your obvious belief?
>
>Because you're too fucking stupid to understand that to people not
>under the spell of your insipid superstition, it is NOT a belief.
Regardless of how you feel about any beliefs you don't have,
your own beliefs are YOUR OWN BELIEFS. Why do you want
so badly to pretend some of them are not? Other than your
belief that God does not exist, which of your other beliefs do you
want to deny? Or is that the only one?
>> >> >I tell you it's silly,
>>
>> >> Do you think it's silly to consider that there may be gods anywhere
>> >> in the universe,
>>
>> >Given the complete lack of evidence for such creatures,
>>
>> LOL! For one thing humans are evidence that superior
>> beings could very well be gods,
>
>This old canard again? The only reason this ratty old concept still
>survives is because the people who post apologia for their gods have
>such an abysmal record of actually *defining* them.
No one knows what they would be like. All who are learning
about them, hopefully can continue to learn.
>> and for another thing
>> humans can't even attempt to tell whether or not there is
>> any life in even the closest star systems to us.
>
>I was about to say that this comment was irrelevant. And then I
>recalled your new claim that "god/s" is/are not a
>"supernatural" (i.e., something that exists outside the natural
>universe) phenomenon. I cannot refute your comment before you provide
>your evidence for your new claim,
No matter how hard a person tries, and what he uses to try with,
no one can tell whether or not there is any life in the closest star
system to this one. If you think I'm wrong, then provide evidence
that someone knows whether or not there is any.
>since this comment seems to be a
>reaction to a statement I made while under the impression you were
>defending the usual theists' claim of a "supernatural" being.
You have some sort of hang up with that word, or/and the
definition of it. I don't share it with you, so don't understand
how you think it could eliminate the possibility of God's
existence or whatever all it means to you.
>> >and humanity's penchant for telling fanciful stories, yes.
>>
>> If you had a point there then it would be significant to
>> everything, which it is not just as it's not significant to this.
>
>It's difficult to tell just *what* would be significant to you,
The fact that humans are dishonest about things doesn't
change facts that are true.
>since
>you redefine your apologia after every refutation.
>
>> >Absolutely silly.
>>
>> But if it's silly to consider then why are you so ashamed
>> of your disbelief, do you have any idea? THAT is the
>> question of this thread.
>
>I am no more "ashamed" of my disbelief in gods than I would be in my
>disbelief of any claim someone might make (without evidence) that they
>own the Brooklyn Bridge.
Then you are one of the few who was not ashamed to
confess your faith. I'll put you on the short list of those
who are not ashamed.
>> >> or only to think there could be any associated with
>> >> this galaxy, or star system, or planet or whatever?
>>
>> >Location is irrelevant, when dealing with figments of the human
>> >imagination.
>>
>> You certainly don't appear able to think about any part
>> of this in a realistic way.
>
>When dealing with someone who not only speculates that gods exist, but
>also implies that they might simply be other life forms humanity
>hasn't discovered yet, I can't help but wonder WTF realism has to do
>with anything they might say.
That's because you can't think about the possibility of God's
existence in a realistic way. If you could then you could, but
you can't so you can't. It's really fairly easy if you think on it....
>You may not be a fool, but your posts lead me to believe you're on a
>fool's errand.
I'm trying to learn why strong atheists are ashamed of their faith
when they are, but it looks like you're one of the few who are not.
If you're not, then you may not know any more about it than I do.
dh
At least we agree on that.
>we really must allow for you and your kind to be insane and
>deluded.
Actually no, that would be you. It's a sign of your delisions
that you missed the fact. I'm the one who is trying to think
realistically, and you are the one who can't even make an
attempt. It's really very obvious if you can think it through...
>This is the way how nature works....some gain some loss.
>Some are contributing like all the scientists and atheists, some are
>useless and dreamers like all the loons.
>Nature says:" If I don't have this system in place, there would not be
>enough place for in this universe for the human to conquer".
>You must agree with my assessment here.
If you don't believe in God or anything like that then
you can't believe Nature "says" or "does" anything
deliberately or that "nature" itself is any more than just
saying "shit happens".
dh
>On 18 mrt, 16:32, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>> >On 17 mrt, 17:24, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
>> >> >On 16 mrt, 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> >> . . .
>> >> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> >> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
What is being done, planned and imagined is evidence of what
more can and quite possibly is already being done.
>As for the probaility of a God that doesn't care wether we believe in
>him or not.
>This woul be higher than the possibiliy of a god that does not want us
>to believe in him, and lower than a that of a god that does want us to
>believe in him, as he might offer proof of his existence accidentily,
>bot not nescessarily
If God wants things to be as they are then he would not prove
his existence, which we have noticed he generally does not.
>As for Satan. The word means ádversary. The chances of an adversary
>are slimmer still,
You don't have any way to judge that.
>as god without an adversaty is possible, but the
>adversary has to have someone to whom he is opposed.
>
>So, as I already do not believe there is a fod, i certainlyI do not
>think there is a Satan. By the way Satan is supposed to be less mighty
>than god, so as fo messing with the evidence, he woulf has less
>possibilies also, I presumr.
You know what people have told you and warned you about.
>So if he existed he would probably only be able to write a book or so,
>hardly able to create or destroy real objective evidence. . . .
You don't know what all he would be able to do, but consider
the fact that he would have had generations of people to learn
about, and to learn how to manipulate. And you wouldn't even
know he was doing it...in fact you would dis-believe. Again we
see that if it's all for real, things would probably be as they are.
dh
No. You can't think about it realistically. Maybe if you try comparing
it to something you can understand: You don't think for your boss.....
try to comprehend that, and then try to understand that the same
would apply to my thoughts and God if he exists.
>A pathetic god that requires thinking from a human.....just
>like the god required Jesus as a human for him?
That would be more complicated than you could deal with, but
then so is every other aspect of the issue afawk.
>You are in fact a proof that there is no god.
LOL! The truth is so completely opposite of that, and we ourselves
are the proof.
dh
From my understanding Buddhism is not a true religion and doesn't
encourage beliefs one way or the other about God or multiple lives.
It's a philosophy of life and people can be atheist Buddhists, or
Hindu Buddhists, or Christian Buddhists, or whatever all else.
>You may want to start learning new ideas someday.
You may too.
>>>But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
>>
>> From my pov it's good that you can't get them to believe your
>> lies and completely idiotic interpretations of how things really are.
>> You obviously are clueless about the difference between strong and weak
>> atheism, and it's good when people disbelieve things you are so wrong
>> about.
>
>It is obvious from this paragraph that you are not open to the possibility
>that someone besides you can have valid reasons for their beliefs.
This part isn't a question about either of our personal beliefs. It's
about what the accepted differences are--by whoever in tf it is that
decides whether or not we all get to "accept" such things--and
explained by the people at Wikipedia. Here's a little more detail
that hopefully will do more good than harm to your confusion:
_________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could
be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a
weak atheist in terms of others.
Historically, the terms negative and positive atheism have been used to
denote this distinction. Within negative or weak atheism, philosopher
Anthony Kenny distinguishes between agnostics, who find the claim
"God exists" uncertain, and theological noncognitivists, who consider
all God-talk to be meaningless.[1]
Since many self-described agnostics specifically distinguish their stance
from that of atheists, yet would also fit the general definition of "weak
atheism," the validity of this categorisation is disputed. Another problem
is whether "strong" atheists must consider themselves able to prove
authoritatively that a god does not exist, or rather, if they must only
disbelieve in such a god in order to qualify.
. . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
dh
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>So he repeats his lies about atheists, to atheists.
Like what?
>>>>not of some non-existant belief or faith.
>>>
>>> The beliefs and faiths are what the terms describe you poor mutt,
>
>What "beliefs and faiths" was the liar lying about atheists having?
"atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do
not exist"." - Wikipedia
>>> not the supposed strength of someone's argument. That idea is idiotic
>>> and you can't support it with anything other than your own hollow claims.
>
>Hardly,
No, you certainly can't even try to support it.
>liar.
So far there's no evidence of me being dishonest about anything.
>I suggest you read any book on atheism written by atheists.
If you want to quote other strong atheists amusingly denying
their faith, then I'd be interested in seeing them.
>But you won't because you arrogantly and nastily imagine you know what
>it means to be atheist better than we do ourselves.
You don't appear to understand the difference between
strong and weak atheism. If you do understand it, you've
given no indication that you do. Try doing it now:
>And worse that you
>imagine you get to tell us what our own POV is.
I tell you what the difference is, and you want to deny
it for some strange reason. This thread is an attempt to
find out what that reason is, so if you know please try
to explain:
>>>>And it depends on what the theist says, that he is responding to.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that: It has nothing to do with anything any theist
>>> has to say.
>
>A liar as well as an idiot.
That's a blatant lie, you poor idiot. Nothing any theist has to
say has anything to do with the difference between strong and
weak atheism.
>If the nionsense you wipe in our faces is self-contradicting then it
>reduces to zero.
>
>As the abstract logic exercise that you have made it.
>
>Which is over and above the fact that it is merely somebody else's
>religious belief that we wouldn't give a shit sbout if you kept it to
>yourselves.
Then you can quit complaining. I don't bother you about any
religious beliefs, other than to encourage you to consider the
possibility of God's existence.
>>>>Even strong atheism, is like "there are no ghosts".
>>>
>>> I've known a strong atheist who even though he disbelieved in
>>> the possibility of God's existence, he still felt that there is life after
>>> death. Truly idiotic, imo.
>
>Common in countries like India where it is a cultural belief separate
>from their theistic beliefs.
LOL! How could life after death be cultural but not religious?
>>Apparently, you have never heard of Buddhism. There are several millions
>>of them in the world. You may want to start learning new ideas someday.
>
>Or any of the Astika schools of Hinduism. Jains don't have gods and
>are therfore atheistic. They do however believe in reincarnation,
So far it seems they believe there can be a spiritual life (or whatever)
for humans, but not for any beings superior to humans, or some such
thing. How do they think our souls or whatever maintain a sense of
self and individuality without the assistance of God or something?
>which is why they are vegetarian.
>
>>>>But it's impossible to get this though to theists.
>>>
>>> From my pov it's good that you can't get them to believe your
>>> lies and completely idiotic interpretations of how things really are.
>
>What "lies", liar?
>
>What "completely wrong interpretation", liar?
Your apparently clueless interpretation of the difference
between strong and weak atheism.
>And you are the one so out of touch with reality that you don't know
>how things really are - including the fact that to non-Christians,
>Christianity and its beliefs are merely "somebody else's religion".
That's easy to understand. You can't understand that what
you put your own faith in is just another religious belief to me,
and one I consider but don't put faith in.
>It's this last bit that tells us what a sociopathic idiot you and so
>many other ignorant believers are.
>
>>> You obviously are clueless about the difference between strong and weak
>>> atheism,
>
>You obviously are a persistant, arrogantly nasty in-your-face liar.
LOL. As yet there's no evidence of me lying about anything,
so try to keep that in mind sometimes when you're calling me
a liar.
>I've been an atheist all my life (more than sixty years)
Ignorant about the distinction for sixty years, and clinging
to that same ignorance even still...
>and have met
>more varieties of atheist than you have brain cells in what passes for
>your mind.
...but then it could be that you actually DO comprehend
the difference, but you're in denial about it. Which brings
us back--again/still--to: Why???
>>> and it's good when people disbelieve things you are so wrong
>>> about.
>
>What am I supposed to be so wrong about, in-your-face liar?
LOL...remember there's no evidence...and you're wrong
about your misinterpretation of the difference between
disbelief and no belief, ie: strong and weak atheism.
>>It is obvious from this paragraph that you are not open to the possibility
>>that someone besides you can have valid reasons for their beliefs.
>
>It is obvious that you are a functional illiterate
>amateur-psychologising those who know better than you do, to come up
>with even nastier personal falsehoods.
As you say such shit keep in mind that so far the only one who
has been dishonest here has been you.
dh
>On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:26:35 -0200, dh wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:53:19 -0400, MarkA <to...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh? wrote:
>>>
>>>> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>>> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>>>> _________________________________________________________
>>>> . . .
>>>> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>>> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>>> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>I am not so sure that the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism
>>>is valid. Most every atheist I know lacks belief in gods, or, believes
>>>that no gods exist,
>>
>> Those are different ideas, the former being that of weak atheists and
>> the latter that of strong atheists. The latter requires whatever degree of
>> faith a person has that his or her belief is the correct one.
>>
>>>based on available evidence. However, unlike theists,
>>>they would change that belief if new evidence became available.
>>
>> 1. What new evidence do you think theists have been exposed to
>> that has not changed their beliefs?
>
>See below.
>
>>
>> 2. Since atheists can't recognise *any* evidence of God's existence,
>> what would make anyone believe they would recognise some "new"
>> evidence if it came along?
>
>So far, there has been no evidence of God's existence. If some evidence
>were to appear that strongly points to the activity of a superpowerful,
>intelligent being, many atheists that I know (myself among them), would
>tentatively accept that it *could* be a god, versus a technologically
>advanced civilization.
If God exists, I can only believe he is associated with other far more
technologically advanced civilizations than we are not.
>>>So, is a
>>>"strong" atheist one who would not change his beliefs, regardless of the
>>>evidence?
>>
>> A strong atheist is a person who puts his faith in the possibility
>> that
>> God does not exist.
>
>If you believe that it is not possible that God does not exist,
I don't believe that. I'm a weak agnostic.
>you are
>immune to being convinced by evidence (see your first question). I would
>not consider it to be a matter of "faith" that one recognize a possibility
>about which one does not have complete knowledge.
A person's faith is the degree of confidence they have that they're
correct about something. I have faith the tooth fairy does not exist.
I don't have complete faith but am fairly confident that Big Foot does
not exist. I have no faith and no real opinion one way or the other
about whether or not the Loch Ness monster exists.
>> Amusingly, in a most pathetic way, most such people
>> also appear to be extremely ashamed of their own faith to the point of
>> absurdly trying to deny it. The point of this thread is to question what
>> it is that causes such absurd behavior, and what if anything a person
>> could hope to gain by such dishonest and seemingly pointless denial.
>
>You have yet to demonstrate that such "absurd behavior" exists outside of
>your own imagination.
As yet I don't have a record of you acknowledging your faith. Do
you want to do so now, or would you rather deny it?
dh
That's why I pointed out that it's not a necessity if you think
it through. It not being a necessity doesn't eliminate God if he
does exist though. The "necessity" thing is meaningless, in
other words.
>> >usually
>> >claimed by theists, claimed by them that agnostics reject, particularly
>> >creationists (now hiding under the alias of "intelligent design").
>>
>> If God exists it's also pretty clear that he made use of the
>> evolutionary method of creation/development.
>So, essentially you are a Creationist?
I consider the possibility that God influenced the development
of life on Earth.
>The Creationism is a sect of christianity, no different from thousands
>of other sects.
LOL!!! You have no idea what my ideas are about how much
influence God did and did not have.
>All looking for easy money to survive in this cut throat world of
>competition.
>>
>> >Among other things, why do theists almost always refer to their notion
>> >of god as "HE" rather than "SHE"?
>>
>> Because they're encouraged to by canonical books, and if
>> God does exist that's most likely because it's the way he would
>> rather people refer to him. I don't believe he would be restricted
>> to any particular form or gender, but refer to God as he out of
>> convenience and also because if he exists it seems pretty clear
>> that's how he would like to be referred to better than "they", "she",
>> or "it".
>Shouldn't your bible make clear how it would wanted to be referred
>to ?
Quite likely it does, if he exists.
>Must be like god was made in man image that he was "he"?
>>
>> >> >Why can't you imbeciles understand that we are simply people in the
>> >> >real world beyond your religion who don't happen to be theist.
>>
>> >> You have simply put your faith in a different guess than theists
>> >> have, and you have done nothing any better than that. You like
>> >> to believe that your guess is somehow more than just a guess,
>> >> but that just shows how unrealistic and childlike your attempts
>> >> to think about the topic are.
>>
>> >If either "side" is unrealistic and childish, they both are equally so,
>> >as both claim certainty without sufficient evidence to support certainty.
>>
>> I don't claim certainty, since I don't have anything to be certain
>> about. A person can know if God does exist if God lets him/her
>> know about it, but a person can not know if God does not exist.
>> There's no way they could find out, or even make an educated
>> guess. They can *only* make a clueless guess, and then put their
>> faith in it. Could that be why they're so ashamed of their faith? That's
>> what this thread is trying to find out.
>Yes, we are trying to find out that "if you cannot know whether or not
>a god exist", why should you guess ?
No. We all make our own guesses. We're trying to find out why
strong atheists are ashamed to admit their faith that their guess is
the correct one.
>In human history, no god had made himself useful to mankind.....!!
That's your guess.
>In way way a worship, a prayer, a wish and a relationship with an
>imagination of a god would be useful to your welfare?
Huh?
Virgil
> >Why do you have to lie about "no god" being a faith?
>
> Disbelief is a belief.
Do you also claim that agnosticism is a belief?
L.Roberts
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 17, 12:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:44:08 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
> >> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> >> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> >> . . .
> >> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> >> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are just altogether too stupid to be bothered with.
dh
Strong agnosticism is the belief that it can't be known
whether or not God exists, so yet that is a belief. Weak
agnosticism considers that some people might know if
he does, so that's not a belief. Strong atheism and
strong agnosticism are both beliefs.
dh
>On Mar 24, 11:30 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:42:09 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Mar 17, 12:14 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:44:08 -0700 (PDT), "L.Roberts" <ozzcat2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 16, 9:36 am, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>> >> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>> >> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>> >> >> _________________________________________________________
>> >> >> . . .
>> >> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>> >> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>> >> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>> >> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>> >> >> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
In contrast to that I'm not stupid enough to be fooled
by the dishonest denials of strong atheists who deny their
obvious faith, so you don't want to waste time on someone
who can see through and points out your bullshit.
Nomen Publicus
I think you are confusing different meanings of the word "belief".
--
Atheism: Godless, not believing in the existence of gods.
pba...@worldonline.nl
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:20:02 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >On 18 mrt, 16:32, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:46:59 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >> >On 17 mrt, 17:24, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:51:07 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl" <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >> >> >On 16 mrt, 14:36, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
> >> >> >> The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
> >> >> >> of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________
> >> >> >> . . .
> >> >> >> Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
> >> >> >> as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
> >> >> >> type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
> >> >> >> . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Dear d...@
Yes we wouldn't even know what he (Satan) was doing,
but if we consider the source of a book and the source of objective
evidence.
The book trying to tell you there was a god creator,
and the objective evidence telling you there was evolution.
One of those must be wrong.
Now if two forces are involved in creating the book and the objective
evidence,
it is clear the source of the objective evidence must be the stronger
one.
(a mere human being can write a book, creating tons of fossils and
light that llloks like it has travelled a billion years is another
matter alltogether)
Taking a wager against whom you should believe,
you had better believe the stronger one,
for that's probably the one who can punish you or reward you:-)
(if any of the two can)
Love,
Peter van Velzen
March 20009
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
dh
No. It just lets us know that if God exists he apparently made
use of the evolutionary method of creation to whatever extent.
>Now if two forces are involved in creating the book and the objective
>evidence,
>it is clear the source of the objective evidence must be the stronger
>one.
>(a mere human being can write a book, creating tons of fossils and
>light that llloks like it has travelled a billion years is another
>matter alltogether)
If God exists then he does regardless of the wrong beliefs
people have about him, so if you're ever going to try to think
about it realistically you need to drop your obsession with
apparently wrong beliefs and instead learn to ignore them.
dh
Belief is belief, even when people are ashamed of their
belief and try to deny it for some as yet unexplained reason.
dh
>On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:36:12 -0200, Huh?@WhyTheAbsurdity.??? wrote:
>
>>The difference between strong and weak atheism is the degree
>>of faith a person has that their chosen belief is correct:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>. . .
>>Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
>>as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
>>type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
>>. . .
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
>>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>>I was amused to learn that many people who claim to be strong
>>atheists also want to deny their own faith that God does not
>>exist, which is what *makes* them a strong atheist to begin with!
>
>Are you weak or strong in your belief that leprechauns don't exist?
I'm strong in my belief that they don't exist on this planet
but don't know enough about them to have faith that they
don't exist anywhere. I do have faith that the tooth fairy
doesn't exist on any planets unless on some they were
created specifically.
>Does it require faith?
All beliefs do.
>Why or why not?
Faith is just the degree of confidence a person has that
a belief or guess is correct.