The Law Of Contradiction

Most definitely my Quote of the Week.

Let's try this again.I would say I'm an "Atheist", only because the word "Theist" exists. In the absence of people who believe in a diety, "Atheism" would be the default position and would need no special word because nothing would need to be expressed. The word only seems to be necessary so it can be used by Theistic people. So they somehow can turn things around and be able to refer to the default position as an abnormality.Think about it: from our point of view, a-theism could be seen as a lack of something that doesn't exist. Which is... utter nonsense. Yet another illustration that, by itself, it doesn't even need a word. It only exists indirectly because of the word "theism".If there didn't happen to be people around who believe in somekind of diety, the whole concept of dieties would be completely absent in our lifes.

Looking back to your first message, it appears you indeed added an 'this is just my opinion' remark. At the very end. But you started of sounding quite a bit more absolute, lol. I'm pretty sure reactions would have been much milder if you would have started with something like 'The impression that I always have...' or something like that.

Personally I'm not trying to rationalize what is obviously impossible to rationalize. I just conclude that I don't know, and probably can't know. That's just it, and it doesn't keep me awake at night, if you wondered. There are more than enough intriguing questions left that ARE within reach.It might be interesting to philosophize about these out-of-reach questions, but it's a bad idea to assign too much significance to one's musings about them. I find it amusing that so many people delude themselves into some unverifiable belief, only because they seem to be afraid of 'not knowing'. It is totally beyond me how that could make a difference. Personally, I would constantly remind myself that the chance of being "right" in my unverifiable belief is infinitesimally insignificant. I would lose the belief after less than 1 microsecond. Please drop that bogus argument. It is precisely the sloppy, "insipid" reasoning itself that is often involved, which sparks reaction.Let's maybe compare my attitude towards religion, with my attitude towards smoking.In general I couldn't care less about smoking and smokers. It has very little to no significance in my life. I rarely spend a second thinking about it. I also don't necessarilly have any strong feelings towards them. In fact, there are smart people who are smokers. There are people with a great personality who are smokers. There are LOTS of smokers who I like a lot. (insert 'believer' and it still works)But, as a matter of FACT, in their being smoker they are all sadly mislead herd-animals with not a shred of a rational reasonable and supportable argument why they would prefer smoking over not smoking. (insert 'believer' and attempts to prove their faith, and it still works)They blow hundreds of dollars per year (dollars they could have spent on useful stuff) through their lungs, with the result that they die younger and in worse condition. They have brown teeth and fingers and a breath that stinks together with the clothes they are wearing. They ruine the atmosphere indoors. They weigh on medical insurance. They cause countless fires each year. They are less productive and often have just one free hand. (ok, so I'll admit religion is not so one-sided negative and detrimental...)Yet, I have little problem with them as long as they behave gentleman-like, and I can even sympathize if they readily admit that they are addicted and lack the character to stop. (I have absolutely no problem with people who 'believe', but admit that they can not rationalize or prove it, and just need it as a consolation or because they just 'feel' it must be)But then you have the type who absolutely wants to rationalize that nothing's wrong and that they made a perfectly reasonable 'choice'. That being against smoking is nothing but a witch-hunt with no supporting arguments. That it's just an example of intolerance. They start spouting the most laughable, ignorant and dead wrong arguments and weak excuses. I'm sure many are familiar with the anecdotal tales about relatives who lived into their hundreds despite smoking since they were kids ("see, smoking really isn't that unhealthy at all!"). Or the ones pointing out that closing cigarette factories would cost jobs. Or those who argue that instead of supporting a cigarette ban, it would be more honest and show more courage to ban "industry and cars" to get rid of air pollution (a close relative to the argument that "one would also have to ban knives if one argued to ban guns") ? Or what about those who have deluded themselves into the misconception that they need cigarettes to stay calm and composed, while it's precisely the addiction that is responsible for their nervousness. (compare to sloppy apologetics, your own strawman atheist argument, Creationism, the Mythical-and-never-observed absolute morality etc.etc.)Well, when being confronted with those smokers/believers, it is indeed hard to shut your mouth. And that definitely does NOT mean one is a closet smoker/believer.

You think so?

Only if we agree that 'being smart' does not require absolute and universal smartness, lol

It makes a MASSIVE difference.
To say "I don't believe there is a God" is to say I have a lack of belief. It just isn't there.
To say "I believe there is no God" is a positive affirmation of the non-existance of God. This is an irrational and scientifically indefensible position. It can NEVER be backed up by proof. It is faith in the same way that belief in God is faith.

I don't get angry at the prospect of him existing.
I sometimes get irritated when people write scathing and unfounded attacks on Atheists.
If you stop attacking the Atheistic position I will quite readily stop arguing against your position. I can quite truthfully say that in 3 years on theis forum i have never instigated a discussion regarding any aspect of God or his existence/non-existence. I simply respond to others. Well first, for God to be dead he would first have to have existed.
Secondly, I don't know of any case where somebody has won a court case by saying nothing in response to accusations made against them.

Would you say the same thing about the statement, "I believe there is no Zeus," or Thor, or Santa Claus, or Satan, or Bigfoot? Why is is irrational and scientifically indefensible to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and which is inconsistent with the laws of physics?Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

And there you go again with your accusations. I have never known any atheist attempt to disprove ANY religion. That's not what we are about.
If you shove it down our throats then we will naturally fight back but not to disprove religion or to attempt to convert you. We just want you to STOP.
As for venom? I have only seen that from ONE side of the fence and it isn't mine. Not at all. You just picked a definition that would fit to your argument instead of looking at the real facts.
It's pretty darn complex really.
I already gave you the definition which is most commonly held and which was, by the way, defined by atheists themselves rather than imposed on them by Christians. You may note that my defininition came from "http://www.ATHEIST.about.com"Try looking up "weak atheist" and see what you find. ALL atheist are first "Weak Athesist" but some are also "Strong Atheists" which match the definition that you posted.Here is another example from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html

quote:

---

Weak atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God. On this definition, strictly speaking, anyone who isn’t a theist is an atheist. Someone who doesn’t have an opinion about religion, having never really thought about it, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, but hasn’t reached any conclusions about it, lacks belief in God, and is therefore a weak atheist. Someone who has thought about religion, and has reached the provisional, tentative conclusion that God doesn’t exist, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist. And someone who confidently and dogmatically affirms that there is no God, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

---

quote:

---

A strong atheist, on the other hand, is someone who has the positive belief that God does not exist. It is not necessary to feel complete certainty that God does not exist in order to be a strong atheist; the essential difference between strong atheism and weak atheism is that strong atheism is defined in terms of possession of the belief that God does not exist, while weak atheism is defined in terms of absence of the belief that God does exist.

---

You appear to be equating all atheism with strong atheism when that simply is not the case.
I am NOT a "Strong" Atheist and neither are many others. In fact I consider Strong atheism to be non-scientific since it requires faith. That was badly descibed on my part. You are right. It doesn'y mean without sex. Then again the word isn't A-sex is it? It is A-sexual which means without "Sexual" reproduction, so while badly written, my argument still stands.
How about Asymetrical (lacking symetry) Can you think of any that do not mean lacking someting? If you can then I will stand corrected. That was what I always considered myself, parts 1 and 2 fit me best.
Then when I professed that possition, many people pointed out to me that I was not really an Agnostic but a weak Atheist.
Seems I just can't win either way. Hehe

No, it doesn't. It's the same idea expressed in a different grammatical form. If you had NO belief, then you would have come to no conclusion at all, but you have come to a conclusion, so you have a belief. There's nothing wrong with that. Everybody has beliefs.I might say, "I don't believe I will go to the movie," but I might as well have said, "I believe I will not go to the movie."

Yes I would say the same thing.
I can never know with absolute certaintay that these things do not exist. They are not disprovable.
Now if something is inconsistent with the laws of physics then that is another thing entirely. But none of the things you listed actually ARE inconsistent.
The fact is that there always remains the faint possibility that any or all of them might exist in some form or other.It's all in the definitions. If you define it as being inconsistent with physics then that definition of it cannot exist. Some other definition still could, no matter how remote the possibility.

Precisely No I haven't. That's the whole point. I may lean 99.99% of the way towards a conclusion but I have never reached it and never will. Sure they do. I believe the sun comes up every day. And many other things.
What I do not believe in is anything that is impossible to prove one way or the other. Belief in future occurences is not even using the same definition of the word "believe" It doesn't equate at all.

Who said the belief had to be certain? It might very well be tentative. Many of my beliefs are tentative.

That is actually a good point.
I tend to think in black and white when it comes to belief. I keep forgetting that others don't.
I always equate belief with a "feeling" (if you like) of certainty and that is my meaning when I discuss it.In my terms I hold no beliefs unless I am absolutely certain of them.
Then again I also follow the scientific method of "tentativity" which kind of leave me with no beliefs at all unless they are in observable facts.
ie. I believe that OH- reacts with H+ to make water. I have observed it. I have measured it. It is a scientific fact.
I do not "believe" in the TOE even though I see it as a very very strongly supported theory. It is not yet an observable fact.
I do believe in evolution (the fact that is). It has been observed and recorded.I realize I am not using the word "believe" in quite the same way as you are, although I keep forgetting that during discussions. The trouble is that I don't know what other word to actually use in its place to get my meaning across.