Weak Atheism

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This was disappointing. This was an attempt to shrink my ignore list. Oh well. I accept your concession, by the way. That's essentially what you do when you start to give "summaries" of what you think the argument was.

Firstly, i didnt make any concession, and I dont care about your little black list. that wasnt a summary. ask someone else to back you up on this, come on, lets see it.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Fine. A tri-omni god can not exist. Neither can flying purple elephants, or square circles. Only unreasonable religious zealots would say otherwise. What's the point?

........ you know what? There isn't a point. This thread is useless. You'd better not post on a useless thread.

[Kamehameha34]

Firstly, i didnt make any concession, and I dont care about your little black list. that wasnt a summary. ask someone else to back you up on this, come on, lets see it.

Your post dropped out in the "substance" factor.

........ you know what? There isn't a point.

Glad that's settled.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Your post dropped out in the "substance" factor. Glad that's settled.

Whatever. Please stop posting on this thread, because it's going absolutely nowhere. Instead of locking horns with you, I'd prefer if you just stopped.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore Whatever. Please stop posting on this thread, because it's going absolutely nowhere. Instead of locking horns with you, I'd prefer if you just stopped.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to turn conversations between us into "locking horns". Very well.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm sorry that you feel the need to turn conversations between us into "locking horns". Very well.

That's what it is dammit!

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore That's what it is dammit!

Ok, let's take a step back from our pissing contest and look at the conversation. This post was funny

[pikatore]

hmph.

[Century 25]

...It is this logical principle that is used in many aspects of the academic world, and I incorporate into my theological stance.

To cut quickly to the chase.. you can have no logical conclusion(s) re: atheism.. as you are not an atheist.. and you are a theist..

Logic - and critical thinking.. are not part of a theists thought process..

[pikatore]

Quote by: Century 25 To cut quickly to the chase.. you can have no logical conclusion(s) re: atheism.. as you are not an atheist.. and you are a theist.. Logic - and critical thinking.. are not part of a theists thought process..

I think they should be. And by the way, who are you calling a theist?

[Yasa]

I have the exact same views as described in your OP pik. I keep telling people that I'm athiest but also agnostic, and I don't even know what to say when they ask how that works.

[Zee-Axis]

"Weak Atheism" is a dog that won't hunt.
In your example:

Quote by: pikatore Person A: I believe that unicorns exist. Person B: I don't. Person A: You are wrong. They exist. Person B: Prove it. Then I'll believe that they exist. Until then, I will assume that they don't. .

Person B is a skeptic, not an Atheist. Atheism is, for the most part, absolute.
There is no god.
The supernatural is myth.
There is no qualification or clarification. The jury is not "still out" while we wait for the data to come in.
No half-steps.

If the abolute-ness of Atheism is a little scary for some people who are still "sitting on the fence", we recommend you go with some other terminology.
If you come to our next meeting with a skeptics attitude, calling yourself an Atheist, you'll be asked to leave and we probably won't validate your parking ticket.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Yasa I have the exact same views as described in your OP pik. I keep telling people that I'm athiest but also agnostic, and I don't even know what to say when they ask how that works.

hint: It doesn't.

[Century 25]

Well pikatore.. the entire premise of your thread seeks to give credence to the (nonsensical) claim of differing levels of atheism.. If you are an atheist.. you are an atheist down to your last electron.. anything other than that is not .. by the only definition possible.. an atheist..

You may be whatever you wish to be.. self described.. but it is at best a fence sitter.. an agnostic.. :)

[Jack]

Person B is a skeptic, not an Atheist.

Skepticism is a method used to examine data. Atheism is the conclusion many skeptics reach. One is the means, the other the end.

Atheism is, for the most part, absolute. There is no god. The supernatural is myth. There is no qualification or clarification. The jury is not "still out" while we wait for the data to come in. No half-steps.

Says who? I'm an atheist and that's not my position. No half-steps? You mean like the Christian belief system, which consists of who-knows how many divisions? Atheists do not believe in gods. Period, end of story. What else we believe is as diverse as it is among the general population.

I am an atheist, a non-theist. You say gods exist. I say prove it. You cannot. I walk away.
That's the Cliff Note's version.
I don't claim to have proof gods don't exist. I don't see any reason to think they exist. Theists certainly haven't convinced me of their gods.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: Isherwood Atheists do not believe in gods. Period, end of story. What else we believe is as diverse as it is among the general population.

Here's the lion's share of the definition of Atheism from a fine group of people who have given this issue alot more thought than either one of us:

American Atheists (from their website - American Atheists)
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

That's good enough for me. Perhaps you would like to take some time and re-think your "position".

[pikatore]

Quote by: Zee-Axis Here's the lion's share of the definition of Atheism from a fine group of people who have given this issue alot more thought than either one of us: American Atheists (from their website - American Atheists) Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. That's good enough for me. Perhaps you would like to take some time and re-think your "position".

Hell no, because that 'definition' is covers not just atheism, but a range of other stances. Weak atheism addresses the matter of a god/supernatural being, but your definition goes even further to state claims concerning life after death, or any metaphysical or supernatural events, the existence of alien life, etc. My beliefs are not as strict as that, let alone my weak atheist stance even ADDRESSING things other than purely the existence of a god. So you can keep your definition to yourself.

It matters JUST as much HOW and WHY you deem yourself to be atheist, as much as the fact that your ARE one.

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, yet it's characteristics blow your definition out of the water.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Do you know if there is a god? Couldn't the existence of such a being be facilitated by another universe? We know other universes to exist, according to M theory. Haven't American scientists toyed with the idea of recreating our big bang? Not necessarily. We don't know if the box is hollow, or if the sides are so thick that it resembles a solid block. In this situation, there are no knowns or averages to adhere to - for analogicality's sake. I'm operating off of a different definition of god - one that doesn't require the physically impossible creation of matter and energy.

Kame, I applaud your consistancy.

Once again you offer your ability to conceptualize something as your only form of 'evidence' and stick with your tried and true definition of god: a being that can be defined (no matter how unlikely, illogical or obviously impossible) as anything which is required to obnoxiously evade logical debate.

Your argument is as intellectually bankrupt now as it has been in past months.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Zee-Axis hint: It doesn't.

I don't believe; I reject the very notion of a god. I have seen no proof and don't feel I need to believe (I also have problems with some of the "cop outs" and elements of certain doctrines). However, I admit that I may not be able to understand everything in the universe, and thus, am semi agnostic. So I don't know what I am really. I choose not to believe, but can't logically deny unfathomable possibilities (no matter how ridiculous or absurd). So I end up saying I am an athiest (because of my belief) but also agnostic (because of my logic of potential for the unfathomable).

After re-reading my post, I think you're right, it doesn't, lol. :(

[Jack]

That's good enough for me. Perhaps you would like to take some time and re-think your "position".

No thanks. How did they come up with that definition? By committee, by fiat? I know what I think, they don't. I don't need their doctrine. If I wished to have my perspective dictated to me, I'd join a church.

[Zee-Axis]

Quote by: pikatore Buddhism is an atheistic religion, yet it's characteristics blow your definition out of the water.

Buddhism is non-theistic by its nature but, is permeated with the belief in the super-natural. This construct is completely inconsistant with the Atheist mindset and, I doubt you will find any Atheists who are Buddhists.