Atheism is false

here is that way I see it in a nutshell:

believer in superstition: someone who thinks that there are forces or spirits that are invisible to observation, yet can have an impact on the world.
theist: someone who believes in an organized religion.
agnostic: someone who questions whether or not a god would be knowable, if one exists.
atheist(weak): someone who does not believe in any gods because they see no reason to.
atheist(strong): someone who believes that there are no gods. (for various reasons)
anti-theist: someone who despises the actions that organized religion has taken, and thus wants to stop those actions.

I think many people, including hani, confuse atheism with anti-theism because many people are both.

just my two cents =]

****
EDIT:
I believe that spidergoat has a good point. there are many rational, and reasonable, ways that one could say that something does not exist when its probability is sufficiently low.
****
 
Last edited:
superluminal said:
You want me to explain, again, to you what the typical atheist stance is regarding this? Hummpphh. Not only are you a liar (you already know where we stand) but you're lazy too. Study what it means to be an atheist. There are hundreds of good websites out there. But you already know. You just have nothing left but lies to support your position. Pitiful.
Click to expand...

So in other words you have no argument...none at all...I mean like nothing
 
Super, why did you make me think of Sam's panties!! Now I can't get the image out of my mind! ;(
 
M*W:

I liked that piece on Mickey Mouse :)

It is not rational to believe something that is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

No it is not, but you can't say that it's impossible…because it's not!


About the difference between weak and strong atheism...I just hope that someone explains to me the difference between the two statements:

I believe that there is not a ball in the box.

I do not believe that there is a ball in the box.


The only difference that I can see pertains the possibility of a ball to be in the box, and not the act of believing or the actual existence of the ball…they both don't believe that there is a ball in the box, they both deny the existence of a ball in the box, but one of them sees it possible and the other not, roughly speaking.

I don't see any other difference…and I'm not convinced that this deference is truly expressed in those statements; they are identical.
 
Hani said:
The only difference that I can see pertains the possibility of a ball to be in the box, and not the act of believing or the actual existence of the ball…they both don't believe that there is a ball in the box, they both deny the existence of a ball in the box, but one of them sees it possible and the other not, roughly speaking.
Click to expand...

Good analogy.

However one could add that atheists do not live their lives as though there were a ball in the box. Theists live their lives with the belief the ball exists and resides in the box. Atheists do not. They not only do not believe the ball exists, or think its existence is not probable at all, therefore, they do not live their lives by attempting to please said ball or reside by the rules they think the ball has set down.
 
rationalism (mere reason)
Click to expand...

What a glorious little gem!
Everythin in your life, your life itself, you owe to (mere reason), and you are foolish enough to mock it.

If you were never born, would you get to have a soul, eh tuff ghost?
 
Bells said:
Good analogy.

However one could add that atheists do not live their lives as though there were a ball in the box. Theists live their lives with the belief the ball exists and resides in the box. Atheists do not. They not only do not believe the ball exists, or think its existence is not probable at all, therefore, they do not live their lives by attempting to please said ball or reside by the rules they think the ball has set down.
Click to expand...

What's the appeal in arguing about balls and boxes?
Seems like a tremendous waste of time. Awefully boring, too.
 
Hani said:
About the difference between weak and strong atheism...I just hope that someone explains to me the difference between the two statements:

I believe that there is not a ball in the box.

I do not believe that there is a ball in the box.


The only difference that I can see pertains the possibility of a ball to be in the box, and not the act of believing or the actual existence of the ball…they both don't believe that there is a ball in the box, they both deny the existence of a ball in the box, but one of them sees it possible and the other not, roughly speaking.

I don't see any other difference…and I'm not convinced that this deference is truly expressed in those statements; they are identical.
Click to expand...
Naturally the differences between weak and strong atheism are subtle, since they are very much akin to each other, and reach the same conclusions. I think cato's post above makes their relative positions very clear. In terms of your analogy, neither believes that there's a ball in the box but, whereas strong atheists are able to provide substantive reasons for this, weak atheists simply believe that there's no ball because they see no reason to believe that there is one. Note that this isn't meant to imply that 'strong' atheism is in any way better, or more valid, than it's 'weak' variation - they're simply different ways of arriving at the same conclusion.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
I think the strong atheists do not believe in the invisible box that contains the invisible ball.
Click to expand...
Really the weak atheists hold this position. The stromg ones will irrationally claim, with absolute certainty, that there can be no ball or boxes. Right?

Although the effective result is the same for both. You can say with either 99.9999% certainty or 100% certainty "there ain't no god(s)" and for all practical purposes be fully compatible with each other except for a tiny philosophical nit-picking point.
 
Really the weak atheists hold this position. The stromg ones will irrationally claim, with absolute certainty, that there can be no ball or boxes. Right?
Click to expand...
I would say that this is a false statement
The only difference that I can see pertains the possibility of a ball to be in the box, and not the act of believing or the actual existence of the ball…they both don't believe that there is a ball in the box, they both deny the existence of a ball in the box, but one of them sees it possible and the other not, roughly speaking.
Click to expand...

you are on the right track. the way I would explain it (using the box analogy) is that a weak atheist would say "eh, there are so many things that could be in that box, there is no reason for me to think that it contains a ball." where as a strong atheist would say "the probability of there being a ball inside that box is so small, that I will say that there is no ball inside that box." its subtle, but there is a difference.

just for fun:

a theist would say "it has been revealed to me that this box contains a ball, so you should now do what I say." an a monotheist would add "don't question how I know there is a ball in this box or the ball will torment you for eternity."

an agnostic would say "what are you asking me for, I don't know whats in the box."

a superstitious person would rub the box before they go gambling because they believe that it is a special box that can have some supernatural effect.

a anti-theist would say "you are all wasting your time with this damn box while there are real problems to be solved, therefore we should destroy the box."

p.s.
all the talk about sam's panties and boxes made me this of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xElIik0Ys0
(give it 45 seconds to get funny)
 
Hani said:
First of all: what is the point of calling yourselves "atheists", like you have a personal revenge or something with the notion of theism...
Click to expand...
me I just like to bitchslap the unthinking dumfvcks with reality..:D
there are a lot of people who don't believe in ghosts but I don't see them calling themselves "Aghostists"... and I also don't see "Agoblinists" or "Amickey-mouseists"...
Click to expand...
what if there were and wanted to teach the Goblinism as a True science in your school,would you object to them??
 
Hani said:
The definition of atheism is:

The denial of the existence of a god or gods (positive atheism).
or the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (negative atheism)

The negative atheists are agnostics, but they don't know that... so anybody who believes in negative atheism should stop calling themselves atheists; you are agnostics and not atheists!
Click to expand...
well thanks for telling me what I am or am not....dumass!:rolleyes:
Atheism (positive atheism), is a very feeble creed and it is identical to theism in that they both use rationalism (mere reason) to assure positive facts!
Click to expand...
I guess I have to call you dumass again
where in the world have you ever seen THEIST use rational thinking???
teists use FAITH !!
I know that it's easy to proof that the Christian or Islamic Gods don't exist, but this is not a proof against the existence of ANY god, which what the definition of atheism states…
Click to expand...
well I dont believe in ANY GOD either so Im atheist ,comprende?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top