Have you ever heard of the following terms?:
1. Strong-Atheist
2. Weak-Atheist
3. Atheist-Agnostic
I'm sure, if you read into the terminology rules for this section, you likely came across them. It is my intention here to provide reasons why these terms are not taken seriously in the real world, and shouldn't be taken seriously anywhere. It is a description of probably the largest most fanatical cult followings on the internet to redefine what has long been known as Atheism.
Let's start with a tiny forum on the world wide web called, Sciforums. If we check the Religion Section, we will see FAQs. Within the FAQ thread we can see terminology which points to another thread about terminology used in this section. That thread then points to a source: Secular Web. More commonly known as: www.infidels.org.
Even Wikipedia articles are fixed to incorporate SW’s claims of what “Atheism” is, and how it is defined with some convincing etymology. Wikipedia even sites SW as a source. But is SW a legitimate source? Are their definitions for “Atheism” legitimate? Who do they claim to be? Why are they so popular? Should we beware of them? Do they give legitimate atheists a bad name?
1. Let’s start with a common epistemological misconception.
Misconception: If I take up a position of certainty, it means I am not open to the views of others, and taking their position upon presentation of evidence.
A. This is one of the most foolish and illogical misconceptions that is used to distort the meaning of Atheism.
B. Anybody working rationally in logic knows that talking a position of certainty does not mean you are not open to changing your position upon proper evidence.
C. In fact, it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE no matter how hard they try for a rational logical individual to continue with a position if they are presented with evidence to the contrary.
Fact: Anybody that takes up a position of certainty is always, by default, open to evidence to the contrary.
2. SW Acolytes
No matter what you believe, it is your duty to impose it to an extent. If what you believe is the truth, by all means, let others know about it. However, regardless of what it is, when somebody gets caught up in self-righteousness (disrespect of the beliefs of others) fanaticism about it to the point he/she starts taking things personal, they lose all objectivity, and are no more than a lunatic zealot. It is perfectly OK to believe there is a God. It is perfectly OK to believe there is no God. It is perfectly OK to spread what you believe whether it is religious or not. Topics are typically opened to discuss our beliefs with others.
A SW Acolyte is somebody who has, in one way or another, come across SW’s ideas about Atheism. Most likely from another Acolyte who “corrected” him about what Atheism “really is”. After being “enlightened”, they then go around spreading these notions to everybody everywhere. They are not legitimate Atheists in any form.
3. What is SW’s doctrine on Atheism, and should we buy into it?
The answer is no. I will provide here reasoning of why legitimate Atheists or anybody do not abide by SW’s definitions of Atheism that they have spread throughout the internet. Also, reasons why their claims should not be taken seriously.
SW ATHEISM: Anybody that does not believe in God including those who have not taken any position on the matter is an Atheist. Those who have taken position that there is no God is “Strong Atheist”.
LEGITIMATE ATHEISM: The position of certainty that there is no God. (Need not to be stated that by default, open to evidence to contrary.)
DILLEMA 1: SW Atheism claims that “Strong Atheism” is not open to evidence to the contrary. As stated in #1, this is a logical misconception.
DILLEMA 2: By using SW Atheism, we can easily say that everybody is an Atheist one way or another. You might believe in one God, but if you don’t believe in another God, you can be said to be Atheist.
DILLEMA 3: Etymology in the case of “ism” always implies a position on something. While Theism is the position of certainty that God exists, A in “Atheism” does not imply the lack of certainty on the matter. Any “Ism” with an “A” in prefix, implies antithesis of view. Theism and Atheism are antithetical positions. While Theism is certainty that God exists, Atheism is certainty that God does not exist.
DILLEMA 4: Somebody that is undescided/doesn't know cannot be described under an "ism". Such lack of position cannot be referred to as "Weak Atheism" just as much as it cannot be referred to as "Weak Thesism".
4. It is important for any legitimate atheist to be aware that www.infedels.org is a hoax of real Atheism. It is only bloated with doctrine about what legitimate Atheism is not, and will never be. No place in respectable legitimate society takes their terminology seriously.
-If you are uncertain of whether or not God exists, you do not fall under an “ism” with respect to the question.
-If you do take up the position that God certainly does not exist, it does not mean you are not open to evidence in contrary.
-Those who take up position that man can certainly never know whether or not God exists falls under Agnosticism.
-Those who take up position that man can never be certain of anything falls under Skepticism. (Which also implies Agnosticism.)
1. Strong-Atheist
2. Weak-Atheist
3. Atheist-Agnostic
I'm sure, if you read into the terminology rules for this section, you likely came across them. It is my intention here to provide reasons why these terms are not taken seriously in the real world, and shouldn't be taken seriously anywhere. It is a description of probably the largest most fanatical cult followings on the internet to redefine what has long been known as Atheism.
Let's start with a tiny forum on the world wide web called, Sciforums. If we check the Religion Section, we will see FAQs. Within the FAQ thread we can see terminology which points to another thread about terminology used in this section. That thread then points to a source: Secular Web. More commonly known as: www.infidels.org.
Even Wikipedia articles are fixed to incorporate SW’s claims of what “Atheism” is, and how it is defined with some convincing etymology. Wikipedia even sites SW as a source. But is SW a legitimate source? Are their definitions for “Atheism” legitimate? Who do they claim to be? Why are they so popular? Should we beware of them? Do they give legitimate atheists a bad name?
1. Let’s start with a common epistemological misconception.
Misconception: If I take up a position of certainty, it means I am not open to the views of others, and taking their position upon presentation of evidence.
A. This is one of the most foolish and illogical misconceptions that is used to distort the meaning of Atheism.
B. Anybody working rationally in logic knows that talking a position of certainty does not mean you are not open to changing your position upon proper evidence.
C. In fact, it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE no matter how hard they try for a rational logical individual to continue with a position if they are presented with evidence to the contrary.
Fact: Anybody that takes up a position of certainty is always, by default, open to evidence to the contrary.
2. SW Acolytes
No matter what you believe, it is your duty to impose it to an extent. If what you believe is the truth, by all means, let others know about it. However, regardless of what it is, when somebody gets caught up in self-righteousness (disrespect of the beliefs of others) fanaticism about it to the point he/she starts taking things personal, they lose all objectivity, and are no more than a lunatic zealot. It is perfectly OK to believe there is a God. It is perfectly OK to believe there is no God. It is perfectly OK to spread what you believe whether it is religious or not. Topics are typically opened to discuss our beliefs with others.
A SW Acolyte is somebody who has, in one way or another, come across SW’s ideas about Atheism. Most likely from another Acolyte who “corrected” him about what Atheism “really is”. After being “enlightened”, they then go around spreading these notions to everybody everywhere. They are not legitimate Atheists in any form.
3. What is SW’s doctrine on Atheism, and should we buy into it?
The answer is no. I will provide here reasoning of why legitimate Atheists or anybody do not abide by SW’s definitions of Atheism that they have spread throughout the internet. Also, reasons why their claims should not be taken seriously.
SW ATHEISM: Anybody that does not believe in God including those who have not taken any position on the matter is an Atheist. Those who have taken position that there is no God is “Strong Atheist”.
LEGITIMATE ATHEISM: The position of certainty that there is no God. (Need not to be stated that by default, open to evidence to contrary.)
DILLEMA 1: SW Atheism claims that “Strong Atheism” is not open to evidence to the contrary. As stated in #1, this is a logical misconception.
DILLEMA 2: By using SW Atheism, we can easily say that everybody is an Atheist one way or another. You might believe in one God, but if you don’t believe in another God, you can be said to be Atheist.
DILLEMA 3: Etymology in the case of “ism” always implies a position on something. While Theism is the position of certainty that God exists, A in “Atheism” does not imply the lack of certainty on the matter. Any “Ism” with an “A” in prefix, implies antithesis of view. Theism and Atheism are antithetical positions. While Theism is certainty that God exists, Atheism is certainty that God does not exist.
DILLEMA 4: Somebody that is undescided/doesn't know cannot be described under an "ism". Such lack of position cannot be referred to as "Weak Atheism" just as much as it cannot be referred to as "Weak Thesism".
4. It is important for any legitimate atheist to be aware that www.infedels.org is a hoax of real Atheism. It is only bloated with doctrine about what legitimate Atheism is not, and will never be. No place in respectable legitimate society takes their terminology seriously.
-If you are uncertain of whether or not God exists, you do not fall under an “ism” with respect to the question.
-If you do take up the position that God certainly does not exist, it does not mean you are not open to evidence in contrary.
-Those who take up position that man can certainly never know whether or not God exists falls under Agnosticism.
-Those who take up position that man can never be certain of anything falls under Skepticism. (Which also implies Agnosticism.)
Last edited:
