Weak Atheism. What a joke.

[lixluke]

So


1. Theism : there is a God (A) (proposition)

2. Weak Atheism : I don't believe (A) (disbelief in proposition)

3. Atheism : There is no God

Is that right?

No this is wrong.

"I don't believe in God" is not atheism at all. There is no such thing as "weak atheism". It is an internet meme created by nutters.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Athiests don't want a God to exist, it's not even about belief, the athiest knows God does not exist, the Agnostic does not believe. Words cannot sway a true athiest. Words can sway an agnostic.

 

[S.A.M.]

do they choose to act as if there is a god, or as if there isn't? Isn't that the real basis for the theist / atheist split?

That is what I always thought.

 

[SkinWalker]

It might surprise licksluke, but I actually don't subscribe to the weak/strong atheist definitions myself. The only logical tenable position that I can come up with is agnostic-atheist. Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods, but I recognize that this simply isn't something I can test. I also believe there probably is not a giant Tea Pot orbiting the sun or that there probably aren't invisible dragons living in peoples' garages. But I also recognize that whatever test I can devise to prove their non-existence, someone can come along and move the goal post and create a new characteristic: said tea pot is invisible or the dragon is incorporeal.

Either you believe in one or more gods or you don't. Atheist: without gods. Theist: with god(s).

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

 

[lixluke]

"Denial?" Perhaps, but this denial is that there is sufficient evidence to believe in gods. This I deny. There might be a god in the universe, which I cannot possibly know since I haven't the ability to test the universe in it's entirety.

Back to one of your other illogical and un-reasoned points about the word atheism: can we assume, then, that you've accepted defeat on the etymology of the word meaning "without gods" rather than "disbelief in gods?" Or do we then need to change the meanings of other Greek derived words in common use such as asexual when we refer to certain organisms (or do we accept that certain species of worm "disbelieve" in gender)?

Perhaps "atoms" are no longer derived from the Gr. "without parts" and now refer to "disbelief" in parts (realizing that the atom was once believed to be the smallest "part")?

HA! Perhaps asepsis refers to a "disbelief" of infection instead of "without infection." Or maybe aphasia means a "disbelief" in speaking rather than being "without" speech.

Are you that stupid? Theism is a position regarding the proposition:
God does exist.

You cannot compare that proposition in the same sense as asexual = disbelief in a gender.

 

[TimeTraveler]

That is what I always thought.

No, it's not, because you can believe in a scientific form of God. You can believe in string theory, or that the big bang creation myth, or that the universe is an equation. The fact is that you believe in something. It does not change how you live or behave, it just means you believe in the creation myth.

If you are an athiest, then you don't believe the universe was created, it was just always here, because the act of creation itself requires a cause, and this is the main difference between people who believe in God and those who are athiests. Some people want to know the answers and know the cause to everything, and some people want to accept that humans arent supposed to know the answers and that it's pointless to ask these sorts of questions because there is no God, and only the now matters.

The problem with athiesm is you cannot answer any of the "why" questions with it. This is bad long term in my opinion because science without answering the "why" questions, is science without context. It's like creating an object, a block, a lego block, but not having any way to connect it with all the other blocks, if each human invents a block, but no way to connect all blocks, the result is that you cannot build a castle out of blocks because there is no connector. So I'm making the case that athiesm is a disconnector block. It prevents people from connecting the dots, which is fine if the athiest wants to not connect the dots, as long as they don't force athiesm on everyone and we have freedom of religion.

 

[SkinWalker]

Athiests don't want a God to exist, it's not even about belief, the athiest knows God does not exist, the Agnostic does not believe. Words cannot sway a true athiest. Words can sway an agnostic.

Whose god? Just your's? What of the other gods of humanity? Should atheists not want them to exist either? Should believers in your god want others to exist?

This is the logic of the superstitious who cannot fathom that others wouldn't believe their superstitions. Because I don't accept your mythology, I must be angry or hateful of your imagined god. Because I don't subscribe to your superstitions, I must, therefore, be in denial of them. Right.

 

[S.A.M.]

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

I don't discriminate either. In India we believe that different religions are just different representations of the same God. Islam says the same and so does Hinduism. We use God to signify the One God as in Brahman, Allah or God and gods to signify the representations, as the devas and pagan gods.

 

[lixluke]

However, when you accept that atheism is "without gods," then an atheist can be agnostic.

I am not talking about how kindergarten morons on the internet define atheism. I am talking about the original intentions of greeks and the "original" meaning of atheism.

Without God is not an absense of belief. Without God in the sense the greeks were using it was a position that there are no gods.
The greeks did not even use the term atheism. They used atheos. Either way, the greek, french, english is all the same intended original meaning.

Theism represents the position that God/gods does exist.
Atheism represents the poistion that God does not exist.

When the greeks used atheos, it has nothing to do with saying "without the position".
Wrong interpretation: "I am only without the position that God does exist."
Correct interpretation: "I hold the position that the universe is without God.

Sexual: An animal that has gender.
Asexual: An animal without gender.

Theism: The universe has God/gods.
Atheism: The universe is without God/gods.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Whose god? Just your's? What of the other gods of humanity? Should atheists not want them to exist either? Should believers in your god want others to exist?

This is the logic of the superstitious who cannot fathom that others wouldn't believe their superstitions. Because I don't accept your mythology, I must be angry or hateful of your imagined god. Because I don't subscribe to your superstitions, I must, therefore, be in denial of them. Right.

Doesnt matter whos god, which god, the type of god, or how many gods. The point is some people don't want to explain the unexplained, they don't care how the universe was born, or how it may die, if you don't really care because there is nothing but the now, well then why do you need a concept of God?

However, if you do care, then you must know WHY, and HOW, not simply HOW. The universe even if it's a machine, you have to know why the machine was built, and who and what built it. We now know how it was built, or at least we have theories, and athiests arent complaining about this search for "how", so why complain about the search for "why"? God explains why we exist, and athiests at best cite existentialism which basically says we exist because we exist, and we live to die, yeah very meaningful theory. Why would anyone want to live to die when they can live for the big picture, for the betterment of the universe?

The problem with athiests, or my problem with athiests, is that they offer a negative. "God does not exist.", and then they proceed to replace God with something even worse, which is nothingness. "God does not exist because NOTHING is existance.", To someone who is not an athiest it sounds like athiests worship nothingness. The void. darkness, etc. I know this is over simplified, but this is how athiests make themselves look when they refuse to provide a cosmic alternative view and simply attack the concept of God. Athiests don't seem to realize that religion is more essential to a species than science, because without religion or philosophy to guide the science, humans really will build to destroy, and live to die, and there will be no reason to search space or aim higher, I doubt an athiest mind would have taken us into space in the first place because they wouldnt have asked the right questions, they would have asked how, but not "why".

 

[lixluke]

lixluke,

Try reading the Forum FAQs that should help you understand your mistake.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

I have just finished stating that these so called "facts" are an incorrect interpretation of the original meaning of atheism.
Restating these "facts" does not make them correct.

 

[SkinWalker]

Are you that stupid? Theism is a position regarding the proposition:
God does exist.

You cannot compare that proposition in the same sense as asexual = disbelief in a gender.

Obviously, you have some difficulties reasoning or using critical thinking skills with your mind so cluttered with, perhaps, a lifetime of indoctrination in whatever religious cult or superstition you subscribe to and this keeps you from understanding.

Just because "theism" is the position -the belief- in one or more gods (not "God," as in only your god), it doesn't follow that atheism must be disbelief. My daughter is an atheist. She is without god(s). Ask her what your god is, and she'll have no idea. Describe your god to her and you'll probably get, "oh, you mean Santa Claus!"

Atheism means without god(s). Greek is a language, not a position.

 

[lixluke]

Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods,

As stated, atheism was never ever meant as "without the knowledge of God".
It was always meant as "without God period" properly interpreted as "The universe is without god. There is no god in the universe."

 

[TimeTraveler]

It might surprise licksluke, but I actually don't subscribe to the weak/strong atheist definitions myself. The only logical tenable position that I can come up with is agnostic-atheist. Without gods, but without the knowledge to truly say gods do not exist. I believe there probably are no gods, but I recognize that this simply isn't something I can test. I also believe there probably is not a giant Tea Pot orbiting the sun or that there probably aren't invisible dragons living in peoples' garages. But I also recognize that whatever test I can devise to prove their non-existence, someone can come along and move the goal post and create a new characteristic: said tea pot is invisible or the dragon is incorporeal.

Either you believe in one or more gods or you don't. Atheist: without gods. Theist: with god(s).

The rub, again, is the use of capitalization when discussing such matters as gods. You capitalize "God," understanding that this is the one and only god -the abrahamic version. I, on the other hand, don't discriminate when it comes to gods of humanity. They're all equally worthless to me. And equally fictional.

But don't you see, that when you say that there are no Gods, that you are giving yourself limits? You have nothing to aim for, because you have no concept of Gods, or of the ultimate force of creation. How exactly are we going to move onto creating planets and universes of our own if we have no concept of it in our mind?

 

[SkinWalker]

I have just finished stating that these so called "facts" are an incorrect interpretation of the original meaning of atheism.
Restating these "facts" does not make them correct.

You can go on and on trying to re-define words all you want. But you're still calling a sphere a cube and there still are no corners.

 

[lixluke]

You can go on and on trying to re-define words all you want. But you're still calling a sphere a cube and there still are no corners.

This is not a redefinition. You can continue on ignoring the statement. This is the original meaning of atheism. What is your issue with it?

 

[TimeTraveler]

As stated, atheism was never ever meant as "without the knowledge of God".
It was always meant as "without God period" properly interpreted as "The universe is without god. There is no god in the universe."

Once again, athiests view the universe without Gods or potential for Gods, and this sets limits on scientific thinking, because now the scientist thinks of the universe as a bunch of seperate blocks with no connectors, and a bunch of noise, static, and mist, a very dark nothingness void of endless space with energy, constantly moving in a rhythm with no meaning. This is a very mechanical way of viewing the universe and I'm saying it limits artistic creativity, to view the universe as a giant pinball machine.

 

[lixluke]

A<---- Without.

Not "without the belief in".

Any atheist that claims they do not support the position that the universe is without God is not really an athiest.

 

[SkinWalker]

But don't you see, that when you say that there are no Gods, that you are giving yourself limits? You have nothing to aim for, because you have no concept of Gods, or of the ultimate force of creation. How exactly are we going to move onto creating planets and universes of our own if we have no concept of it in our mind?

You're kidding, right? What you're saying is that because we don't know something, it's okay to invent whatever fiction or mythology will provide a suitable answer and then say this is "truth." Utter poppycock.

I say you are completely and utterly wrong and that by using the god cop-out, it is the theist that "limits" himself. What reason, then, is there to look for answers if you can say god did it or the tooth fairy took the tooth; or the sandman made you sleepy; or coyote tricked you; etc.?

By not falling into the superstitious nonsense of religious cults like christianity and islam, I'm able to go on observing the universe around me and to be in complete awe at what I see. I don't need whatever the in-vogue god is of the day to make my life any more complete than it already is. Nor do I need to have some superstition in my life in order to find a reason to live or something to "aim for." And, anyone that does is a truly pathetic excuse for a human.

 

[TimeTraveler]

A<---- Without.

Not "without the belief in".

Any atheist that claims they do not support the position that the universe is without God is not really an athiest.

Yes but how can an athiest mind ever discover the creative force that created existance? The athiest just says "we are here, live with it", but some people want to know EXACTLY what we are and WHY. If an athiest responds with "nothing", thats unacceptable for most people, this is why about 80% of people believe in God.