Saint John of The Cross 9-21-95

Holding that opinion (that the sun revolves around the earth) is a logical
position to hold (at first glance that is what it appears to do) *until*
you are shown evidence that in fact it is the earth that revolves around
the sun. Most (but not all) ancient Greek Philosophers thought the former.

 

[Guffaw] Says the bloke who CONTINUES to repost Gerry-crap!!

 

[sigh] ...
And still you respond (and repost).
Stupid fuckwit......?

 

1. neither the earth nor the sun have been around that long.
(both about 4.5 Billion Years apparently)

2. Russels teapot again. i can make *any* assertion i like, and explicitly
state that neither I nor you can possibly know if my assertion is true or
not. Would you then...
a. assume i'm talking complete rubbish.
b. state that "it's impossible to know"
c. take what i say as gospel truth.

nice ad hominem again by the way.

 

oh Absolutely, but i like facts to be correct when stated ;-)

If there was a "probably" in the first sentence what then?

I don't like them, no. Using it usually indicates you can't use a better
argument.
Or of course that you're tired and getting annoyed ;-)

heh ;-) this is *early* for me.

To sum up my position maybe, as the argument is going nowhere fast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Strong_vs._weak

is fairly detailed.

What you call "atheist" (same/similar definition as G-S) I would call
"Strong Atheist" and I'd agree with you that it is a position that
requires *belief*. I'd classify my position as "weak atheist" and
contend that it is a logical position to hold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God
some of these arguments are better than others, i'll freely admit.

but see also, on the same page, under •conclusions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Atheism

particularly "weak atheism" (my position) and also "Agnosticism" (your position afaik)

note that being Agnostic and being a "weak atheist" are not mutually exclusive positions.

 

Except that it isn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

atheist
-Noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I, as an atheist, *do not believe* that there is a god.
this is not the same as me *being certain* that there is no god.

 

Agnosticism is the "It is impossible to know whether there are any (theistic)"but there being no evidence"; (strong Atheism) "there aren't any."| (Weak Atheism) "it is entirely unlikely that there are any"

I'm a "Weak Atheist". So are most Atheists, including e.g. Dawkins et al.

 

My apologies, i was doing that from memory. The term I meant is "Weak Atheist".

Weak Atheists are mostly (by definition) Agnostic as well. The terms aren't
mutually exclusive, although "Strong Atheism" and "Agnostic" are.

 

wait no longer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Yes some of those arguments are better than others, but pay particular attention to

• The problem of evil
• The argument from poor design
• The argument from parsimony
• Russels Teapot i've already mentioned i think
• The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit (yes really)
• The argument from free will
• The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument
• Theological noncognitivism
• The "historical induction" argument

I am talking about the odds, because the odds (as based on the evidence
in each direction, see the arguments above) are what defines the difference
between (on a spectrum from absolute belief to absolute disbelief)
Theist - Agnostic Theist - Agnostic Atheist (AKA "Weak Atheist") - Strong Atheist

It's a spectrum of degree of belief.

You are a "Weak Atheist" then - defined as not believing in god, but
not claiming that there definitely isn't one (or more)

Lets not bring Deism into this hey, it just makes it more complicated ;-)

 

I'm not redefining anything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

I'm a "Weak" atheist
as far as i can see, you are a "Strong" atheist

Dawkins is emphatically a "Weak" atheist btw.


From that wiki page-
"In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the
probability of the existence of God is between "very high"
and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong
atheist" for "I know there is no god". He categorises himself
as a "de facto atheist" but *not* a "strong atheist" under
this definition."

 

I don't much care who does or does not choose to read what I write here.
I'd always prefer of course that if someone is going to *respond*
to what I write here that they have read it first ;-)

 

That is a Deist definition of god. The Theist definition of god usually
incorporates that, but also states that He hung around afterwards to
fiddle with things.

Actually, "God" is a specific subset of "Deity"

A Deistic god need not be able to change anything after the creation of
the universe, a Theistic god (the usual Omnipotent/Omnipresent/outside
of time Abrahamic version for example) however, should.

 

He's never seen a solar eclipse?

 

There are various definitions on the web about atheism only some match
the definition you've given above.

Others are much more like the definition that Gerry and I seem to use.


G-S

 

And about 1950 you atheists started to redefine meanings such that you
split the camps in the way you describe (ie you stole our definition)


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:03:22 +1000

monotheism is relatively new. The older religions personified things
like chaos and water, and there were limits to what they could do.

Later on the idea of male and female principle came in.

I really do recommend "The River of God" by Gregory Riley, heaps of
really interesting stuff in there.

Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Apr 2010 22:53:14 +1000

I'd say that to meet the modern definition of a "god" they'd have to
give a shit about human beings, and that's so unlikely as to be close
enough to zero for all practical purposes.

THe pre-modern idea of god would fit better, as humans were never much
of a concern to ones like Tiamat except as an occasional tool.

Zebee

 

Wow. What faith is that, may I ask? I've never heard that one before.

Kev

 

But then you are coming down to semantics. I'll go back to my original
point that I am 99.99% an atheist except I can't prove non-existence.
People keep saying an agnostic is 50/50. Why? Plus some of the posts
in here show a lot of atheists are as fundamentalist as the loony
religious. Therefore I want to step back a little from that (only a
very small "little" mind you).

Agnostic atheist suits me nicely thank you.

Kev

 

There's an elephant there surely?

Kev