The MOST faith dependant religious belief IS...

[m***@.]

The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism. There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe. The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

[Virgil]

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

[m***@.]

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism and doesn't even acknowledge strong
atheism, much less present an argument against what I pointed out about it. In
fact it attempts to deny the existence of strong atheism.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe. The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

Your reply, and probably any others if there's ever anyone else who isn't
afraid to try opposing what I pointed out, supports what I pointed out. Most of
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their own arguments
regarding the possibility of God's existence, appeared to be strong atheists.
But! Even though that's the case I remember VERY few who ever would admit to
being strong atheists, and even more significantly VERY few who even appeared
able to comprehend much less acknowledge the significant distinction between
strong and weak atheism.

[Virgil]

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is
unarguably strong atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at
all. All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious
beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism

It applies to all atheism that mere atheism is achievable by a LACK of
any and all religious beliefs!

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being
who could be considered a God

Nor any that unambiguously indicates any being who is a God!

Before the advent of science a lot of the patterns that science now
regards as natural were ascribed to godly activity.

Since the advent of scientific thinking, such godly explanations are no
longer needed, or wanted.

[m***@.]

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism and doesn't even acknowledge strong
atheism, much less present an argument against what I pointed out about it. In
fact it attempts to deny the existence of strong atheism.

It applies to all atheism that mere atheism is achievable by a LACK of
any and all religious beliefs!

_________________________________________________________
Atheism may or may not be a position of faith, depending on the type of atheism
. . .
A "strong" atheist is one who asserts that "there is no god." Strong atheism is
the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't
know the distinction between strong and weak atheism. However, strong atheists
are rarer than most people think.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god.
. . .
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of
atheism that asserts that no deities exist.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step
further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple
gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.
. . .
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe
that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do
not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."
. . .
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism (sometimes called "positive atheism" by its adherents), is a type
of atheism that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is
different from weak atheism, in which the atheist claims only that there is
insufficient evidence that any god exists.
. . .
http://www.conservapedia.com/Strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe.

Nor any that unambiguously indicates any being who is a God!

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

Post by Virgil
Before the advent of science a lot of the patterns that science now
regards as natural were ascribed to godly activity.
Since the advent of scientific thinking, such godly explanations are no
longer needed, or wanted.

If there is a God associated with this planet, things humans learn through
science tell us more about how he got/gets things done. That's an obvious aspect
that really needs to be in my basics list.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

Your reply, and probably any others if there's ever anyone else who isn't
afraid to try opposing what I pointed out, supports what I pointed out. Most of
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their own arguments
regarding the possibility of God's existence, appeared to be strong atheists.
But! Even though that's the case I remember VERY few who ever would admit to
being strong atheists, and even more significantly VERY few who even appeared
able to comprehend much less acknowledge the significant distinction between
strong and weak atheism.

[Les Hellawell]

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

Really?

I would argue that a belief there is a god is equal and opposite
to the belief there is no god (contratheism) but of course the
Christian believes far more than there is just a god.

So:

Belief there is a god - needs faith in the absence of evidence.

Belief that this god and the god depicted in the Bible are one and
the same - needs faith in the absence of any evidence to show it is
so.

Belief this god has talked to us through the idiots
who wrote the Bible - needs faith, lots of faith in the absence
of any evidence to show it is so.

Belief that Jesus son of only Mary knows existed - needs
faith.

Belief that Mary was a virgin - needs faith in the absence of
any evidence it is so.

Belief that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead - requires
massive faith in the absence of any evidence outside he Bible it
actually happened.

Belief Jesus died to save us from our sins - lots of faith needed
in the absense of any evidence it is so.

Belief that we have an eternal soul- requires faith in the absence
of any evidence it is so.

Belief there is a heaven and a hell - requires lots of faith in the
absense of any evidence it is so

Beleif that some god judges us on death - needs lots of faith
in the absence of any evidence it is so

Whew that is an incredible amount of faith needed, none of
which having any evidence to show it is so

It makes the alleged faith there is /there is no god look trivial in
comparison

<a cut above the rest>

Les Hellawell
Grreting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote::
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[Bob Officer]

Post by Les Hellawell

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

Really?
I would argue that a belief there is a god is equal and opposite
to the belief there is no god (contratheism) but of course the
Christian believes far more than there is just a god.
Belief there is a god - needs faith in the absence of evidence.
Belief that this god and the god depicted in the Bible are one and
the same - needs faith in the absence of any evidence to show it is
so.
Belief this god has talked to us through the idiots
who wrote the Bible - needs faith, lots of faith in the absence
of any evidence to show it is so.
Belief that Jesus son of only Mary knows existed - needs
faith.
Belief that Mary was a virgin - needs faith in the absence of
any evidence it is so.
Belief that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead - requires
massive faith in the absence of any evidence outside he Bible it
actually happened.
Belief Jesus died to save us from our sins - lots of faith needed
in the absense of any evidence it is so.
Belief that we have an eternal soul- requires faith in the absence
of any evidence it is so.
Belief there is a heaven and a hell - requires lots of faith in the
absense of any evidence it is so
Beleif that some god judges us on death - needs lots of faith
in the absence of any evidence it is so
Whew that is an incredible amount of faith needed, none of
which having any evidence to show it is so
It makes the alleged faith there is /there is no god look trivial in
comparison
<a cut above the rest>

Les

I still do not see why theist make a priori assumption of a deity. The
simple lack of a need to be a god is as simple as the lack of belief in a
purple unicorn.

Show me evidence of a god, especially since all the various books of myths,
tales and folklore all seem to based on an unsupported priori.

The is no belief in atheism. Their might be when you bring into contra
theism, and agnosticism.

The ill-logical assumption of a priori in favor of deism is simple the
product of constant bombardment from all sources.

[m***@.]

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

[Virgil]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

It would be much harder to show that there was any such need than to
show there was not.

[Bob Officer]

Post by Virgil

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

It would be much harder to show that there was any such need than to
show there was not.

His fatal errors in critical thinking include creating a priori.

The inclusion of such an unsupported priori is ridiculous. Ridiculous
unsupported claims are dismissed.

[Virgil]

Post by Bob Officer

Post by Virgil

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

It would be much harder to show that there was any such need than to
show there was not.

His fatal errors in critical thinking include creating a priori.

Those that would posit an a priori need for a god are the ones misusing
a priori.

The inclusion of such an unsupported priori is ridiculous. Ridiculous
unsupported claims are summarily dismissed.

[m***@.]

Post by Virgil

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC), Bob Officer

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

It would be much harder to show that there was any such need than to
show there was not.

Yet you can't even make an attempt to show there was not, much MUCH less how
you want people to believe you could possibly have found out.

[Bob Officer]

Post by m***@.

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

Why should there be a need for any god.

You making the fatal critical thinking error of assuming a priori

[m***@.]

Post by Bob Officer

Post by m***@.

lack of a need . . . god

If you can support your own claim then you can settle this whole thing for
everyone from years ago, and now, to years in the future. Explain how you could
have possibly found out there was no need for a being/beings who could be
considered God(s) to be associated with this planet, or star system, or galaxy,
or universe, or whatever area you want people to think you found out about (and
of course HOW), and then let's take it from there.

Why should there be a need for any god.

In order for what to take place?

Post by Bob Officer
You making the fatal critical thinking error of assuming a priori

Try to explain how you want people to think claiming there is no need . . .
god, is any less of one than considering that there might be.

[m***@.]

Post by Les Hellawell

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

Really?

There's nothing to indicate otherwise.

Post by Les Hellawell

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil
It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism and doesn't even acknowledge strong
atheism, much less present an argument against what I pointed out about it. In
fact it attempts to deny the existence of strong atheism.

It applies to all atheism that mere atheism is achievable by a LACK of
any and all religious beliefs!

_________________________________________________________
Atheism may or may not be a position of faith, depending on the type of atheism
. . .
A "strong" atheist is one who asserts that "there is no god." Strong atheism is
the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't
know the distinction between strong and weak atheism. However, strong atheists
are rarer than most people think.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god.
. . .
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of
atheism that asserts that no deities exist.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step
further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple
gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.
. . .
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe
that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do
not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."
. . .
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism (sometimes called "positive atheism" by its adherents), is a type
of atheism that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is
different from weak atheism, in which the atheist claims only that there is
insufficient evidence that any god exists.
. . .
http://www.conservapedia.com/Strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe.

Nor any that unambiguously indicates any being who is a God!

4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.

Post by Virgil
Before the advent of science a lot of the patterns that science now
regards as natural were ascribed to godly activity.
Since the advent of scientific thinking, such godly explanations are no
longer needed, or wanted.

If there is a God associated with this planet, things humans learn through
science tell us more about how he got/gets things done. That's an obvious aspect
that really needs to be in my basics list.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

Your reply, and probably any others if there's ever anyone else who isn't
afraid to try opposing what I pointed out, supports what I pointed out. Most of
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their own arguments
regarding the possibility of God's existence, appeared to be strong atheists.
But! Even though that's the case I remember VERY few who ever would admit to
being strong atheists, and even more significantly VERY few who even appeared
able to comprehend much less acknowledge the significant distinction between
strong and weak atheism.

I would argue that a belief there is a god is equal and opposite
to the belief there is no god

If you actually could you would, but you can only make the claim. Can you
support your faith that your claim is correct, or are you not only ashamed to
try but also so ashamed of your faith that you wish you could deny it?

[Bob Officer]

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism and doesn't even acknowledge strong
atheism, much less present an argument against what I pointed out about it. In
fact it attempts to deny the existence of strong atheism.

Please show evidence of weak or strong atheism. Since ism is a suffix which
means belief it can not nor should it ever be appended to the word atheist.
Which is no belief an gods.

Theism is a a belief.

An Atheist would a person with be a person with no belief. No belief would
be neither weak nor strong. Just no belief.

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe. The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

Your reply, and probably any others if there's ever anyone else who isn't
afraid to try opposing what I pointed out, supports what I pointed out. Most of
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their own arguments
regarding the possibility of God's existence, appeared to be strong atheists.
But! Even though that's the case I remember VERY few who ever would admit to
being strong atheists, and even more significantly VERY few who even appeared
able to comprehend much less acknowledge the significant distinction between
strong and weak atheism.

More nonsense?

[Virgil]

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

[m***@.]

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

I've already pointed out the distinction between strong and weak atheism for
you. I'm a weak agnostic. There's a distinction between strong and weak
agnosticism also and again the strong position is entirely based on faith:
_________________________________________________________
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods
exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god
existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if
some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general
position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic,
they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they
also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak
agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one
person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality
themselves.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/strong_weak.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[A Nony Mouse]

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

I've already pointed out the distinction between strong and weak atheism for
you. I'm a weak agnostic. There's a distinction between strong and weak
_________________________________________________________
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods
exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god
existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if
some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general
position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.
Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic,
they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they
also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak
agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one
person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality
themselves.

Where does that put a person who merely believes that no one can KNOW
whether there are any gods or not?

[Mike Duffy]

Post by A Nony Mouse
Where does that put a person who merely believes that no one can KNOW
whether there are any gods or not?

Or the Deist who says there's a god, but now he is retired.

[m***@.]

Post by A Nony Mouse

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

I've already pointed out the distinction between strong and weak atheism for
you. I'm a weak agnostic. There's a distinction between strong and weak
_________________________________________________________
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods
exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god
existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if
some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general
position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.
Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic,
they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they
also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak
agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one
person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality
themselves.

Where does that put a person who merely believes that no one can KNOW
whether there are any gods or not?

Just above where you questioned the position, as a strong agnonstic. That
same sort of position also questions how anyone could KNOW they are alive,
etc...

[Virgil]

Post by m***@.

Post by A Nony Mouse

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

I've already pointed out the distinction between strong and weak
atheism
for
you. I'm a weak agnostic. There's a distinction between strong and weak
_________________________________________________________
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if
any
gods
exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god
existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if
some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general
position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.
Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic,
they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they
also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak
agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one
person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality
themselves.

Where does that put a person who merely believes that no one can KNOW
whether there are any gods or not?

Just above where you questioned the position, as a strong agnonstic. That
same sort of position also questions how anyone could KNOW they are alive,
etc...

Given any reasonable definition of "being alive", some people who are
can "know" that they satisfy that definition!

[m***@.]

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.

Post by A Nony Mouse

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
Most of

Post by m***@.
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their
own arguments regarding the possibility of God's existence,
appeared to be strong atheists. But! Even though that's the case I
remember VERY few who ever would admit to being strong atheists

Many of those whom theists call atheist are really more agnostic, in he
sense of that they merely doubt there is any way to determine
unambiguously that any gods actually exist.

I've already pointed out the distinction between strong and weak
atheism
for
you. I'm a weak agnostic. There's a distinction between strong and weak
_________________________________________________________
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if
any
gods
exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god
existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if
some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general
position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.
Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic,
they don’t merely claim that they don’t know if any gods exist; instead, they
also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak
agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one
person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality
themselves.

Where does that put a person who merely believes that no one can KNOW
whether there are any gods or not?

Just above where you questioned the position, as a strong agnonstic. That
same sort of position also questions how anyone could KNOW they are alive,
etc...

Given any reasonable definition of "being alive", some people who are
can "know" that they satisfy that definition!

How do you know it? What do you think makes that different than how people
could know God exists, if he does?

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil
Given any reasonable definition of "being alive", some people who are
can "know" that they satisfy that definition!

How do you know it?

Because I fit my own reasonable definition of "being alive", of course!

[m***@.]

Post by Wisely Non-Theist

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil
Given any reasonable definition of "being alive", some people who are
can "know" that they satisfy that definition!

How do you know it? What do you think makes that different than how people
could know God exists, if he does?

Because I fit my own reasonable definition of "being alive", of course!

That's no different than their position. You're in no way superior to them,
much as you wish you were.

[m***@.]

Post by Bob Officer

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
The MOST faith dependant religious belief of them all is unarguably strong
atheism.

It is certainly arguable that atheism is not a religious belief at all.
All atheism requires is a LACK of any and all religious beliefs!

That only applies to weak atheism and doesn't even acknowledge strong
atheism, much less present an argument against what I pointed out about it. In
fact it attempts to deny the existence of strong atheism.

Please show evidence of weak or strong atheism. Since ism is a suffix which
means belief it can not nor should it ever be appended to the word atheist.
Which is no belief an gods.
Theism is a a belief.
An Atheist would a person with be a person with no belief. No belief would
be neither weak nor strong. Just no belief.

_________________________________________________________
Atheism may or may not be a position of faith, depending on the type of atheism
. . .
A "strong" atheist is one who asserts that "there is no god." Strong atheism is
the form of atheism that most theists reference in debates, since most don't
know the distinction between strong and weak atheism. However, strong atheists
are rarer than most people think.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god.
. . .
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of
atheism that asserts that no deities exist.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step
further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple
gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all.
. . .
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe
that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do
not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism."
. . .
http://infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Strong atheism (sometimes called "positive atheism" by its adherents), is a type
of atheism that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is
different from weak atheism, in which the atheist claims only that there is
insufficient evidence that any god exists.
. . .
http://www.conservapedia.com/Strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Atheism - Defining the Terms
There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism.
Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods.
. . .
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Post by Bob Officer

Post by m***@.

Post by Virgil

Post by m***@.
There is absolutely NO evidence at all that there is not any being who
could be considered a God associated with this planet, much less with this star
system, much much less with this galaxy, much much much less with any place(s)
in the entire universe. The fact that strong atheists are almost always horribly
ashamed of their belief, and even more ashamed of the faith they have that their
belief is correct, can do nothing at all to oppose what I pointed out.

Your reply, and probably any others if there's ever anyone else who isn't
afraid to try opposing what I pointed out, supports what I pointed out. Most of
the supposed atheists I've encountered in these ngs have by their own arguments
regarding the possibility of God's existence, appeared to be strong atheists.
But! Even though that's the case I remember VERY few who ever would admit to
being strong atheists, and even more significantly VERY few who even appeared
able to comprehend much less acknowledge the significant distinction between
strong and weak atheism.

More nonsense?

If it's nonsense TO YOU that only means that you can't comprehend much less
accept the simple distinction between strong and weak atheism. Since you can't
comprehend something that's this easy to understand yet very signifincant it
calls into question how MANY OTHER things that are easy to understand yet very
significant, you can't comprehend either. And not just you but all atheists who
are in that same position, which is the vast majority from my experience with
them.