Zierro

230

250

270

290 *Goes with him*

290

300

300

300

300

lol You might be in the place to say that if you you hadn't asserted, "God does not exist." ;) Either way, it's still true. Humans put their tools to use and assume that, because it's what the construct of what they think is "correct thinking" tells them, god must not exist. For example, the burden of proof. Even though it's in a field where proof is irrelevant, it's the most brought up argument. If you want to blame unfairness on the "system" then logic is just as guilty as language.

You're right. Our literary system makes it unfair for atheists. Just like how our logical system makes it unfair for theists. I'm pretty sure that debate ended with atheists concluding, "It's all we have available so of course we're gonna use it." Oh and by the way, Yellow Elephants who can talk and call themselves Peter exist =/= God.

How about reality tv in general?

I thought the white guy's fate was the worst. Having your arm chopped off and your girlfriend leave you and having sex with other people for drugs... damn.

Yes, that's what I was getting at. But what do you mean by there can't be any proof? It is impossible to prove or to disprove god exists.

9093

That I'm justified to say that atheism condones the usage of faith, regardless of your useless nitpicking about the different types of atheism, which are separated by levels. By the way, I thought you were talking about the drug acid. You are right - just because someone is a strong man does not make them more of a man, but when we use intangible concepts such beliefs then we can infer that the word "strong" denotes a closer relationship to something's potential or core. Strong - Intense in degree or quality Strong atheism is a more intense degree of atheism than weak atheism.

Your example doesn't work. A strong acid indeed has more acid-like qualities and is closer to the true potential of what an acid can do than a weaker-acid.

Exactly, it is used to describe whether the case of atheism is a strong one or weak one. If you describe your love for something as strong, that means you have a lot of love. (Quality of having lots of love ++) If you describe your love for something as weak that means you don't love it that much. (Quality of having some love, but not that much --). Weak atheism is exactly what it is. Weak atheism.

I mean what is the reason for specifically choosing the words "strong" and "weak"? Obviously two separate ideas require two different labels.

I second The Green Mile. [hide=Spoiler]It's also sad when Mufasa dies in Lion King. And when Luke dies in Cool-Hand Luke.[/hide]

I don't like the idea of adding any more religion than there already is. I see religion as more of a division between men rather than a path to salvation. Faith should be reached by personal means. Yeah guys, even I understand that. :shame:

What do you think the reason behind their names is then?

So the population [bleep]es even more and overpopulation becomes a bigger issue than it already is? The same goes for ending disease and war. These things are necessary. Well I could see the positive side to them being here, but now that I think about it, that would mean humans are giving up in the struggle against nature.

I'm afraid you misunderstand what I mean by this. I probably should have been more clear about it though, so I'm sorry. 1. I'm not saying strong atheists have a stronger belief. 2. I'm not saying it is more likely to be right. 3. I'm not saying there are more followers. My point is that strong atheism has a "stronger" leaning to the more pure definition or essence of "atheism". Strong and weak are the adjectives used to distinguish the two types based on how strong or weak the atheism is. But it's the weekend man. :(

Yes, but you're not applying this to the discussion at hand. I'm saying that those who do not pick/do not hold an opinion are agnostics - not that all agnostics do not pick/have no opinion. You have things backwards. It doesn't change the argument though. The point I was aiming for was that atheists exert their share of faith-based beliefs just like theists do. (Strong atheists believe that god doesn't exist.) When you come into an argument and point out trivial technicalities, it makes you look like a school teacher. By saying weak atheists are either agnostic, strong atheist, or indifferent to god's existence altogether/haven't heard of him, I think the opposite would be implied. I'm not speaking of alternatives, I'm talking about them going hand and hand - being agnostic and being a weak atheist at the same time. I have a pretty good feeling that people didn't come up with those names for no reason. Actually I think the debate would progress a lot if people weren't so anal about the details and instead attacked the main point. It would be funner too. And you do not understand semantics. Sorry, couldn't resist. :lol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics