Is God real post your thoughts!

[Rien]

The two of you have completely different dispositions. :lol:

 

 

 

From what I can tell, your personal definitions of "faith" are distinct.

 

 

 

For reference, here are two dictionary definitions of "faith":

 

(1) "confidence or trust in a person or thing."

 

(2) "belief that is not based on proof."

 

 

 

Let me say that, in Zierro's case, he seems to recognize the first to be the true definition--believing that the faith theists place in the existence of God is similar to the "faith" atheists hold in the foundations of science and the process of the scientific method. As warri0r mentioned earlier, this definition is liberal in its scope.

 

However, "faith," as I judge warri0r to understand it, falls more precisely under the second definition. From his viewpoint (again, as understood from my perspective), faith in God--which is based wholly on one's personal opinion/belief--cannot be equated with what, for lack of a better term, could be called "faith" in the workings of scientific study since the latter is founded in facts and evidence.

 

 

 

I believe his point can be summarized as follows:

 

(1) Religious faith is a form of personal belief which cannot be supported by concrete evidence.

 

(2) Scientific "faith" is different in that its principles can be more or less substantiated.

 

(3) Therefore, the two "faiths" can be said to be markedly dissimilar (i.e. belief in the Supernatural =/= belief in the Natural) and would warrant seperate "words" to differentiate the two but for the failings of language/communication.

 

 

 

From my third-party perspective, I can see why warri0r would take offense at being said to have "faith" in science just as theists have faith in God, and I can also see why this would lead Zierro to believe that warri0r is acting childish and stubborn in his rejection of being labeled as "faithful" in the workings of science.

 

Essentially, and from what I can determine, the two of you aren't even debating over the same issue; your respective definitions of "faith" have deviated too greatly for you to come to an understanding.

[mmmcannibalism]

I see. So you are saying someone can "win" an argument only based on their argumentative skills regardless of if they are actually right or not?

 

 

 

when neither point is truly better yes; however, you could never win an argument with say the opinion that hydrogen doesnt exist since its been proven even if you somehow argue more effectively then the other person.

 

 

 

I believe his point can be summarized as follows:

 

(1) Religious faith is a form of personal belief which cannot be supported by concrete evidence.

 

(2) Scientific "faith" is different in that its principles can be more or less substantiated.

 

(3) Therefore, the two "faiths" can be said to be markedly dissimilar (i.e. belief in the Supernatural =/= belief in the Natural) and would warrant seperate "words" to differentiate the two but for the failings of language/communication.

 

 

 

it would also be noteable to add that not believing in god's existence(not the belief he doesnt exist but finding it unlikely, weak atheism) based on the fact that science has/is explaining all natural processes would not be faith.

[venomai]

I've already established that if you are a weak atheist ... you are also a strong atheist

 

This is completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

"Strong atheism" refers to the specific belief in the non-existence of gods. "Weak atheism," on the other hand, is the mere lack of belief in the existence of gods.

 

 

 

An Introduction to Atheism

 

 

 

Perhaps you mean that all strong atheists are also weak atheists, in that they all lack belief in the existence of gods. Of course, this doesn't mean that the two groups are the same, nor does it mean that all weak atheists are also strong atheists. :lol:

 

 

 

From your own source:

 

"... all atheists are weak atheists. The difference, then, between weak and strong atheism is not that some people belong to one instead of the other, but rather that some people belong to one in addition to the other. All atheists are weak atheists because all atheists, by definition, lack belief in the existence of gods. Some atheists, however, are also strong atheists because they take the extra step of denying the existence of at least some gods."

 

 

 

... 3. you have never heard of god before.

 

Many people are indifferent even after hearing of god. You don't need to form an opinion on something as soon as you hear about it.

 

 

 

Agnostics hold no opinion.

 

This is a false representation of agnosticism.

 

 

 

Agnosticism isn't a "fence-sitting" or "indifferent" position. Agnosticism and atheism lie in two completely different categories; one deals with knowledge, and the other deals with belief.

 

 

 

Here is an excellent description of agnosticism:

 

Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

 

 

 

A means without and gnosis means knowledge. Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. It may be technically correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well, for example: I am agnostic about whether O.J. Simpson actually killed his ex-wife.

 

 

 

Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called gnostics.

 

From: About.com - What is Agnosticism?

 

 

 

(Which means that some people are agnostic atheists, while others are agnostic theists.)

 

 

 

I'm going to have to agree with warri0r: you don't know what you're talking about, Zierro. :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

And since atheists and theists alike have beliefs, but they are beliefs that have no evidence, they are beliefs which are based on faith.

 

While this may be true for strong atheists, who assert that god does not exist, it is not necessarily true for weak atheists. Weak atheism, as we have already established, is the lack of belief. There is no faith involved in weak atheism.

[Lenticular_J]

Would it be ridiculous for a theist to say they have a lack of disbelief? Durpa durpa.

[Zierro]

This is completely ridiculous.

 

 

 

So are logical fallacies.

 

 

 

Perhaps you mean that all strong atheists are also weak atheists, in that they all lack belief in the existence of gods. Of course, this doesn't mean that the two groups are the same, nor does it mean that all weak atheists are also strong atheists. :lol:

 

 

 

I don't recall saying the two groups are the same. I also don't recall saying all weak atheists are strong atheists. What I did say was weak atheists 1. are strong atheists 2. are agnostic 3. haven't formed a religion at all yet or haven't heard about god.

 

 

 

Many people are indifferent even after hearing of god. You don't need to form an opinion on something as soon as you hear about it.

 

 

 

In that case, the point still stands.

 

 

 

This is a false representation of agnosticism.

 

 

 

You really like taking things to the most unnecessary extent don't you? I didn't mean they have absolutely no opinion, but when it comes to the context of whether god exists or does not exist, they don't choose either one. You're really set on telling me on what you think I don't understand.

 

 

 

While this may be true for strong atheists, who assert that god does not exist, it is not necessarily true for weak atheists. Weak atheism, as we have already established, is the lack of belief. There is no faith involved in weak atheism.

 

 

 

I'll give you that, but it just happens that the vast majority of weak atheists are either agnostic, strong atheists, or indifferent to god's existence altogether/haven't heard of him. This isn't directed towards you Venomai, but I'd like to point out how I think it's funny that atheists are quick to point out things like the inquisition, even though it doesn't apply to the majority of theists, but when I say atheists have faith they say "No, only strong atheists do"... Even though "strong" implies that it is the more truer form of atheism as opposed to being the "weaker" version, now doesn't it?

 

 

 

So all in all, strong atheism is the stronger version of atheism and it uses faith. What does this tell us about atheism in general folks?

[venomai]

I also don't recall saying all weak atheists are strong atheists.

 

Apologies, I must have misread.

 

 

 

... when it comes to the context of whether god exists or does not exist, [agnostics] don't choose either one. You're really set on telling me on what you think I don't understand.

 

Agnostics can and do decide whether they believe god exists or does not exist. As such, an agnostic who believes in god is called an "agnostic theist," and an agnostic who does not believe in god is called an "agnostic atheist."

 

 

 

I am indeed set on pointing out the flaws of any opposing arguments -- this is a debate, after all.

 

 

 

it just happens that the vast majority of weak atheists are either agnostic, strong atheists, or indifferent to god's existence altogether/haven't heard of him.

 

You're still using "agnostic" as if it were an alternative to weak atheism. All weak atheists are (rationally) agnostic. You cannot rationally claim to have knowledge of an entity which you do not believe exists.

 

 

 

when I say atheists have faith they say "No, only strong atheists do"... Even though "strong" implies that it is the more truer form of atheism as opposed to being the "weaker" version, now doesn't it?

 

The "strong" and "weak" prefixes have nothing to do with which is more "truer" or more prevalent. Both are common forms of atheism.

 

 

 

Whether or not you actually understand it all, the manner in which you present your arguments (as in the above quotes) strongly suggests that you do not.

[venomai]

Alright, honestly, I'm sick of reading this semantic debate.

 

Misunderstanding the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is a fundamental error in a debate about god's existence. For the debate to progress at all, it is crucial that the basic definitions of these terms are understood by all parties.

[Zierro]

Agnostics can and do decide whether they believe god exists or does not exist. As such, an agnostic who believes in god is called an "agnostic theist," and an agnostic who does not believe in god is called an "agnostic atheist."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

I am indeed set on pointing out the flaws of any opposing arguments -- this is a debate, after all.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You're still using "agnostic" as if it were an alternative to weak atheism. All weak atheists are (rationally) agnostic. You cannot rationally claim to have knowledge of an entity which you do not believe exists.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The "strong" and "weak" prefixes have nothing to do with which is more "truer" or more prevalent. Both are common forms of atheism.

 

 

 

I have a pretty good feeling that people didn't come up with those names for no reason.

 

 

 

I wouldn't call it semantics. Misunderstanding the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is a fundamental error in a debate about god's existence. For the debate to progress at all, it is crucial that the basic definitions of these terms are understood by all parties.

 

 

 

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

[venomai]

I'm saying that those who do not pick/do not hold an opinion are agnostics

 

This is a given. Those who lack belief in god obviously will not claim to know god.

 

 

 

Your claims "Agnostics hold no opinion," and "[in] the context of whether god exists or does not exist, [agnostics] don't choose either one" were incredibly misleading. The surrounding context indicates only that you meant these statements as written. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how ignorant such claims made you appear.

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying your position, though...

 

 

 

I have a pretty good feeling that people didn't come up with those names for no reason.

 

It's likely that they were chosen based on how "strong" one's conviction/belief is. Those making the positive assertion obviously have a "stronger" belief than those who lack it altogether.

 

 

 

In any case, just because strong atheism uses the word "strong" does not necessarily make it more "true" or more popular than weak atheism.

 

 

 

The point I was aiming for was that atheists exert their share of faith-based beliefs just like theists do.

 

Strong atheists: yes.

 

Weak atheists: not necessarily.

 

 

 

I'm not speaking of alternatives, I'm talking about them going hand and hand [...]

 

 

 

And you do not understand semantics. Sorry, couldn't resist. [...]

 

Today isn't my day... :lol:

[Zierro]

It's likely that they were chosen based on (1) how "strong" one's conviction/belief is. Those making the positive assertion obviously have a "stronger" belief than those who lack it altogether.

 

 

 

In any case, just because strong atheism uses the word "strong" does not necessarily make it more (2) "true" or (3) more popular than weak atheism.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Today isn't my day... :lol:

 

 

 

But it's the weekend man. :(

[venomai]

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.

 

The definition of atheism, in the context of the strong/weak distinctions, is "a lack of belief" (i.e. weak atheism is closer).

 

 

 

Had we defined atheism as the belief that no gods exist, we wouldn't be using the strong/weak distinctions. I personally prefer this definition of atheism -- it see no reason to label a baby as atheist -- but it seems less popular in online debates.

 

 

 

But it's the weekend man. :(

 

Exactly... :P Drugs and alcohol take their toll.

[Zierro]

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

[meol]

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

 

The need to make a difference between a positive statement ("No Gods exist") and a more neutral one ("I don't believe in God"). It doesn't refer to the "purity" of atheism.

[Zierro]

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

[venomai]

It's simply a less formal alternative to negative/positive atheism. "Strong" connotes a stronger, more fixed belief.

[meol]

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

 

Simply, "No Gods exist" is a much stronger statement than "I don't believe in God" (this is a weak statement because it only refers to a personal opinion). Since both imply a disbelief in God -thus atheism-, the names 'strong' and 'weak' were given to separate them.

 

Way back, the more used terms were 'positive' and 'negative', but that didn't imply that positive atheism was good and negative atheism back. The terms also referred to the statements and a need to draw a line between them.

 

 

 

-Bah, venomai beat me to it. But the point still stands.

[Zierro]

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.

[venomai]

Weak atheism is exactly what it is. Weak atheism.

 

And this isn't being anal? :| What exactly are you getting at?

 

 

 

Simply because the word "strong" precedes "atheist" does not mean that a strong/positive atheist is "more atheist" than a weak/negative atheist. To use an analogy, a "strong acid" is no more or less of an acid than a "weak acid."

[bemyfrend0]

Maybe god is real, but if he is, can he blame me for only believing what i see?

 

 

 

So a week religious person is one who says "I believe in god"?

[Zierro]

Simply because the word "strong" precedes "atheist" does not mean that a strong/positive atheist is "more atheist" than a weak/negative atheist. To use an analogy, a "strong acid" is no more or less of an acid than a "weak acid."

 

 

 

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.

[mmmcannibalism]

Simply because the word "strong" precedes "atheist" does not mean that a strong/positive atheist is "more atheist" than a weak/negative atheist. To use an analogy, a "strong acid" is no more or less of an acid than a "weak acid."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

under bronsted lowry(standard model of acid base for basic chem) what makes an acid an acid is the ability to donate protons(H+ ions) to a solution

 

 

 

strong acids dissociate completely from hx(where is the anion) to h+ and x- ions

 

 

 

weak acids only partially dissociate into h+ and x- ions

 

 

 

edit--

 

 

 

Maybe god is real, but if he is, can he blame me for only believing what i see?

 

 

 

So a week religious person is one who says "I believe in god"?

 

 

 

I suppose he wouldnt; at least a logically minded god would seem to not.

 

 

 

I always felt the word think suits fits the "strength" of atheism or theism statements; it is just semantic but I think thinks fits the idea behind weak atheism better.

 

 

 

weak religious would be more like I think there is a god; strong religious would be there is a god

 

 

 

a strong acid doesnt have more acid like qualities, it simply dissociates to a greater degree; I dont understand what you mean by more potential, creating a more acidic solution doesnt make something more of an acid.

[magekillr]

Lol:

 

 

 

[venomai]

Simply because the word "strong" precedes "atheist" does not mean that a strong/positive atheist is "more atheist" than a weak/negative atheist. To use an analogy, a "strong acid" is no more or less of an acid than a "weak acid."

 

 

 

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.

 

I'm not a chemist, so feel free to correct me here.

 

 

 

"An acid (from the Latin acidus meaning sour) is traditionally considered any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a hydrogen ion activity greater than in pure water, i.e. a pH less than 7.0. [...] Most organic acids are weak acids."

 

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid

 

 

 

"[Many people] are accidentally confusing the specific scientific term "strong acid" with the thought that it means it is a concentrated acid or a corrosive acid. But in fact it means neither of these things. [...] A strong acid is an acid which is fully ionised in solution. [...] There aren't very many strong acids"

 

From: http://www.sky-web.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk ... gacids.htm

 

 

 

The "true potential of what an acid can do" is yield hydrogen ions. As both weak and strong acids do this, neither is "more of an acid" than the other.

 

 

 

But how about you explain where you are going with this, rather than uselessly nitpicking my analogy?

[Zierro]

But how about you explain where you are going with this, rather than uselessly nitpicking my analogy?

 

 

 

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.

[meol]

But how about you explain where you are going with this, rather than uselessly nitpicking my analogy?

 

 

 

That I'm justified to say that atheism condones the usage of faith, regardless of your useless nitpicking of your 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.

 

If that's what is troubling you, then the answer is yes. Most agnostics would say strong atheism requires a leap of faith not unlike theism, because there's no proof (even though there can't be any proof IMO) that God does not exist.