# Can America trust atheists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906 "2006-03-26T01:07:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/181 "2006-03-28T04:51:42Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > But I _don’t_ respect them. If you don’t respect them, then how can you expect them to respect you, though? You can’t have a dialogue, and you can’t convince anyone if you both call each other stupid. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe in pandering to people’s delusions. It’s dishonest, humiliating ( to me ) and destructive ( to them ). > > Pointing out that someone is wrong isn’t bullying if it’s true; I’ve been the victim of bullies and I know what the real thing is like. Also as an atheist I’ll look bad no matter what I do; I might as well do what makes me feel good. Politeness is neither dishonest, humiliating, or destructive. I’m not saying you can’t tell them they’re wrong, I’m saying you shouldn’t go out of your way to convince them. And as an atheist, you’re not neccesarily going to look bad no matter what you do. You’re going to look bad if you come off as combative and hostile, though. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/182 "2006-03-28T05:16:50Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > If you don’t respect them, then how can you expect them to respect you, though? You can’t have a dialogue, and you can’t convince anyone if you both call each other stupid. I _don’t_ expect religious people to respect me or any other unbeliever, no matter what I do, nor do I expect to convince them. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Politeness is neither dishonest, humiliating, or destructive. Sometimes it is. If nobody tells you that you are doing something wrong from fear of hurting your feelings, you likely won’t correct your mistakes; you won’t realize you’ve made any. > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > And as an atheist, you’re not neccesarily going to look bad no matter what you do. You’re going to look bad if you come off as combative and hostile, though. They aren’t going to _care_ how I act. I expect little difference in most believers reaction to me, regardless of my behavior ( short of pulling a gun on them, that is ). All my life I’ve heard the rhetoric about how it’s worse than murder to be an atheist, as long as you kill in the name of a god. All my life I’ve heard about how it’s better to be dead than atheist. All my life I’ve heard the speeches about how atheists are amoral monsters. I expect _nothing_ but hatred from any believer. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/183 "2006-03-28T06:13:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > To atone for many of these posts being off-topic and into First Cause territory, let me speak directly to the point of the OP and ask, where are we? The suggestions offered so far are: > \ > Did I miss any? Yes, the best in my opinion - which is to have an atheist character in a popular television show. If Roddenberry could do it with Nichelle Nichols, someone could do it for us. And this character can’t be a Scully, denying in the face of strong evidence. The show would have to be in the real world, with no strong evidence for any god. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/184 "2006-03-28T06:16:49Z")
Continuing to pile on in the unicorn sub-thread, I see these statements as a kind of shock therapy to get theists to understand the atheist point of view. Most of us are brought up since early childhood with God as a given (I know I was) even in non-devout families. The unicorn statement should not be God is as silly as a fairy tale, but that I have the same relationship to your god as you do to a unicorn. If you think it should be different, besides from “everyone” believing, show me how. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/185 "2006-03-28T07:11:24Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > I _don’t_ expect religious people to respect me or any other unbeliever, no matter what I do, nor do I expect to convince them. Well, you are getting your wish in regards to yourself. I have a lot of respect for many people who have no belief in a god. I have no more respect for a rude, proselytizing atheist than I do for a rude, proselytizing Fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Your choice, of course. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/186 "2006-03-28T07:40:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I can’t really see a difference between those two. Sorry to be dense, but can you give an example, maybe like the football results example I gave? Thanks for all the examples, but I believe they’re all flawed for one reason or another when discussing “weak” and “strong” **atheists**. As **George** said, the example regarding the Liverpool supporter (me) I gave was _binary_: either Liverpool will win the Premiership trophy or they will not. _There is no third option_, just like God’s existence or not. That effectively distinguishes these examples from those where there **is** a third possibility (in which _neither_ are true): > [@Marley](#): > > Maybe this will help: thinking that something won’t happen is different from thinking the opposite of that thing will happen. (Something which is _neither_ the thing _nor_ its opposite might happen: not binary) > [@magellan](#): > > I don’t believe we will win. > I believe that we will not win. Or even, I believe that we will lose. (We could tie.) > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I do not believe that all the children are in the room. > I do believe that all the children are not in the room. (That’s actually a fallacy of composition in which you’re confusing the form of the operators: NOT(ALL A IN X) is _not logically equivalent in the first place_ to ALL A (NOT IN X), any more than –(3 + 2) = (-3) + (2). The other distinction is that we’re discussing **atheists** specifically. Yes, one could be completely unable to offer even the slightest preference one way or the other, but then we’re not talking about **a** theists anymore, are we? (We’re not even talking about a-_Gnostics_ either, since one can believe or disbelieve and still not _know_. I think the term for such absolute fence-sitting 50%-ers should be _indecisivists_ or something.) That distinguishes the example from **Dio** ’s: > [@](#): > > I would say it’s the difference between having a prediction that a specific team will win and having no opinion at all about who will win. …and **Gorsnak** ’s: > [@](#): > > So, I don’t believe that LSU will win the Final 4. Nor do I believe they won’t win. I have no belief either way. And if Liverpool _do_ win, someone else _can’t_ (there can’t be a tie): the binary options are _exclusive_. So, if I do not believe Liverpool will win, that is **equivalent** to believing they **won’t**. The situation with God is the same: God _exists or not_, and so I don’t understand this either: > [@Magellan](#): > > The statement “I do not believe in Gods” implies that one simply hasn’t found (a) reason to do so … The stronger statement “I believe in no Gods” is a flag planted in the ground. Also, “believing in X” in this instance is solely to be parsed as “considering the existence of X more likely than not”, rather than “_hoping for_ or _having emotional affinity for_ X” as in: > [@magellan](#): > > I don’t believe in love. > I believe there is no such thing as love. > > I don’t believe I will go to college. > I believe that I will not go to college. Read as the former, these two pairs of statements **are** logically equivalent IMO. And finally: > [@Voyager](#): > > The strong atheist meets the definition of a weak atheist, but believes other things also. The intensity of the belief has nothing to do with it. Such as? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/187 "2006-03-28T07:43:36Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > It’s about picking your battles, though. Purely as a question of political tactics, it may make sense to concentrate on more substantive political issues, and to try and win over the “hearts and minds” of our fellow Americans (by some PR campaign, or getting a bunch of atheists to volunteer to dash into burning orphanages or, or running a bunch of ads that equate atheism with little fuzzy kittens, or whatever). If we can persuade the majority of our fellow citizens to give atheists the same respect they give any other minority religious view, then ending the symbolic affronts should follow naturally. “Gee, _I_ believe in God, but it’s not like all Americans believe in God. My next-door neighbor/co-worker/cousin doesn’t believe in God. It’s just not appropriate for a pledge to the flag/national motto that’s supposed to _unite_ Americans to take a stand on a religious issue that lots of Americans disagree on.” But note that this isn’t some sort of moral stance; it’s not that we’re saying the supporters of “under God” in the Pledge (or “In God we trust” as the national motto) are in any way in the right, only that it’s more convenient to leave those issues for later. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/188 "2006-03-28T07:48:00Z")
> [@Brain Wreck](#): > > Please email Carl Sagan and tell him that he is rude, dishonest, unfamiliar with logic, and full of nonsense. I did ([carl@soitiswritten.com](mailto:carl@soitiswritten.com)). He replied that God allowed him to send this one email apologizing for his dragon stupidity. I accepted his apology on behalf of everyone. > [@kinthalis](#): > > Please enlighten us as to the differences. See below. > [@Pochacco](#): > > What non-material entity would you prefer we use as examples in our arguments? One that is apt. If you can’t come up with one, don’t use it. Note: the most apt != apt. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Sorry you don’t like it but those are all perfectly valid analogies. The evidence for all is exactly the same. You would have to explain why your sky god is inherently any more plausible than somebody else’s water pixies or tree fairies in order for those analogies to be invalidated. From a purely empirical standpoint, there is no difference. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Using the examples of unicorns, pixies, etc… is the only way to explain how we (or at least I) perceive this issue. The only way to put yourself in our shoes is by imagining discussing with people who believe in something you really, really, don’t believe in, like pixies. **Dio** , You, and others, are wrong. **clairobscur** , just because it is the only way you can come with to attempt to convey your beliefs doesn’t mean it is the only way, or even a good way. And it’s not, because the analogy is flawed, therefore invalid. If we were talking about a particular God, one with flowing robes and a beard and a melifluous, yet stentorian voice, you might have a point. But I’m not talking about that God, so you don’t. One reason the analogy to centaurs and the like is inapt because you are making the assumption that this god is corporeal, made up of matter. Why is that necessarily the case? It is not. So your attempt to force an analogy with non-existent material pink unicorns, pixies, etc. is wanting. What if god is just energy and a will? O just energy? Or just will? Or something else we have yet to have a word for? I doubt most of you would be of the opinion that the next 1,000 or 100,000 years will result in zero new discoveries or no increase in our understanding of the cosmos. Sagan’s dragon is similarly useless. First, it assumes a material, observable manifestation. Worse, it avoids the most important question: Why does someone think there is a dragon in the garage? If the answer is, “Well, I kinda just think it.”, then his line of questioning and conclusion makes sense. But if the answer is “Look, over there in the corner, dragon eggs.”, that changes things. (“But that would be proof because there are no dragons”, you say? No problem. Substitute an ostritch for your dragon.) So how did they get there? Well, maybe there was a dragon in the garage and she left. Makes sense. Maybe someone put them there. Makes sense. But what if there were cameras outside the garage and no one, human, dragon, or otherwise, came or went. Well, maybe the dragon is invisible and takes form once every thousand years to lay eggs. Makes sense? Given the confines of the problem, it is possible. It would also explain those char marks on the ceiling. The fact is, it is an explanation. And if you can’t come with one that is more plausible, it is foolish to laugh at it. That doesn’t mean it is correct, just that ridiculiing it is pointless and only begins to close the mind. Yours to the truth, wherever it may lie. And others’ to you. Similarly, people did not come up with the idea of a supreme being for no reason. It was an explanation for something real that occured: earth, us. Ignoring this fact as you try to build an analogy is faulty at best, and dishonest or dumb from there. Some of you won’t stretch your mind without evidence. Then again, maybe that’s not true. Most of you, I think, accept as reasonable the cosmological theory of dark matter. Yet, these hypothetical particles of matter, made of what we haven’t a clue, can’t be detected. They are born of our observations of real effects in the real world, by us applying logic and our powers of duduction. It is an attempt to explain something we cannot see and know. It is the same with the idea of god. We detect a real event: us, then seek its cause. Scientific discovery is based on reliable observation and a belief in a direct relationship between cause and effect. Every single fact we have learned about our world and universe has a cause and, by it’s very existence, an effect. Everything. We may not be able to identify them all, but when these causes are unknown we build hypotheses that obey these laws. Black holes, dark matter, dark energy. Sometimes we will be right, sometimes we will be close, sometimes we will be woefully off base. Yet, we use the tools at our disposal—observation and logic—to formulate hypotheses and to build theories. Fact A: We exist. Fact B: To the best of our knowledge, there is a cause for everything. Fact C: Something caused us. Fact D: Something caused the thing that caused us. Question: What caused the first thing? Answer: Something that did not require a cause itself, something extra-natural, a supreme being, a prime mover, aka, god. Neither Brane theory nor quantum mechanics eliminates nor any other theory I am aware of answers the question of what started everything. Is it possible that matter and energy have existed in some form or other for eternity and there was never a static state? Yes. But, personally, I find that harder to fathom than god. We’re still stuck with where did matter come from? Energy? And why? It is ironic that some of the very people who wrap themselves in a cloak of empiricism and logic—the same empiricism and logic that have given us theories like quantum mechanics, dark matter, and string theory—attempt to use those very developments to quash the development of theory of the universe’s beginnings. Some do it out of a disdain for religion, proving their poor grasp of logic. Just because a theory of a supreme being may have lead man to worship him and create religion, which has often been the instrument of evil, they close their mind to the possibility. This is intellectual laziness. And, in some instance, cowardice. Also, for future reference,Atheism opposes Theism, not Christianity, Judaism, or any other world religion. An honest debater will acknowledge that and leave those religions, or any religion out of a debate concerneing the existence or nonexistence of god. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/189 "2006-03-28T07:52:28Z")
The coding in my response to **Pochacco** in my last post got screwed up. Should read: the most apt [inequalityl sign] apt. Could a mod give a quick fix? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/190 "2006-03-28T08:25:07Z")
> [@magellan](#): > > Neither Brane theory nor quantum mechanics eliminates nor any other theory I am aware of answers the question of what started everything. Is it possible that matter and energy have existed in some form or other for eternity and there was never a static state? Yes. But, personally, I find that harder to fathom than god. We’re still stuck with where did matter come from? Energy? And why? > > It is ironic that some of the very people who wrap themselves in a cloak of empiricism and logic—the same empiricism and logic that have given us theories like quantum mechanics, dark matter, and string theory—attempt to use those very developments to quash the development of theory of the universe’s beginnings. > > Some do it out of a disdain for religion, proving their poor grasp of logic. Just because a theory of a supreme being may have lead man to worship him and create religion, which has often been the instrument of evil, they close their mind to the possibility. This is intellectual laziness. And, in some instance, cowardice. You don’t seem to be listening. Cosmology and quantum physics seeks to understand the nature of _time itself_: you keep **asserting** that the universe, matter or energy “came from” somewhere, when that is clearly logically inconsistent from the get-go. If the universe (or ‘multiverse’, but I admit I hate that word and suggest we consider these 4 dimensions of spacetime as one _region_ of the universe) has **never not** existed, then one need only explain its _nature_, its _history_, rather than any nothing-to-something transition (after all, if nothing and something existed simultaneously, how would you know?) hence the title of the book _A Brief History … **Of Time** _. Try [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323876) again - I think you were getting somewhere there eventually. Now, of course you can consider these admittedly counterintuitive and highly technical physics explanations _less likely_ than some supernatural entity, and I’d have no problem with your views whatsoever. However, note that you’d then effectively be appealing to the God of the Gaps just like medieval philosophers positing planet-pushing angels in place of gravity, or 19th century vitalists dismissing Darwinism. I have no beef with your beliefs, but I do wish you’d stop misrepresenting physics and painting it as logically inconsistent, when clearly a universe that has never not existed (and thus is uncaused) is _as consistent as_ an uncaused supernatural entity. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/191 "2006-03-28T08:43:40Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > One reason the analogy to centaurs and the like is inapt because you are making the assumption that this god is corporeal, made up of matter. Why is that necessarily the case? It is not. So your attempt to force an analogy with non-existent material pink unicorns, pixies, etc. is wanting. What if god is just energy and a will? O just energy? Or just will? Or something else we have yet to have a word for? I doubt most of you would be of the opinion that the next 1,000 or 100,000 years will result in zero new discoveries or no increase in our understanding of the cosmos. All irrelevant. The point is not whether or not fairies are made of matter, energy or “will” (whatever that’s supposed to mean ); the point is there’s no more reason to believe in a god than in any other mythological creature. > [@magellan01](#): > > Sagan’s dragon is similarly useless. First, it assumes a material, observable manifestation. No it doesn’t; that’s the point. > [@magellan01](#): > > Worse, it avoids the most important question: Why does someone think there is a dragon in the garage? If the answer is, “Well, I kinda just think it.”, then his line of questioning and conclusion makes sense. Faith, in other words; the core of religion. > [@magellan01](#): > > But if the answer is “Look, over there in the corner, dragon eggs.”, that changes things. (“But that would be proof because there are no dragons”, you say? No problem. Substitute an ostritch for your dragon.) So how did they get there? Well, maybe there was a dragon in the garage and she left. Makes sense. Maybe someone put them there. Makes sense. But what if there were cameras outside the garage and no one, human, dragon, or otherwise, came or went. Well, maybe the dragon is invisible and takes form once every thousand years to lay eggs. Makes sense? Given the confines of the problem, it is possible. It would also explain those char marks on the ceiling. The fact is, it is an explanation. And if you can’t come with one that is more plausible, it is foolish to laugh at it. That doesn’t mean it is correct, just that ridiculiing it is pointless and only begins to close the mind. Yours to the truth, wherever it may lie. And others’ to you. There are no eggs, there are no char marks; there is nothing to explain. > [@magellan01](#): > > Similarly, people did not come up with the idea of a supreme being for no reason. It was an explanation for something real that occured: earth, us. Ignoring this fact as you try to build an analogy is faulty at best, and dishonest or dumb from there. We aren’t ignoring it; we’re pointing out that is was a bad explanation then, and is now simply obsolete. > [@magellan01](#): > > Most of you, I think, accept as reasonable the cosmological theory of dark matter. Yet, these hypothetical particles of matter, made of what we haven’t a clue, can’t be detected. They are born of our observations of real effects in the real world, by us applying logic and our powers of duduction. It is an attempt to explain something we cannot see and know. It is the same with the idea of god. We detect a real event: us, then seek its cause. Evolution. The Big Bang. There’s no need for a god. > [@magellan01](#): > > Fact B: To the best of our knowledge, there is a cause for everything. Quantum mechanics disagrees. There’s plenty of pure, uncaused randomness in the universe. > [@magellan01](#): > > Question: What caused the first thing? It’s unnecessary to assume a cause, or even that there _was_ a first thing. > [@magellan01](#): > > Answer: Something that did not require a cause itself, something extra-natural, a supreme being, a prime mover, aka, god. A random quantum fluctation would be far more plausible. > [@magellan01](#): > > We’re still stuck with where did matter come from? Energy? And why? We don’t know, but we have no reason to believe there _is_ a why beyond chance. > [@magellan01](#): > > It is ironic that some of the very people who wrap themselves in a cloak of empiricism and logic—the same empiricism and logic that have given us theories like quantum mechanics, dark matter, and string theory—attempt to use those very developments to quash the development of theory of the universe’s beginnings. We don’t. Religion isn’t a theory. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/192 "2006-03-28T08:45:54Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I have no beef with your beliefs, but I do wish you’d stop misrepresenting physics and painting it as logically inconsistent, when clearly a universe that has never not existed (and thus is uncaused) is _as consistent as_ an uncaused supernatural entity. I agree with the end of your statement—I’ve stated as much—and don’t see that I’ve misrepresented physics. If so, I’d appreciate your pointing ourt where. My arguement is not that one is necessarily more right than the other, but rather, they are both similarly plausible explanations. I tend to believe one way, but I am completely open to the possibility of the other being the reality. Your last part of your last sentence outs it well. As would its inverse. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/193 "2006-03-28T08:47:41Z")
IMHO the difference in being a ‘strong’ atheist or a ‘weak’ pertains to two different levels. When asked if I believe in God, I automatically assume this to mean 'do you believe in _my_ God, or rather the God as worshipped by the mainstream christian sects. Well, I don’t believe the bible is the holy word of God nor do I subscribe to and believe in the traditional views belonging to these subsets of christianity. Neither do I subscribe to Judaism, Islam or Hinduism or any particular religion. This qualifies me as an atheist. To become a ‘strong’ atheist I would have to say that I am absolutely sure no gods exist at all. Which is an answer to a different question, whether I reject any possibility of there being anything ‘supernatural’. The confusion lies in coupling two different answers to the same question, to the same religion. ‘So, you don’t believe in (my Christian) God but you are not prepared to say you absolutely will not believe in anything. Therefore you must keep open the possibility that a ‘god’ could exist. Including my Christian God.’ But, see, that last bit doesn’t follow from the first. That I am not absolutely sure about there not being _anything_ ‘supernatural’ does still leave me to judge a particular religion, Christianity, as utter crap. That is, to me, the difference between ‘I do not believe’ and ‘I believe there is/are no’. ‘I do not believe in God’ is not the same answer to the same question as ‘I believe there are no gods at all/ nothing “supernatural”’ I am a strong disbeliever of Christianity I am a strong disbeliever of Islam I am a strong disbeliever of Odin I am a strong disbeliever of Zeus I am a strong disbeliever of Astrology etc I _will_ say to a christian ‘You are wrong’, when asked my opinion or even just because I feel like it. But no, I will not say there absolutely can’t be anything at all. Maybe there are such things as daemons, dreams of the future, premonitions, curses, bad-luck streaks… I’m not sure Am I a weak atheist or a strong one ? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/194 "2006-03-28T08:54:59Z")
Dear **Der Trihs** , If I asked you very politely, as I am doing now, to refrain from respondiing to any post of mine, would you do so? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/195 "2006-03-28T08:57:40Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > To become a ‘strong’ atheist I would have to say that I am absolutely sure no gods exist at all. **NO YOU WOULD NOT**. Please, _please_ can we burn this strawman once and for all? I know of _no_ person who says they believe no gods exists ( **a** -theist - see?) who also says that they are **absolutely sure** of that. The phrase you are searching for _there_ is not “strong atheist” but “idiot”. > [@](#): > > That I am not absolutely sure about there not being anything ‘supernatural’ does still leave me to judge a particular religion, Christianity, as utter crap. > > That is, to me, the difference between ‘I do not believe’ and ‘I believe there is/are no’. No, that’s the difference between “I believe there are no” and “I **know** there are no”. There is still no difference between “I believe there are no” and “I do not believe there are any”. > [@](#): > > Am I a weak atheist or a strong one ? How far over is the needle of your Belief-O-Meter, _ie._ roughly how big a probability do you ascribe to the existence of any god? Near 50% - I’d say “weak”, near one in a million, “strong”. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/196 "2006-03-28T09:00:55Z")
[QUOTE=magellan01One reason the analogy to centaurs and the like is inapt because you are making the assumption that this god is corporeal, made up of matter. Why is that necessarily the case? It is not. So your attempt to force an analogy with non-existent material pink unicorns, pixies, etc. is wanting. What if god is just energy and a will? O just energy? Or just will? Or something else we have yet to have a word for? I doubt most of you would be of the opinion that the next 1,000 or 100,000 years will result in zero new discoveries or no increase in our understanding of the cosmos.[/quote] Then you are not talking about the Christian God at all, which would invalidate your invalidation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/197 "2006-03-28T09:04:16Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Then you are not talking about the Christian God at all, which would invalidate your invalidation. Huh? Have you read the thread? You do know that I have not been talking abou the Christian God at all, right? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/198 "2006-03-28T09:05:17Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > **NO YOU WOULD NOT**. Please, _please_ can we burn this strawman once and for all? I know of _no_ person who says they believe no gods exists ( **a** -theist - see?) who also says that they are **absolutely sure** of that. The phrase you are searching for _there_ is not “strong atheist” but “idiot”. Ehrm… that is what I am saying, well trying at least. Strong vs weak based on these two answers is a false dichtonomy, two answers to two different questions. A straw man, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/199 "2006-03-28T09:06:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? Have you read the thread? You do know that I have not been talking abou the Christian God at all, right? But that analogy _is_ used specifically against those who believe in God and can’t conceive of anyone not believing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2006, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906/200 "2006-03-28T09:08:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Last edited by tomndebb : Today at 12:08 AM. Reason: Changed “?” to “!=” per request. Thank you. But the inequality sign I requested is showing up as an exclamation point followed by an equal sign. Is that because I’m on a Mac? Or can you not show inequality signs on SDMB? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-america-trust-atheists/349906.md?page=11)