(The question being - what does a strong atheist believe that a weak one does not)
That no gods exist, of course. That’s the definition.
:rolleyes:
That’s all you got out of slogging through 6 pages? Unbelievable.
About this “arrogant” perception. I suppose most theists are surprised that atheists have actually sat down and thought about religion. Why that should be I can’t understand, if someone never bothered to think about religion and God they’d likely just follow the religion of their family.
So just about every argument that a theist can bring up will be shot down easily by most atheists, because we’ve heard it all before. If the argument was convincing to us we would have been convinced long ago, the first time we heard it. Jack Chick atheists don’t exist: “Jesus died for our sins? Really? I’ve never heard that before! He loved us that much? Where can I learn more about this Jesus? Is there perhaps a book I could read about him? What must I do to be saved?”
Um, yeah, I’ve heard about Jesus before, thanks for the tip. I’ve heard Pascal’s Wager before. I’ve seen the ontological proof of God before. I’ve heard of the Uncaused First Cause before. I’ve heard the claims that Darwin and Einstein believed in God before. I’ve heard the “atheists claim to be omniscient” quip before. Heard it all before, seen it all before, rejected it all long ago. Will I listen one more time? Sure, why not. You’re not going to change my mind though. Oh, I’m close minded, because I’m sure I won’t change my mind? That’s great.
There’s something about atheists being confident we’re right that just rubs theists the wrong way, like they just can’t believe we think we’re right, all they need is to find the right way to explain God and we’ll fall in line. It’s arrogant! Why can’t we admit we might be wrong? Well, how many theists are prepared to admit they might be wrong? Damn few, God smites you for that sort of thing, dontcha know. OK, I’ll admit I could be wrong. I could be wrong about a lot of things, insert boilerplate about being a brain in a vat here.
Doesn’t mean I really believe I’m a brain in a vat. Maybe I am, but I don’t think so. Maybe God loves me. Maybe he does, but I don’t think so, nothing I’ve ever seen leads me to believe God loves me. Maybe God exists. Maybe he does, but I don’t think so, nothing I’ve ever seen leads me to believe God exists. And unless you can show me something I’ve never seen or heard before (which I’m confident you won’t), you’re not going to change my mind. Is that arrogant? Whatever, I’m arrogant then.
It’s an arguement against God, god, GOD, God, GOD, and god too.
For some this is not enough. Don’t you know that religion is evil and responsible for all bad things. Everyone must acknowledge that or they are simple-minded fools easily enchanted with fairy dust and children’s tales.
Not all; just a great many.
Eureka! Complete agreement. Next topic.
Sorry. Straw man. Invoking the most extreme positions of a rabid proselytizer of atheism is a not a valid way to describe the thoughts of most atheists any more than pointing at Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps or Jack Chick is a valid reference to my Christianity.
Good post. I might substitute “are of the opinon” for “believe on faith”, but good summation.
I have trouble believing that at this late date anyone trots out the “uncaused first cause.” I also have trouble believing that those who do so don’t see that identifying that “uncaused first cause” with any particular “cause” is purely arbitrary. It’s like trying to specify the smallest number that is greater than zero.
But Magellan, you reject 97% of what most people call religion yourself. You believe it’s a fairy tale as well. You don’t believe Jesus died for your sins, you don’t believe he was resurrected from the dead, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, you don’t believe the Archangel Gabriel whispered the Quran into Muhammed’s ear, you don’t believe Shiva broke Ganesh’s tusk, you don’t believe Kronos was tricked into swallowing a rock instead of the infant Zeus. You’d classify all that stuff as fairy dust, right?
I’ve got no problem with you believing is some mysterious something. But most people actually do believe the fairy dust. Ask most people in America if Jesus was the Son of God, what answer do you think you’re going to get? Ask people if they believe in Angels, what answer are you going to get? Ask people if they believe in the immortality of the soul, what answer are you going to get?
That’s the fairy tale, and people really really do believe it. You know it, and I know it. You reject it, I reject it. And a lot of it really is pernicious nonsense. Yeah, not all of it, Jesus had some pretty reasonable thing to say about how great it would be if everyone were nice to each other for a change. But he also made some mistakes. Wouldn’t people be better off if everyone realized Jesus was just some guy? Or that Muhammed was just some guy?
Most atheists debating in this thread denounce the kind of attitude that Der Trihs displays. You’re being disingenuous.
Perhaps you can explain something to me: What is it about believing in an uncaused first cause that makes you a theist, specifically? What I’d like to know is the manner in which an uncaused first cause just is a deity.
You’re right. But that is not what I did. Please reread the first two words:
Wait. It’s 1, right?
So you’re an agnostic, magellan?
Though I have little doubt that this will be followed by your usual snideness neatly wrapped in polite sincerity, I will assume you have not read the thread (where it has been implied many times and stated outright) and answer it.
I believe in god. I believe that god willed us into existence. I am very certian of that. I cannot fathom any other scenario. There had to be a First Cause, en vouge or not. The claims that this problem can be explainied away by QM, Multiverses, etc. have been empty so far. I do not think that will change. Yet, since I am not god, and therefore, fallible, I leave room for the possibility that I may be wrong.
Play with that as you will.
You mean 1/2 isn’t a number? “Number” isn’t restricted to the integers. or natural numbers.
I’d like to raise an objection to this type of argument that I see over and over again here on the SDMB. Repeatedly it’s said that there is no evidence for any god or God’s. The problem I have with this is the existence of subjective evidence. Many people {like myself} have beliefs that are born not simply from making up arbitrary reasons but from personal experiences. These experiences cannot be shared in an objective way with skeptics and are subject to our own flawed interpretation yet I would not pronounce the evidence as invalid or meaningless because of it’s subjective nature.
I can accept that it is invalid and meaningless to you and I have no problem with that. That’s why I believe we should try and respect a persons right to choose their own journey when it comes to beliefs. Through interaction we will influence each other but ultimately an individual bears the responsibility of choosing their own path and the consequences of those choices. That’s where laws come in.
Of course we have people on either side who tend to want to testify and be “right” rather than accept the individuals right to choose for themselves. That may be necessary to. Without some passion how would we advance? Those who feel that need better be prepared for the conflict that goes with it.