Strong and Weak Atheism...is it really necessary?

[Court]

Every time someone posts that picture, a ninja chops the head off of a kitten and doesn't even care.
Think of the kittens. (emphasis added)

I like that the need was felt to add that they don't care.

[Jassman]

Ninjas are carrying out God's will?

[Big Mac]

Dude duh. The only thing worse than Ninjas are Midget Ninjas and Dwarf Pirates!!! bad things happen when these two collide.

[Huxley]

There is a point I think when one realises one is an atheist and goes through an 'evangelical' period.

I am at the moment in discussion elsewhere and it seems the 'don't knows' and agnostics reckon (we ) atheists show no humility and display complete arrogance.

Who's fu**ing arrogant?  

I quite like the notion that you can't insult an atheist in the way you can a credulous believer. And I seem to have to spend a lot of my time stating atheism is not a religion (although the credulous would love it to be)

[iplaw]

From WIKI; I like these definitions.  What I highlighted is what I perceive as the main distinction:

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of deities, [highlight=red]without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of deities[/highlight].

Strong atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism.  It is contrasted with weak atheism, which is the lack or absence of belief in deities, without the additional claim that deities do not exist.  The strong atheist positively asserts, at the very least, that no deities exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism, is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a broader view than weak agnosticism, which states that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

[Asmodean Prime]

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/atheist.htm

ok, I realise that most of you have probably heard this argument before, in many a different form, maybe.

Still, what do you think of it?

[Court]

I hate that position. It's plain ridiculous to say "There are no atheists."
It is possible to claim there is no god in the same way it is logically possible to claim there is no Santa. We can't know this to an absolute certainty, can we? We cannot prove there is no Santa. And you can't prove there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my backyard. But, considering the complete lack of evidence proving her existence, you can logically say you don't believe in my unicorn. In the same way, I can logically say I don't believe in god. In fact, I can say I believe all gods are man-made. This doesn't require me to know everything, because my position could change with the presentation of evidence for the existence of god. An atheist is not like a christian in that an atheist is not likely to stick stubbornly to a position for which "faith" is required instead of evidence.

[Big Mac]

Didn't Ray Cuntfort and Cock Cameron make this claim on the Gay Master?

[Whitney]

http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/atheist.htm

ok, I realise that most of you have probably heard this argument before, in many a different form, maybe.

Still, what do you think of it?

Yes, I've seen it before.  A similar argument could be used to state that there aren't any theists and that everyone is actually agnostic...but that argument would be just as faulty.

Additionally, since being an atheist doesn't mean one has knowledge that no gods exist...the entire argument for why atheists don't exist fails.  Also, as Court stated, for one to say they don't believe in god is equatable with saying one doesn't believe in Santa.  Yet, no one would say they are agnostic towards the existence of Santa...that's simply absurd.

[silviakjell]

We should all join the Heaven Net forum and spam thier topics with our opinions. lets see what ridiculous arguments we get.

[silviakjell]

oh, and some questions, what is that little bar thingy under my name for? and how do you add your zodiac sign? i know I'm a new member, but how do you become a "valued contributor", or something else?

[Court]

You get your zodiac, I think, by putting in your birthday. Your level (the bar under your name) changes according to how many posts you put up. I think you're only a New Member until after 5 posts or something.

[Asmodean Prime]

I find the difficulties in family situations, more than anywhere else. I'm a father of four sons, with a devout Catholic wife. I was raised in that church and married in it when I was still a believer. Although that's not very accurate, because I always had doubts and never really bought into it all. Just went along because of societal and family pressures.

Anyway, it's difficult with family. I try not to be pushy with them, especially the kids. But I don't lie when asked about beliefs, and my kids ask all the time about various things in religion and science. I tell them to read the Bible and ask questions about it. Always ask questions. Question everything.

It's a delicate balancing act, but I do love my wife, and she knows I don't need to be a Christian (or of any religion) to be a good human being. One day I may get her converted...who knows?! LOL!

The biggest pain is my older brother and his ridiculously "Super-Catholic" wife. She actually had the stones to tell me I couldn't be cremated and have my ashes scattered over the ocean after my death because it's against the church's beliefs. I was tactful about it, but told her to piss off. Shit. If anything, she should have been against polluting the ocean with my dust!

She got the hint.

McQ, from my perspective, a catholic is not the same as a Christian. No offense to you or your wife.   As for being a good human being, this reminds me of a parable of Jesus, the good samaritan, where a so called priest of God passed by on the other side, while an 'enemy' attended to another suffering human being.   It's not what we preach, but what we do in the real world that counts.  People are too quick to preach and yet not actually live up to what they preach and believe, if indeed they believe it in the first place.  It's all about loving God, and therefore, as an inescapable consequence, loving all men as as equal to yourself, and treating them as such, for they are all God's children.  Treat all as you would like to be treated yourself.  That is what I try to live by.

[Big Mac]

Wait what?! Catholics are Christians, end of story. Catholics are where most of you Protestants get your religion from. Didn't Jesus say only good seed bears good fruit? If that's so then that means you are either bad fruit like your bad seed (Catholicism) or you just are like all the other protestants and worship Satan. (just kidding, he plays poker with me and said he wouldn't want you sissies worshipping him)

Though I have to admit the new pope looks evil. Must be all that Hitler Youth training he received.

[Whitney]

A Christian is someone who beleives Jesus was Christ.  Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.