Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[minotza]

My thoughts are this: I don't know whether there is a creator or not, but really, it's not that idea that bothers me so much. It's the people worship him/her/it and the religions they have created that I have beef with.

So I'm not really sure what that would classify me as.

I am similar however I take it one step further with my view.  I do not know if there is a creator not, but logic and reason tell me that there is a higher chance of his non-existence than his existence. (A much,much,much higher chance)

[LegendarySandwich]

I like what Pudding said. We can't be one-hundred percent sure of anything. So, it doesn't necessarily have to be irrational for atheists to say that any god(s) doesn't/don't exist.

[DJAkuma]

I don't know 100% that if you went out an airlock into space naked that you'd die but it's a high enough chance that I'd still say it's not a good idea even if you told me the bible said you'd be fine.

[The Magic Pudding]

I don't know 100% that if you went out an airlock into space naked that you'd die but it's a high enough chance that I'd still say it's not a good idea even if you told me the bible said you'd be fine.

The Guide says there's an improbability level of 2 to the power of 2,079,460,347 :1 against being rescued by another ship in such circumstances.
I don't know if this helps.

[DJAkuma]

I don't know 100% that if you went out an airlock into space naked that you'd die but it's a high enough chance that I'd still say it's not a good idea even if you told me the bible said you'd be fine.

The Guide says there's an improbability level of 2 to the power of 2,079,460,347 :1 against being rescued by another ship in such circumstances.
I don't know if this helps.

Is that with or without a space suit?

[The Magic Pudding]

Is that with or without a space suit?

That would be without spacesuit.
If you do find yourself in this situation, I think you're supposed to breath out before being ejected.

[OldGit]

Look at it this way:  There may be some kind of god, even though there's no evidence for it and a lot of negative evidence against.  The question is, should we take the probability into account in our daily activity?

There may also be a headless horseman lurking by Moreton bridge and sucking out the souls of travellers going to the next village.  This has also been claimed, and seems about as likely as a god.  Do I let this possibility deter me from walking by there?  No, and most people would judge me damn silly if I did.

If the proposition is unlikely enough, you ignore it and you can for all practical purposes claim 100% certainty.

[Gawen]

Look at it this way:  There may be some kind of god, even though there's no evidence for it and a lot of negative evidence against.  The question is, should we take the probability into account in our daily activity?

But there is evidence for any/every god. Albeit personal subjective evidence and not good evidence at that. That would be the several religious books and personal religious experience. For me, the evidence is so bad and scanty and contradicting, I can only conclude that the factor of any god existing, let alone the tri-omni one existing is so low it renders the question "Does God exist" moot and the answers unacceptable as proof.
This, btw, takes me to Jesus Mythicism, which I am a member of. With all the fine evidence for a historical Jesus, one may as well believe in creationism because all the fine evidence it has.

[OldGit]

...the evidence is so bad and scanty and contradicting ...

Fair enough, I should have said 'no convincing evidence'.

As for a historical Jesus - why not?  It's quite possible that there was a preacher of that name (which was very common), that he wandered about with a band of followers and got himself executed for some reason.  Possibly he annoyed a few people by attacking the money changers in the temple.  And he may well have said some of the things now attributed to him.  None of this is at all improbable or even unusual in that time and place, therefore for me it doesn't require much proof.

Some say 'Jesus' was a conflation of various bits of several people.  Again, why not?  Greek scholars are now pretty sure that Homer was such an aggregation.

To be honest, it doesn't seem to me that it matters very much.