[split] Agnostic atheism is the only intellectually honest position

[Scented Nectar]

Scented - I don't really seeing the point in debunking the validity of dictionary defined gods, anyone who believes in the God will say "Webster does not define my beliefs" which is a perfectly valid objection to your work.

I'm not even going to visit the patch of crazy land where people call things god that do not fit any accepted god def, and/or are things that already have other names, eg, the universe. I've actually had people tell me that a sandwich in their fridge is god. Seriously. I'm not going there.

All you are really going to achieve by this is spending a lot of time impressing nobody but yourself.

I don't care about that too much. This youtube is one I've been thinking of doing for a while now, only because so many people tell me that no one can really be a strong atheist. However, I fully fit the definition on the Dawkins scale, as well as the definitions that were coined by a couple other people for strong, positive, gnostic etc atheism. I just want to show people that I am indeed one. This has almost nothing to do with which position might be the better one. I don't like that you are calling it dishonest. Call it incorrect or impossible or whatever else, but that word sounds as though I'm in some sort of denial or even outright lying. It has a bit of an insulting sound (even though my skin is pretty tough). I guess I just wouldn't be too comfortable with a show that assumed right from the start that there is something dishonestly wrong with strong atheism. A debate/discussion about it would be a good place to bring up opinions on it, but to start the show with a conclusion that too strong an atheistic belief is wrong bugs me.

Do weak atheists even have a percentage number for the credibility they are giving the existence of gods for them to be telling me that I should believe it even that much? Why do 'weak' atheists not qualify EVERYTHING with the agnostic label, eg: "I'm not saying that I have 5 digits on my left hand at the moment, I just lack a belief that there are a different number of them." Is there a chance that you have more fingers that are invisible and magic? Until something with so many strong indicators against it, has at least some indicator, some slight partial evidence FOR it, wouldn't it be silly to give it a lip service of credibility? Do you really wonder a tiny bit whether there might be a chance you have more than 5 digits due to supernatural causes (the 'magic' I mentioned above)?

Maybe a lot of ex-believing atheists really do wonder still a little bit. Is that why this happens so much? In my case, I never believed at all. As a little kid, I argued against it when the concept was presented to me as true rather than the fairy tale it obviously was. They couldn't answer the logical problems regarding the version of god they were feeding me, so I was never a believer. I have no nagging just in case ruminations in my head.

Note that any mention of the word supernatural (as is mentioned in some defs of god) is one of those logical impossibilities, for as soon as something has manifested or affected things, I consider it to be part of 'nature' or 'natural laws' etc, so the supernatural cannot ever exists. As soon as it does, I no longer consider it to be supernatural, just something I don't understand the workings of. I could never be made to believe anything is actually supernatural for that reason. What reason could convince me to consider something as being 'outside' of nature when it's 'inside' of nature by its very existence?

Also, to say that the basis of your atheism is the fact that dictionary defined gods are logically contradictory seems a rather weak standpoint.

To accept made up definitions would be the weak and pointless method. The dictionaries have some pretty good definitions of things. If someone were to claim to be an a-gravity-ist, would you not expect them to disbelieve in the dictionary def of gravity? Otherwise they could say that gravity is really peanut butter or anything at all. At some point one has to stick with dictionary defs. The ones for gods, worship, supernatural, etc. have been refined and expanded on over years and years. If anyone wants to argue that I should be including made up shit just because occassional weirdoes worship sandwiches and call it god, then they have lost the argument in my opinion, or maybe haven't even presented one would be more accurate.

So, yeah, I'm sticking with the dictionaries and avoiding how god is the nice feeling someone gets when a birdie chirp brings a tear to their eyes. It looks like people, both atheists and sandwich/atombomb worshippers alike won't like this, but oh well.