Strong Atheism starts from faith

[Tiberius]

You got your answers. You won't be getting any more. There are very few strong atheists out there in the world, so consider yourself lucky you managed to get some answers.

Now present your case. Every post of yours seems to be more requesting us to do stuff, which comes across as rude. We don't have to bow to your wishes repeatedly. You've got some answers from some strong atheists, and even some weak atheists. Now use them to expand the discussion.

[FaithvsFact]

To answer your questions to me FvF I do consider myself to be a strong atheist. I do not have faith in my contention that god exist, I am convinced that god does not exist due to the lack of evidence. I do not think it is my job to prove a negative, but I base myself on the evidence we have available for the existence of god. I personally don't see god anywhere in our natural world of order and chaos combined. Where do most people claim to see god? In visions, dreams, and revelations whether that be some experience of religious ecstasy or read it in a book claiming divine inspiration is irrelevant. None of these methods of detecting god are valid since they are completely subjective to the person claiming the experience, to the rest of us they are meaningless and require our faith in the word of the revealer.

Conveniently, as in all mythological creatures god exist outside of the natural realm according to his believers. Outside the reach of science and untestable in any way.

Hi Chatpilot. From the above you indicated that you are "convinced that god does not exist due to the lack of evidence". You'll probably find that I am interested in whether you are convinced god exists or does not exist ONLY TO THE EXTENT it proves you are a strong atheist. Believe it or not, I am not going to ask you to, as you say, "prove a negative" because that is not what I am interested in for the purposes of this post.

So, to me, I think you are a strong atheist (as opposed to a weak one) so if you haven't already, can I please ask you to answer the two questions, from your point of view, I posed in my OP. Apologies if you already have.

---

You got your answers. You won't be getting any more. There are very few strong atheists out there in the world, so consider yourself lucky you managed to get some answers.

Now present your case. Every post of yours seems to be more requesting us to do stuff, which comes across as rude. We don't have to bow to your wishes repeatedly. You've got some answers from some strong atheists, and even some weak atheists. Now use them to expand the discussion.

Whilst I would disagree that there are "very few strong atheists out there in the world" I am certainly keen on compiling the answers from the strong atheists who have replied.

There have been lots of answers but few from actual strong atheists so I will be drawing from only their replies otherwise the discussion will be diffused. I would also like to let the strong atheists decide for themselves whether or not they wish to keep giving answers rather than have you determine this for them.

So what I will be doing next is asking for any final answers from strong atheists to my OP, going through replies already given, identifying those who are strong atheists, and compiling the definitions they have given. Then I will summarise them, and then I shall proceed with the rest of the discussion.

[fr0d0]

Fr0d0,

You need to at least attempt an explaination instead of just calling people ignorant, or advising them to study up on God. I get that it can be a large task but you claim it is reasonable and we want to know your reasons. I have studied God from many angles and I have no idea where you get your idea of God from or even what it is because you seem to hold conflicting ideas about God.

I go into my reasons in detail as we discuss things. I'm dumbfounded that you of all people can't understand my idea of God, and that you would find them conflicting. Would you mind elaborating on even one example? thanks

Fr0d0, stating all my points to be "thoughtless bullshit" doesn't make them so.

You completely failed to answer post #135.

I do not really consider this:

[thoughtless bullshit]

- to be an appropriate response to post #135 at all. I was pointing out what seems to be to be your failures in logic and self-contradictions, and I also asked questions and made points. You dealt with none of them. I think that your response that it is simply 'thoughtless bullshit' is clearly more thoughtless.

Evie... it was you that started with the [content removed] replies. You going over the same bullshit considered points that you've made to me personally, what... 50 times now(?) _yet again_ is nothing more than brain dead. We've done it to death... I've bent over backwards many times for you to repeat the same old line back at me. We even 'debated' it officially; and I stopped when the circle once more completed. We have nothing more to say to each other on the matter. Let it be and lets get on with enjoying the forum.

[Edwardo Piet]

Evie... it was you that started with the [content removed] replies. You going over the same bullshit considered points that you've made to me personally, what... 50 times now(?) _yet again_ is nothing more than brain dead. We've done it to death... I've bent over backwards many times for you to repeat the same old line back at me. We even 'debated' it officially; and I stopped when the circle once more completed. We have nothing more to say to each other on the matter. Let it be and lets get on with enjoying the forum.

You're quite right I think, I do believe I did 'start with' that. I believe you may have also done it to be before in the past - but none of that is the point.

The point is that I was trying to explain how once more (from my perspective at least) you appear to have digressed from the previous post in your response and so haven't dealt with my points. I am sorry if it seemed rather impolite the way I did it with the '[content removed]' thing. But the difference with when you did it is that you did it, it seems, in order to not reply to all the points I made in my post. Furthermore, you seem to keep claiming that we've basically 'been all through this before', but the post that I made in which you used the 'content removed' to ignore my post was in fact stating that I disagree with you there. I believe that when we, according to you, 'went all over the matter', 'back and forth' or whatever - you have actually failed to be inconsistent in your claims and statements (from my perspective at least, that's why I'd like clarification) - or you'd just ignore or 'dodge' (whichever it may be) my posts altogether.

It was not at all that I was at all concerned with the fact you used '[content removed]' (as I did previously (and you may have done in the past before that but I'm not sure about that claim of mine, my memory is hazy on that matter)) - it was what you used 'content removed' for. I would have been just as 'concerned' (if that's the right word? Hm) if you'd have ignored or 'dodged' my posts altogether but not used '[content removed]'. I do not want this to get into silly matters of whoever used '[content removed]' first because I consider such matters to be, well, silly. That was not at all my point, as I hope I've made clear in this post.

Oh, one more thing.

I am enjoying this forum. And part of my enjoyment here comes from debating - and I do think it would be nice if you'd answer some of my points more often. You seem to be saying that you're ignoring them because we've 'been all through this before', but I disagree actually because I think the reason why we've 'been all through it' so much and so long round circles is because you ignore and/or 'dodge' my points. That's from my perspective of course. The other, additional, factor for why we've been 'going round and round' for so long I think, is that I'm so persistent with you (I believe).

EvF

[fr0d0]

When you say something new and interesting Evie I'll respond to it. Your questions here are exact repetition of previous points. Our 'debate' went over that same ground again. We've had numerous personal conversations on IM over it too. You know very well where I stand on the infinite variations of 'evidence' we've explored together... so don't give me the bullshit that you don't know k?

Other forum members have said they're very bored with it, and have advised me to just ignore the persistent questioning at my discretion. As far as I'm concerned the topic is over between me and you, unless, as I've said, you have something new to share. I'm afraid going over it just one more time is unacceptable to me. I regard you as a friend, but I'm not going to tolerate any sort of coercion.

[TruthWorthy]

You're not mentioning IM here are you?!

---

When you say something new and interesting Evie I'll respond to it. Your questions here are exact repetition of previous points. Our 'debate' went over that same ground again. We've had numerous personal conversations on IM over it too. You know very well where I stand on the infinite variations of 'evidence' we've explored together... so don't give me the bullshit that you don't know k?

Other forum members have said they're very bored with it, and have advised me to just ignore the persistent questioning at my discretion. As far as I'm concerned the topic is over between me and you, unless, as I've said, you have something new to share. I'm afraid going over it just one more time is unacceptable to me. I regard you as a friend, but I'm not going to tolerate any sort of coercion.

---

lol

[fr0d0]

Keh? I(nstant) M(essaging) yeah.

[tackattack]

I think it was reference to your post in I believe the astrology thread about it being uncouth to quote IM traffic.

[fr0d0]

Ah, thankyou tacky.

No TruthWorthy - I don't discuss other peoples private messages to in public... or make up lies about what they say either.

PM = Private Messaging
IM = Instant Messaging

[TruthWorthy]

oh!! they're different Now I see!