The Black Vault

Your "invention" of the term weak atheist is for yourself, not anyone of belief, to care about. Like I said, you can not be just a little pregnant, just ask Mrs H. about that one. Its pretty simple, either you believe or you don't! You just lay back, and reject any and all reasons for people who believe, so I don't know why you bother to call yourself Weak. In my life, I always regarded an Atheist as "Just not believing in God", and an Agnostic as "Just not belonging to any specific religion". I really could care less about the strong or weak boloney, it doen't matter to anyone who is a believer.

Your idea about Babies is sad, and comparing them to objects and animals just shows what a mixed up, misguided souls you are. And you tell me something is wrong with me!

greeney2 wrote:Your "invention" of the term weak atheist is for yourself, not anyone of belief, to care about.

I didn't invent it, and I didn't say you had to care, I was correcting qmark on the definition he was using. The discussion really was nothing to do with you, but feel free to interject where you're not wanted to tell me how the discussion doesn't interest you, and how you don't care.

greeney2 wrote:Like I said, you can not be just a little pregnant, just ask Mrs H. about that one. Its pretty simple, either you believe or you don't!

As I already said, "knowledge" and "lack of belief" are different things, so it has nothing to do with varying terms of pregnancy, which is a frankly ridiculous attempt at an analogy.

You basically are saying there is no difference between those who don't believe and those who claim to know God isn't real. You are saying there should not even be the term "agnosticism". You want to stick with "Christian" and "atheist", I guess. No agnosticism, no weak or strong, just unbelief.

That's completely idiotic as it does not differentiate between people with very different stances, and is also contrary to what qmark was arguing. He wants "atheism", "agnosticism", and "believer", so you guys aren't even on the same page.

greeney2 wrote:In my life, I always regarded an Atheist as "Just not believing in God", and an Agnostic as "Just not belonging to any specific religion".

Whatever, take it up with qmark because he is the one saying atheists reject the possibility of God outright otherwise they are agnostics. You are arguing with me when you should be arguing with qmark, because your definitions refute his initial claim. By the way, your definition of agnosticism will not be found in any dictionary, because it is flat out wrong.

greeney2 wrote:I really could care less about the strong or weak boloney, it doen't matter to anyone who is a believer.

I don't really give a flying f*ck what you care about greeney, I was talking to qmark originally and you butted in like a fool, so feel free to p*ss right off back out of the discussion you don't even care about

Your idea about Babies is sad, and comparing them to objects and animals just shows what a mixed up, misguided souls you are. And you tell me something is wrong with me!

You're a despicable human being greeney. I made the comparison to show that neither are able to conceive of God, and are therefore "atheists" by default, which is exactly what you are saying when you say "I always regarded an Atheist as 'Just not believing in God'".

Yes, there is indeed something wrong with you, but you are also slow bordering on learning difficulties, and that coupled with your unpleasant personality make this extremely tiresome.

It really is extremely simple guys.

Agnostics say "It is fundamentally impossible to know whether God is real or not"
Theists say "God is real"

I think we can all agree those definitions are fine.

Atheists don't believe in God, but some claim knowledge of "no God", and make a direct claim about his non-existence. So we simply differentiate between those who claim knowledge and those who do not with the terms "Weak", and "Strong".

What the heck is the issue with such a simple and obvious thing? The only source of debate can be whether to split atheism into "weak" and "strong", and quite frankly it isn't that important as long as people don't readily assume that an atheist claims proof of the non-existence of God as qmark did. We differentiate between the terms because other people make faulty assumptions if we don't.

Do you seriously have issue with this, or are you guys being overly argumentative because you're bored or something?

humphreys wrote:The reason we had to invent the term "Weak Atheist" is because people like you assume that atheism is automatically a direct claim to knowledge of the non-existence of God, which it isn't.

REad your own words Humphreys, "We had to invent-------".

humphreys wrote:I don't really give a flying f*ck what you care about greeney, I was talking to qmark originally and you butted in like an obnoxious fool, so feel free to piss right off back out of the discussion you don't even care about

Why would I argue with Qmark who said it perfectly, Strong or weak, its nothing but word games. In short--just plain stupid!

As for your tone, I know when I strike a nerve with you! I could care less about it, meaning its not an issue to me, its only an issue to you, the strong/weak nonsense. Why would anyone care, as you declare you do not believe in God, if you are weak or strong about it??? Its as stupid as not understanding the coorelation of saying "I'm only a little bit pregnant"--there is no such thing. I'll butt in anytime I feel like posting something, which us usually when you say something dumb, unfortunaltly is most of the time, comparing your newborn child with a lampshade or pet cat.

greeney2 wrote:

humphreys wrote:The reason we had to invent the term "Weak Atheist" is because people like you assume that atheism is automatically a direct claim to knowledge of the non-existence of God, which it isn't.

REad your own words Humphreys, "We had to invent-------".

Not me personally, fool. All terms are invented, by the way.

greeney2 wrote:Why would I argue with Qmark who said it perfectly, Strong or weak, its nothing but word games. In short--just plain stupid!

You fundamentally disagree with him, that's why.

greeney2 wrote:As for your tone, I know when I strike a nerve with you! I could care less about it, meaning its not an issue to me, its only an issue to you, the strong/weak nonsense.

Stay out of the discussion then if you don't care.

And don't think striking a nerve means there is any basis to your claims, your stupidity is irritating. You are irritating. You seem to enjoy it. You don't get simple concepts, and you're obnoxious about it, and I'm not the only one who is happy to tell you just how much of a moron you really are.

greeney2 wrote:Why would anyone care, as you declare you do not believe in God, if you are weak or strong about it???

Yeah, why would anyone care about accurately potraying another person's stance on an issue

The difference between lacking belief and claiming knowledge is very significant, but you're right, why would anyone care about accuracy when we can be dumb and simplistic about things like you.

greeney2 wrote:Its as stupid as not understanding the coorelation of saying "I'm only a little bit pregnant"--there is no such thing. I'll butt in anytime I feel like posting something, which us usually when you say something dumb, unfortunaltly is most of the time, comparing your newborn child with a lampshade or pet cat.

What the hell is a "coorelation"?

If you would understand the irony of you butchering spelling and grammar while awkwardly trying to get a basic sentence out, while calling me dumb, I'm sure you'd get as big a kick out of it as me.

Idiot. Thick as a plank.

There you go again, spelling and grammer! It never fails when you are out of gas.

No, for the record, Qmark and I do not disagree fundmentally at all, that Jesus is the Son of God, and Died on the cross for us. Did you not get that about all Christian religions. I'm sure you didn't understand that at all.

humphreys wrote:I don't get the issue you guys are having. Weak atheists make different claims to Strong atheists, so we differentiate between them just as we differentiate between Christians who have different beliefs about the Bible.

Okay, I can live with that. It appears to me that weak atheists have more in common with agnostics, especially since you consider agnostics as atheists. Personally, I don't really care, I made the statement because that is the way I always looked at it. I certainly wasn't trying to start an argument over something this stupid. Perhaps, we can all return to civility.

Can we get back to the original post? You never responded to my post on page 2.

I would like to return to civility, yes

You are right, weak atheism is pretty close to agnosticism without the "knowledge is impossible" part, and all agnostics are indeed atheists but not all atheists are agnostics, in my opinion.

I don't even remember what your post was on page 2, I'll go back and have a read and respond later if anything strikes me.

What you are saying is agnostics, and weak atheists are lesser none believers and the same, somewhere in the middle of being a Strong atheist, and someone who believes in God, however you are adament the believer is wrong, yet still claim a middle position? You clearly favor the strong atheism side, and clearly reject all of the believer side. Either you are a believer or not a believer, that is the middle ground, not strong/weak atheism. That is why to any believer, the strong/weak terminology is relevant only to you.

Page 2 qmarks elaborates about prayer, with regard to direct contact with God.

Page 1 my first comments were stating all Christians agree on the fact Jesus is the Son of God, and Died on the cross for us. Do you have any answer to that, becasue you skipped right past it.

Let's both have a go at a civil continuation of this without the implication that the other side's stance is stupid, okay greeney?

greeney2 wrote:What you are saying is agnostics, and weak atheists are lesser none believers and the same, somewhere in the middle of being a Strong atheist, and someone who believes in God

I can't make sense of your sentence. I don't get what you mean by "lesser none believers".

Weak atheists and agnostics are in some sense in the middle ground between believers and Strong atheists, because they do not claim absolute knowledge either way, but it is generally the case that if you ask the individual where they truly stand they will lean significantly towards one side or another.

I, as you know, am not truly in the middle ground with regard to Christianity because I think the existence of God is far less likely than the non-existence of God. I do not claim proof that any God is not real, or knowledge that any particular religion is definitely false, but I strongly lean towards that position. I find it highly unlikely that the major religions are in any sense true, but I'm a lot more sympathetic towards things like pantheism and even some types of deism.

So where I stand in relation to God also depends on what God you're talking about.

You can apply the labels to specific religions, also. You are "without Allah belief", so are an atheist towards Allah, for instance.

You want to make what I see as a very complex thing, and make it overly simplistic, "believer", or "unbeliever", and for some reason think oversimplified definitions are better than more descriptive ones. I strongly disagree with that, more descriptive definitions can only be better.

greeney2 wrote:, however you are adament the believer is wrong, yet still claim a middle position?

See above. Even when we break down atheism into "weak" and "strong" we're human beings with beliefs and opinions far more complex that a basic definition. I don't claim proof of "no God" so I cannot claim to be a strong atheist, so I am a "weak atheist", but that does not mean I am squarely on the fence, or in the middle. Some weak atheists will be right in the middle, some may be significantly to the side of no God, but all weak atheists reject the claim of Strong atheists that there is proof of no God.

greeney2 wrote:You clearly favor the strong atheism side, and clearly reject all of the believer side.

No, I reject Strong atheism just as I reject theism.

I have debated strong atheists elsewhere arguing how and why their position is unsound. I am more sympathetic to the strong atheist, but I think both strong atheists and believers are misguided in their beliefs.

greeney2 wrote:Either you are a believer or not a believer, that is the middle ground, not strong/weak atheism. That is why to any believer, the strong/weak terminology is relevant only to you.

Fine. I am "not a believer" to you.

But qmark said atheists claim direct proof of God's non-existence, and that's why I corrected him, because his claim is not true of most atheists. The terms "weak" and "strong" came along so believers understand what our position is and don't make faulty assumptions in debate. If you simply want to treat atheists as "unbelievers" you'll have no argument with me, but when you tack on additional claims like qmark did where he suggests atheists claim proof, then it becomes an issue and clarification and correction is needed.

I hope that clears that up.

greeney2 wrote:Page 1 my first comments were stating all Christians agree on the fact Jesus is the Son of God, and Died on the cross for us. Do you have any answer to that, becasue you skipped right past it.

Well we're into another discussion right now, we can move on if you like.

My basic response to that was that my thread was about the differences in the beliefs of Christians, not in the similarities. I never claimed there were not things you did not agree on.