"Atheism is a world view"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

[Outrider]

"Agnostic" is used in two* different ways as well. There are those for whom agnositicism means they think it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any gods and there are those who just say, "Dunno." For the latter, they may think that it is possible to discover whether any gods exist, but they've not been able to do it.

People use words in many incorrect ways - when you're using technical terms in a philosophical argument, it's important to use them correctly.

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong" due to possible confusion over the term "gnostic/Gnostic" and I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist"

I prefer gnostic and agnostic, though, primarily because - as an agnostic atheist - the 'weak' atheist argument is the stronger of the two, not that either position is inherent weak.

You don't get 'strong' and 'weak' believers, you get fundamentalists and moderates - the language we choose is important.

O.

[Shaker]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."

[Andy]

...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist"

Why?

[splashscuba]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

Love it. That was going to be similar to my next comment i.e. "am I a weak or strong ---------" insert an infinite number of things I don't believe in

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.

Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods

Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).

Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods

Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.

O.

But then Christianity IS pretty disparate in its different beliefs. Atheism is about not believing. Everything else is ....... everything else.

Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.

[splashscuba]

I think the idea of the Atheist world veiw is based on the assumption that Athiests believe in Science and are the same in their world view as Richard Dawkins or other prominent ones.

Nope. Atheists just don't believe in gods

Depends on whose definition of atheism you use (as posted earlier).

Then we need another word to describe not believing in gods

Why? As 'Christian' can cover everything from Nigerian fundamentalists through American Evangelists to Quakers and the Mormons, I think you can handle 'atheist' covering both the agnostic and gnostic variants.

O.

But then Christianity IS pretty disparate in its different beliefs. Atheism is about not believing. Everything else is ....... everything else.

Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.

Not at all. I never sleep with philosophical materialists

[Andy]

I think it's safe to say that all atheist contributors to this thread thus far just lack a belief in a god and don't subscribe to the belief that there is no god. If there are those who subscribe to it, then I'm yet to hear it. I expect this to be clear enough now. However, what I don't expect is for any real notice of this fact to be taken.

Yes but behind almost every atheist lies a 'shy' philosophical materialist.

See. What a shocker at who it is too.

[Alien]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

[Alien]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."

What are you on about? I've answered BHS's questions.

[Alien]

...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist"

Why?

Have a guess. It has to do with the at the end of my sentence.

[Andy]

...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist"

Why?

Have a guess. It has to do with the at the end of my sentence.

<shrugs>

[Shaker]

...I like the idea of calling someone a "weak atheist"

Why?

Have a guess. It has to do with the at the end of my sentence.

I'll need more to go on.

Can you be clearer about exactly what you mean, please?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

[floo]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.

[splashscuba]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.

That would be a hypothesis not a theory though

[jeremyp]

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

I think Greene's simulated universe theory backed up by the Astronomer royal might.

But there is no evidence that it is true.

[2Corrie]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

say it often enough and you'll convince yourself

[Shaker]

It's true though, isn't it?

[jakswan]

Alien,

OK with that, though I prefer the use of "weak" and "strong"...

Just out of interest, would you describe yourself as a "strong" a-leprechaunist or as a "weak" a-leprechaunist?

Why?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cue special pleading that "Leprechauns are nothing like gods because reasons."

What are you on about? I've answered BHS's questions.

You have answered one question, he asked you two.

[ippy]

Alien,

A strong aleprechaunist, for sure. What about you? Are you a weak or strong aspaghetti-monsterist?

I've never understood how you think you can be a strong or a weak a-anyhting. The a-prefix just means "without" - a-theist just means "without gods". You can't be strongly or weakly without gods (or leprechauns) - would a strong one really, really be without gods but a weak one would be without gods except on Wednesday afternoons or something?

What?

I think it ironic that Dawkins tries to reduce god to the level of a mythical character (a billion fingered thing with one in every pie or proton) and Hillside tries to elevate Leprechauns to divine status.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence the deity is anything but a mythical character.

say it often enough and you'll convince yourself

Is Floo wrong then 2 C?

ippy

[Outrider]

say it often enough and you'll convince yourself

You might think that, but people have been telling me god is real for a long time, and they've yet to convince me. I don't need to convince myself gods don't exist, I haven't seen any reason to think they do.

O.

[Leonard James]

say it often enough and you'll convince yourself

You might think that, but people have been telling me god is real for a long time, and they've yet to convince me. I don't need to convince myself gods don't exist, I haven't seen any reason to think they do.

O.

That's because you haven't been chosen.