Pray for the sucess of Atheism

So I am either an agnostic atheist or an atheistic agnostic. I
vacillate between the two....

Originally posted by sonhouse
So I am either an agnostic atheist or an atheistic agnostic. I
vacillate between the two....

"Weak" atheism is frequently referred to as agnostic atheism. I would go with that.

Originally posted by rwingett
"Weak" atheism is frequently referred to as agnostic atheism. I would go with that.

What if a "weak" atheist beats a proper atheist with an arm wrestle? Do they swap names?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What if a "weak" atheist beats a proper atheist with an arm wrestle? Do they swap names?

Ha ha, you're not a retard 100% of the time, I see.

A weak atheist IS a proper atheist.

Originally posted by rwingett
Ha ha, you're not a retard 100% of the time, I see.

A weak atheist IS a proper atheist.

So what's an "improper" atheist, if I could put it in that way?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what's an "improper" atheist, if I could put it in that way?

A strong atheist, obviously.

Originally posted by rwingett
A strong atheist, obviously.

So is a weak atheist better than a strong atheist in your opinion?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So is a weak atheist better than a strong atheist in your opinion?

A strong atheist commits himself to a position that is undefensible. The weak atheist is in a much better position.

Originally posted by rwingett
A strong atheist commits himself to a position that is undefensible. The weak atheist is in a much better position.

Do you regard the theist and the strong atheist to be in the same boat?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you regard the theist and the strong atheist to be in the same boat?

Almost, but not quite. Claiming to know that god does not exist is as indefensible as claiming to know that he does. That is the main reason theists choose to exclusively use the strong definition of atheism, even though a vast majority of atheists eschew that definition. The theist desparately want the atheist to share his burden of proof. That is why I vigorously fight against being pigeonholed into the strong definition of atheism in these forums.

But in the end it's the theist who brings up the whole issue of god in the first place, so I think his boat is a slight bit leakier than the strong atheist's.

Originally posted by rwingett
Almost, but not quite. Claiming to know that god does not exist is as indefensible as claiming to know that he does. That is the main reason theists choose to exclusively use the strong definition of atheism, even though a vast majority of atheists eschew that definition. The theist desparately want the atheist to share his burden of proof. That is why I vi ...[text shortened]... god in the first place, so I think his boat is a slight bit leakier than the strong atheist's.

Do you think that the possibility exists that God might exist?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you think that the possibility exists that God might exist?

Do you ever actually read any of my posts, dj2becker? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand? If you had read them you would see that I do not rule out the very slight chance that I could be wrong and that god might exist after all.

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you ever actually read any of my posts, dj2becker? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand? If you had read them you would see that I do not rule out the very slight chance that I could be wrong and that god might exist after all.

I understand your stance. The reason why I asked is as follows: If there is a slight chance that God exists, would that not put the theist in a better boat than the strong atheist (and the weak atheist for that matter), if it were to turn out that God did indeed exist?

Originally posted by rwingett
Do you ever actually read any of my posts, dj2becker? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand? If you had read them you would see that I do not rule out the very slight chance that I could be wrong and that god might exist after all.

I do not rule out the very slight chance that I could be wrong and that god might exist after all.

I would just like to know what your take is on this one:

If it were to happen that God does not exist, what would the consequences be on the theist? And, if it were to happen that God does exist, what would the consequences be on the atheist? How would these two sets of consequences compare with one another?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I understand your stance. The reason why I asked is as follows: If there is a slight chance that God exists, would that not put the theist in a better boat than the strong atheist (and the weak atheist for that matter), if it were to turn out that God did indeed exist?

Pascal's wager.