Disprove strong atheism? Only a fucking moron thinks he can do such a thing. Strong atheism is merely a strong position of doubt. The claim that there is a god is the one that needs to be proven, until it is, strong atheism is a very viable and the most reasonable conclusion.

There are no gods.

Strong atheism is merely a strong position of doubt.

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods. More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues.

This is not a strong position of doubt, this is claiming the answer has be found and we should move on, abandoning the question altogether.

Disprove strong atheism? Only a fucking moron thinks he can do such a thing. Strong atheism is merely a strong position of doubt. The claim that there is a god is the one that needs to be proven, until it is, strong atheism is a very viable and the most reasonable conclusion.

There are no gods.

Oh yeah YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP !!!!!!! *cute little growly noise* YIP YIP YIP YIP YIP

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Yes, a strong statement of doubt. The statement "gods do not exist" would never be made if it were not for the statement "there are gods." The burden of evidence is never on the position of doubt about claims that have not been established as fact.



Strong Atheism is the proposition that we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of a god or gods.

We should not. There is no logical or empirical reason to believe one exists. The only "evidence" there is happens to be based on emotion and faith. To suspend judgment about the existence of gods is as idiotic as suspending judgment that Superman may fly to Earth someday.



More extensively, it is a positive position against theistic values, semantics and anti-materialism, a rational inquiry in the nature of religious thought, a new way of thinking about religious and spiritual issues.

No, it is a negative position about the existence of gods and nothing more.



This is not a strong position of doubt, this is claiming the answer has be found and we should move on, abandoning the question altogether.

The question should be abandoned, it's like trying to hunt down a Chimera. Such things do not exist so there is no reason to ponder it's existence. There can be only one reason to entertain these ideas, and that is evidence. If evidence of a god is discovered, feel free to bring up the question again.

There is no logical or empirical reason to believe one exists.

The only intellectually honest position to hold in an argument like this, IMO. :hello:

Yes, a strong statement of doubt. The statement "gods do not exist" would never be made if it were not for the statement "there are gods." The burden of evidence is never on the position of doubt about claims that have not been established as fact.

And hence me poking holes in your "fact" that god does not exist.


We should not. There is no logical or empirical reason to believe one exists. The only "evidence" there is happens to be based on emotion and faith. To suspend judgment about the existence of gods is as idiotic as suspending judgment that Superman may fly to Earth someday.

Scope. Once again refer to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.


No, it is a negative position about the existence of gods and nothing more.

You seem like you are a college aged individual,...take a logic course.


The question should be abandoned, it's like trying to hunt down a Chimera. Such things do not exist so there is no reason to ponder it's existence. There can be only one reason to entertain these ideas, and that is evidence. If evidence of a god is discovered, feel free to bring up the question again.

So TOE shouild also be abandoned?

The only intellectually honest position to hold in an argument like this, IMO. :hello:

I have already stated the logical models for this, therefor, tee hee, TBK's previous statement is false. Check the proof that I posted earlier.

And hence me poking holes in your "fact" that god does not exist.

It is as much of a fact as pixies not existing.



Scope. Once again refer to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Has nothing to do with gods.



You seem like you are a college aged individual,...take a logic course.

Oh, I have. The sad thing is, you supposedly have a degree in it yet you can't grasp even the smallest concepts of logic.



So TOE shouild also be abandoned?

You are equivocating again and addressing a different definition of Chimera than I used in context. You tend to do this quite often.

http://www.mythicalrealm.com/creatures/chimera.html

I have already stated the logical models for this...

Which happened to be void of logic.

Which happened to be void of logic.


Gödel's model is void of logic...got it.

Gödel's model is void of logic...got it.

Godel's model has nothing to do with gods.

It is as much of a fact as pixies not existing.l[/url]

Once again scope.


Has nothing to do with gods.

I am not spoon feeding anymore




Point out the fallacies.

[QUOTE=Thaiboxerken]You are equivocating again and addressing a different definition of Chimera than I used in context. You tend to do this quite often.

http://www.mythicalrealm.com/creatures/chimera.html

I assume you mean god and not chimera, but I have done no such thing. First I have stated my purpose as debunking fundamentalist, therefor I will not use the fundamentalist definition of god. Moreover I have already stated my position as a pantheistic Taoist, so I have set the parameters for my definition of god. Second I was illustrating the holes in your theory, not proving a point of my own.

Godel's model has nothing to do with gods.

YOU STUPID **** THAT IS Gödel's ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT!!!

So your "god" is merely the universe? That's profound and stupid. You may as well call a cat "god" and say that god exists. You're a fucking moron.

Zapruder, is the point you are trying to make that conditional atheism, defined as "I see no evidence for a god" is easily acceptable,whereas "fundamental atheism", defined as "there are no gods and no possibility for them either" is its own form of intellectually dishonest fideism?

Zapruder, is the point you are trying to make that conditional atheism, defined as "I see no evidence for a god" is easily acceptable,whereas "fundamental atheism", defined as "there are no gods and no possibility for them either" is its own form of intellectually dishonest fideism?

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!