New religion is old again
Posted on: January 31, 2007 - 12:12pm
Offline
New religion is old again
There does not seem to be anything new under the sun with this website. Creation of your own religion only shows your ability to copy those who came before you. Why not create a truly unique belief system, rather than copying from established religions. By the way, it took 4.34 minutes to get to this point on your website. Your server, or your software lacks the ability to handle any amount of traffic. I would love to debate issues with people, but spending such long wait times is boring (or is boring one of your mantras?)
- Login to post comments
Wow. The "I'm too important to have to deal with small delays on the night your site gets exposed to nearly 4MM people" arguement is a unique one, I have to admit.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Yellow,
Is that what this site is full of - people who can't debate an issue? This website has always been slow to load up. Why would you defend that, rather than your belief system?
You're commiting a small sample bias fallacy and a non sequitur fallacy. You can't properly assess an entire site based on one (erroneous) evaluation of one response.
Why is it that your main criticism against the RR team is that they are a religion? I find it interesting that that's the biggest charge you could come up with....
And how is atheism a belief system, or a religion? How is not believing in theism a belief?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
todangst,
Of course this brand of atheism is a religion. The belief system is that there is no God, along with what appears to be other common beliefs. Does it hurt your sensibilities that you are part of a religious movement (albeit a non-traditional religion)?
My apologies to the people who run this, but I neglected to include one other point in my original post. Could you please allow myself and other users the ability to select our own passwords - I saw that I can request another password, therefore I assume you want control of my account). I prefer the freedom of selecting and maintaining my own password, or is privacy of one's account not allowed here? Sorry, but I do not trust any religious or other type of organization with my passwords.
You're not answering todangst's question. It doesn't hurt our sensibilities, we just want to know why you make this claim. How is not believing in a god or gods a belief system? How is it a religion? Maybe you should define what you mean by religion, because it seems you're using it in a non-standard way. Don't dodge the questions.
This is not the place for comments like this. Why don't you talk to the people who run the site?
Thanks for being one of the 4,000 hits per minute, as a result a loyal supporter decided to pay $260 per month for us to be hosted on a brand new server to handle the immense traffic we've been getting. Over the next day or two things will start to really speed up as the kinks get worked out.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
It's already at kick-ass-speed for me. Keep up the good work!
Aside from the fact that you're incorrect, I find it humorous that the worst charge you can level at us is that we're just like you.
No. If you want to call us a religion it doesn't bother me at all. We're not against religion, we're against irrational thought, which you seem to have cornered.
Click "my account" in the top menu bar and you can change it.
You should probably chill on the assumptions, you're not very good at it.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
So I take it not believing in Santa is a religion!
Deism is a religion too.
Of course this is a religion. A definition of religion, from the Merriam Webster dictionary is
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
To only say I am incorrect in calling your organization a religion is avoiding the issues I present. Not only is your organization a religion, but a religion of conflicting beliefs.
The founders are obviously not atheists. In order to accept or deny something or someone, there is always a thought process that entails a thought of its existence. You quote the Bible on your blasphemy website. You then tell people they must deny the Holy Spirit. To do so, there is an implied belief the Holy Spirit exists in order to deny it. You are asking people to turn their back on something they must first accept as being there. The existence of your religion is to go against God, as implied by your need for people to reject him. No different than Mohammed denying the deity of the Holy Spirit (as part of the triune of God).
You say denying the Holy Spirit is a one way road - another doctrine (belief) of your religion.
The fact you call this act of denial blasphemy is an impicit way to say God does exist. Otherwise, what or who is being blasphemed?
Also, you say that people are free to do whatever they want in order to damn themselves to Hell. Does this mean you believe in Hell? If so, then this is another doctrine of your religion.
So, when you claim there is no God, you are fooling yourself. You implicitly and explicitly agree God does exist with your own words, yet you then say God does not exist (with your own words). Which side of the mouth on any given day are you talking out of?
By the way, why would you capitalize Holy Bible and Holy Spirit and God if you believe there is no God? You imply God does exist by bringing attention to the words by capitalizing them. - Just another instance of your belief that God does exist. Waiting to see if you remove the capital letters.
All in all, I must hand it to you. You manage to fool many into thinking you are atheists. Even some atheists are upset that you would call yourselfs atheists. (go do some searches on the Internet - see what atheists are saying about you).
As for me, I can see you have doctrines (albeit conflicting at times) as other religions. Your own words imply you believe God does exist. What proofs do you have your religion is really any different? Your god(s) and dogma may be different, but you do practice a religion.
As a side note, I commend you on your recent hardware/software upgrade.
Where you are wrong is we don't use faith. Faith is belief without evidence. This is an all reason, no faith establishment.
The founders are atheist because they do not believe in a god or gods. You obviously don't understand what the Blasphemy Challenge is about. These questions are answered elsewhere. I encourage you to read around the site a bit to gain an understanding of its purpose.
What the heck are you talking about? I, and the founders, don't believe in god. Period. We don't claim there is no god, we just have no belief. Again, read around. These things have been discussed.
What?! Using capital letters means we believe in God?! This is the dumbest thing I've ever head on this site.
You obviously have a straw man view of this site and it's founders. I think you don't understand what an atheist is. I repeat myself, but a lot of your claims are discussed elsewhere. Please read them and educate yourself so you don't look so ignorant.
mrrage
You said We don't claim there is no god
So you say God exists. Prove it.
You said Where you are wrong is we don't use faith. Faith is belief without evidence.
So I take it you were are able to prove God's existence through rational thought, and not faith.
By the way, you do live by faith. You have faith the food you eat is without contaminants. You have faith your family will love you. When you were very young, you had faith that a ball you threw up in the air would come down.
You said What?! Using capital letters means we believe in God?! This is the dumbest thing I've ever head on this site.
Sorry, my mistake. I meant they must believe God exists, in the manner of showing reverence by using capital letters (and within the context of quoting God's word from the Bible).
You do have a system of beliefs you hold to, using reasoning as your method - you have faith in your reasoning and your beliefs. This shows a religious organization, albeit a different one, but certainly a religion.
You have not commented on how the fact many atheists are against you calling yourselfs atheists. Some see how you have turned your beliefs into a religion.
sapient,
It would appear you believe God exists. With rational thought, prove God's existence. I take it you would not consider other's belief in God as a rational explanation, but you have your own tangible evidence.
Uhh... where? I have never done the deny the holy spirit thing.
I guess you think Deism is a religion too?
So if you say "I know Harry Potter is fiction", you believe it's really true?
What if I asked you to deny Thoth? If you said you didn't believe in him and his buddies, does that mean you believe in them too?
Do Ebert and Roper, believe in all the movies they have seen?
What in the name of Jesus' Pink torpedo are you talking about?
PS. You do believe in Thoth.
There's a difference between having NO belief in God and believing there is NO god. Most atheists here are of the former. (The former is a neutral, fall-back position, the latter is an assertion requiring proof.)
Those of the latter have not much more evidence than the average theist.
There's also a big difference in having "faith" that the apple-like object you are about to eat is actually an apple (you have lots of evidence for that) and having "faith" in a god (of which you have no real evidence.)
-Triften
Quote:
You say denying the Holy Spirit is a one way road - another doctrine (belief) of your religion.
Uhh... where? I have never done the deny the holy spirit thing.
I guess you think Deism is a religion too?
ophios, obviously the people who run this website hold that as a doctrine. Not all people who subscribe to a religion hold all doctrines to be true. Many people pick and choose.
Quote:
You then tell people they must deny the Holy Spirit. To do so, there is an implied belief the Holy Spirit exists in order to deny it.
So if you say "I know Harry Potter is fiction", you believe it's really true? I obviously believe the character Harry Potter exists, in the fictional sense of course.
What if I asked you to deny Thoth? If you said you didn't believe in him and his buddies, does that mean you believe in them too? If thoth and his buddies exist, I could say I know (believe) they exist, but I may not agree with them.
Do Ebert and Roper, believe in all the movies they have seen? Yes, they believe the movies exist
Quote:
So, when you claim there is no God, you are fooling yourself. You implicitly and explicitly agree God does exist with your own words, yet you then say God does not exist (with your own words). Which side of the mouth on any given day are you talking out of?
What in the name of Jesus' Pink torpedo are you talking about? I've read, on this website, they say God exists, then claim God does not exist - just questioning the duality of the statements.
PS. You do believe in Thoth.
Twist my words will you? I meant Do you think (According to your logic) The E&R believe what was in the movies as true?
Not according to your logic. You deny Harry, and to deny you have to somehow think of it as real, or whatever the hell you said.
So you say, that it's impossible to ever disagree over the existence of something, you have to believe in everything you have ever heard in.
Nice to see another person open their eyes and believe in the thinking god for once.
PS, how does a person like you keep from going crazy, believe in a whole lot of contradicting things. Especially all those gods that created the universe and stuff, was it a joint operation? Who is you see after you die, or do you reincarnate, or maybe just die, or all possible options at once?
Look, do you want to have a decent conversation? How about you not twist my words.
Let me be very clear to you so you can understand. I do not believe that a god or gods exist. What I do not do is make a positive statement like "There is no God." There's a difference here that you need to get in your head. The burden of proof is on the theist. I don't have to prove anything. Do you understand me?
Come on! Did you read my definition of faith?!
I hope the food I eat is without contaminants, I don't have faith. There are ways, based on evidence, that can reduce containments. I believe my family loves me because they show kindness towards me. So there's evidence my family loves me. I expected a ball to fall after I threw it in the air, because I had my past experience of that happing. Again this is evidence. Are you getting it?
I'm sure your sorry. It's a thing called a proper noun. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.
Whatever. If you want to call those who hold to reason over faith a religion, be my guest. Have fun communicating with people though using words in a non-standard way.
I didn't know about these atheists. Can you give me some examples? To me it sounds like you're using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Really, how so?
How does not believing in god equate with a 'belief system'?!
How are common beliefs a 'religion'?
You assert, but you don't seem willing to support your claims. You just assume they are true, damn the facts.
Seeing as I am not part of such a movement, I cannot answer the question.
Now, I must ask you again: are you religious? If so, don't you find yourself in an odd position, hurling 'religion' as an insult?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Thank you. He neither backed up his claim, nor did he respond to my questions.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well, first of all, there's no need to hold to atheism by faith, so your claim fails.
But your claim fails for another reason as well: you've not demonstrated that atheism is a religion, in fact, what you've done is commit an equivocation fallacy - i.e. 'religion' is used in many ways, arguing that a person who holds to a cause with ferver is a 'religion' would necessitate calling communism a religion.
I'm sure this point goes so far over your head that if you could ever latch onto it, you could use it to hang-glide....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Communism? With that definition, rooting for the Red Sox would be a religion. (And let's no forget all those soccer fans in Europe, who have been known to cause significant damage to sports stadiums in their religious fervor.)
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Excellent point... in a way, communism does approach a religion in that marxist-lennonist ideas are held as dogma.... so its a far stronger argument to hold that according to the open ended, self serving dictionary defintion cited here, being a Red Sox fan is a religion.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
If we are to go so far as to say that a religion is anything anyone holds as a belief, and further still to say that anyone can pick and choose which parts of a religion to abide by and believe and which not to yet still remain within that religion, then I wholeheartedly agree with the original poster. We are all religious. "We" means every single person on this planet. We all prescribe to the church of "I", in some form or another, and therefore we are all of the same faith.
This of course doesn't actually mean anything, so I have no problem with saying it. I'm also currently a member of the Church of World of Warcraft, but previously I attendted the Church of Eve Online, and before that the Church of Everquest.
And, let's look at the facts. In Christianity, the main event to wait for is the return of Christ. In Red Sox fandom, the main event to wait for is winning the World Series. Christianity's waited 2000 years for Christ to return, but the Red Sox only had to wait 86 years for their miracle.
It looks like being a Red Sox fan gives you a much quicker return on your belief investment.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Awesome. I may frame that on my wall.
Ha!
In fact, Red Sox religion gives you a jesus too:
so you get the best of both worlds.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Hey, I've heard of the Church of EVE Online, and was intrigued by the Gospel Of Getting To Fly Really Big Spaceships And Having Space Battles. Is this religion worth a look?
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Exactly, Spewn! This the original poster is basically redefining the word "religion" to absolutely no meaning at all. That means this whole conversation was pointless.
I honestly thing the original poster is either a post-modern "thinker," or a troll.
Sorry man, I don't have time for extreme ignorance this week. Maybe later.
Aquaint yourself with what a "forum troll" is so that you don't risk being banned. Here are the forum rules.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Actually, Johnny Damon ended up going to the Yankees the very next season. The savior defected after he provided salvation, going to the side of evil. Not only is this religion faster, but the theology is more interesting.
(Actually, on a less silly note, the author Jorge Luis Borges had a short story on a similar tack, where it turned out Judas, not Jesus, was the Redeemer: since the savior had to be humbled to bring salvation, the ultimate humbling would be to be scorned and reviled for eternity. Not that I believe that to be true, either, but it's good to see new twists on things.)
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
sapient, I am trying to determine whether you and many others are atheists or agnostics. I am reading from some, eg mrrage that you (as founders) do not believe God exists and yet I see you quoting the Bible as if you accept that God does exist (but you don't believe in him).
My take on your organization as being a religion is based on my studies of other religions and how they promote their dogma.
I am trying to enter into reasoned conversation, but I want to know where you and others who agree with you, what your beliefs are.
You know, this is getting really frustrating.
I can't say "There is no god or gods." because I could never prove such a statement. For the same reason, I'm not going to say "There is no big foot." Do I believe there is a big foot? No. But I can't say for sure, 100% positive, there is not big foot because I can't observe every possible place in the woods at once. I live my life not believing in big foot. But there's always that outside chance he could exists. If I was presented with solid, indisputable evidence of big foot's existence, then I'd believe he exists.
I view the existence of a god or gods the same way I view the existence of big foot.
todangst pointed out you're using a equivocation fallacy for the word religion. You're doing that with the word "faith" too.
Yes I can use Google, but you can't seem to back up your claims.
You're full of bullshit. I'm not going to answer anymore of your post if you continue this way, because you're just wasting my time. I think you're a troll, and if you are trolling, bugger off!
You fail to understand that the sole reason why most of us don't say "There is no god." is because we know such a statement could NEVER be proven. Just as you could never prove absolutely that Harry Potter is *only* a fictional character. You could show that it is almost absolutely certain to be not true, but you could never prove there really isn't a Hogwart's School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Your logic follows from that to say; Therefore, you believe that Harry Potter IS real. This simply doesn't make any sense.
I think you're definately right on the first point, but not necessarily on the second. His line of reasoning is not intended to cause discord, moreover it is a common method of "conversion" employed by Christians(Most notably, Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort on their television show.) Their intent is to prove to us that we really do believe in god, we just don't know it. This of course has the unfortunate side effect of making people angry, because it supposes that we aren't smart enough to figure out what we believe for ourselves.
mrrage, as pointed out to sapient, I am trying to determine whether people with your beliefs are more akin to atheists or agnostics.
The free online dictionary defines agnostic as
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.Based on the above, I would think that you may be (and founders of this website) might be agnostics moreso than atheists. If I am incorrect on this, I would ask that it be explained more fully how atheism would apply moreso than gnosticism.There is a chap (saw it on 60 minutes) who believes he can mathematically prove God exists. If he claims he has, you can bet there will be a line of mathematicians waiting to prove/disprove him. It will be interesting to see what he comes up with in the coming years.I believe there can also be a reasoned debate on creationism vs macro evolution (macro evolution being the term used to define large changes) - micro evolution is a given, scientifically. Darwin himself had some caveats regarding his theory of evolution. Ah, but that is for another time and another thread.The proof that Harry Potter is an entirely fictional character can be answered by the author. She made the character up in her mind - I guess if she had some illness, she might believe he was real but she appears to be very lucid. Sure someone might actually be named Harry Potter somewhere in the world, but she wrote the character as a fictional one.
I have never seen their TV show (didn't know they had one -never heard of Ray Comfort). I am trying to determine if people are agnostic or atheist (and attempting to classify this phenomena as a religion or not - from the outset it has seemed like it, need to study it more).
Whether you want to believe in God or not is your choice, not mine.
In any reasoned debate, on any issue, one could claim they think others don't think they are smart enough to make their own decisions. These would typically be the people who do not present as strong a position as another. With any topic, a person could get ticked off because they know they are on the wrong side of the topic. I have lost debates on issues, mostly because I was ill prepared - maybe I didn't have all the facts, or I was unable to present my side effectively. Nonetheless, when I am presented with reasonable information, I tend to ruminate before deciding whether I accept the information. If I deny too quickly, I tend to regret it down the road. That is why I let ideas and beliefs settle a while before deciding to accept them as gospel.
Personal experience, coupled with those wiser than I, have proved valuable in being a more reasoned and compassionate person (although I am still a work in progress).
Now you're sounding more reasonable. I take back my charges of you being a troll. If this is what you wanted, why didn't you just say so? I wouldn't have gotten so angry. I guess I wouldn't be MrRage without a little rage now and then.
The atheists/agnostic issue has been discussed a lot around here, so you might find a better response to this elsewhere. But, I'll give it a try. Disclaimer: I think my views are very close to the founders of this site, but I in no way claim to represent their views.
When I use agnostic, I mean definition a. I don't know if I'm an agnostic in this sense, I'm still thinking it out. As for definition b., I would be closer to that. I am skeptical about the existence of a god, and I hold no belief in the existence of a god. I think the probability of the existence of god is very low.
But I still wouldn't call myself an agnostic. This is where we would have our semantic quibble. I assume that by "true atheists" this dictionary means one who makes the claim "There is no god."
I take the word "theist" to mean someone who believes in a god. (Note, there could be an agnostic theist, where agnostic is defined by definition a.) So, an atheist would be someone with no belief in god.
I would make two categories: "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". A strong atheist would be the same as the "true atheist" above. I don't hold this view, because of the reason I gave earlier. It would require proving a universal negative. This is also how most Christians, like Ray Comfort, use the term.
The weak atheist would be the skeptical. They would admit they can't be 100% sure there wasn't a god, but they think the probability is very low. So they don't believe in a god. I would be one of those. Another way you could say it is I'm functionally a strong atheist.
Both sorts of persons are valid atheist, because they both hold no belief in god. In short, agnosticism is an epistemological position. Atheism is a metaphysical position. It's not an either-or. They're two different axis, not one.
Regardless, I tend to hold more to naturalism, and because of this I don't really see a need for a god to be in existence or not. Maybe some deity started it all, but I see no reason to think this deity is active in the universe, or active in my life. This is the source of my weak atheism.
And I'd probably be one of them. I don't see how god could be proven mathematically. I could expand on this more if you want.
Yes, there's a whole section for that. I'm not that well versed in this subject, so I'll leave it at that.
Uh oh! Didn't 'jesus' descend into hell right after the crucifixion?
That sounds like the gist of the book of Judas. Interesting.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Ah, the online dictionary, THE Source (tm) for rigorous philosophical definitions of terms! Seriously, dictionaries exist to provide definitions that people use...this means that they provide colloquial definitionsn along with philosophically sound definitions. In other words, they do not exist to provide philosophical or theological defenses of how the word is actually used in philosophical or theological discourse. So if you want colloquial definitions, then you can pick a defintion like number 2 from your list. But if you want an accurate definition of agnosticism and atheism, here they are: a-theism - a lack of belief in theism. That's it. Agnosticism - not a belief position at all, but a 'knowledge position' - the belief that one cannot have 'gnosis' or 'knowledge' of gods. From this it follow that all non believers are atheists... in that they do not believe. Butmost of us here are 'agnostics' in the colloquial sense of the word, in that we are not strong atheists - we don't claim that gods cannot exist. We simply lack the belief. This makes us 'weak atheists' Seriously, I dont' know why theists don't accept the term, you'd think you all would have a field day calling us 'weak' atheists....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It's funny how people like Ray Comfort will say "you're not an atheist, your really an agnostic." Do they expect us to say "Damn, Your right! I can't prove a universal negative, so I better become a Christian."?
Guys, I'm wondering If I'm going to hell for kissing a girl. I did break one of the old rules of the ol' clubhouse religion.
I think it important to determine the separation between the two. An atheist who does not believe in God, period, would totally disagree that someone who is agnostic can also be an atheist (I have come across some). The intent of ones thoughts separates the two. I don't believe in God but I might if given enough proof appears to be the stance of agnostics, whereas an atheist would not entertain that thought.
Which one is capable of better reasoned thought (on the topic of God)? I would say the agnostic. In mrrage's example, he says believing God exists would be akin to bigfoot - in the sense that given enough proof, he would believe either could exist. Therefore, I think the agnostic would be more capable of reasoned thought by not ruling out all options in their entirety. History has proven that people who took atheistic type stances are at greatest risk of being proven wrong - eg Hitler, Ghengis Khan, Charles Lindberg. History proved them all wrong regarding some of their beliefs.
My example of the light bulb was similar. Many people, even after seeing it, could not believe it was real. This is the fate of atheists - they create an absolute that may some day be proven wrong. A similar example are the people that still believe the world is flat. To this day, given all the evidence that science can muster, they still refuse to believe the earth is round.
People can be atheistic in nature about any topic. These are the ones I sometimes ignore on those points they are so cocksure about. Seeing is believing would never be enough.
My diatribe about not believing something exists as a belief was not wasted. I know it has ticked some off but we all go through life with certain beliefs (everchanging at times of course). We also tend to be like, as the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. It is no different in our beliefs.
Groups of people tend to seek out those who agree with them. They also tend to build together on their commonalities. So much so at times, that their words and actions could be construed as being that of a religion. You may not agree with me, but I believe that is the case of this website. I hope we can at least agree to disagree without involving personal emotions.
I will be looking for the divergent views of people on this site. I will especially be looking for the varying views as separated by age. I believe (there's another belief) as we age, our viewpoints change toward moderation. Time will tell, and it might even lead to a paper on the topic some day.
Heh. Well, he's commited to denying the existence of atheism, because he realizes that the existence of atheism refutes his religion. There simply cannot be a universe with an all powerful, all knowing god who needs use to believe in him to be saved, who fails to prove his existence to even one person. It would make 'god' into the most evil being imaginable. (Accepting for a second that we can make the oxymornic reference to 'god' as a 'being'
So he dodges the existence of atheism by trying to redefine every a-theist as an agnostic... the only problem is that 'agnosticism' in colloquial usage IS weak atheism.
Comfort should stick to banana theology.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Based on what? Just the terms?
All the terms tell you is how they hold to their beliefs... one holds to atheism weakly, the other, rejects god belief outright.
It's a common error to assume that strong atheism equates with dogmatic rejection. Strong atheists simply hold that they have deductive grounds for rejecting god belief. If they are right, they are sound in rejecting god claims. The fact that weak atheists leave open the possibility of 'god' it itself groundless if in fact they accept strong atheistic arguments for the contradictory nature of god claims, or the incoherent nature of god references.
Again, it's an error to suppose that strong atheism equates with dogmatism. Strong atheists concede that they could be wrong.
Strong atheists do not 'rule' out all options entirely. They concede the possibility of error.
However, you are somewhat on the mark when you hold that they 'rule out possibilities' in that they rule out 'god' deductively... i.e. they hold that god claims are either contradictory, or incoherent, and therefore, they can be rejected.
What I find interesting is how no one has a problem with strongly rejecting god claims at all.... no one wrings their hand over rejecting Zeus... and be honest, you don't seriously entertain the possibilty of Zeus claims... you reject them outright (while still conceding the possibility of being wrong).
What people really have a hard time with is rejecting the beliefs that they grew up with... even an atheist thinks twice about christianity, if he grew up a christian, yet both the atheist and the theist can hold hands while laughing at zeus claims.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You're still using the more colloquial meanings of atheist and agnostic. If you want to have any discussions here, you better get used to the philosophical definitions. This is simply an issue of terminology, and I'm having a hard time understanding why you insist in using the colloquial meanings.
If you mean a strong atheist is less capable of reasoned thought, then I agree. The whole bit about can't-prove-a-universal-negative is a big problem for them.
I'm not familiar with your Ghengis Khan / Charles Lindberg reference. I fail to see how what Hitler did was a direct consequence of a disbelief in god. This sort of thing has been talked about ad nausem around here, so read around for more details.
The strong atheist may be proven wrong, and that might be devastating to them. I would not be so incredulous.
Don't be so fast in making these judgments about people on this site. They might be emphatic about their views, but it's not true that all of us would refuse to believe in god even if there were outstanding evidence for it. For instance, if Jesus returned to earth just like the bible claims he will, that would convince me.
I welcome any poking and prodding. I don't mind having my views challenged. But couldn't you have done it without coming across as an asshole?
If you want some disagreement, I'm not convinced that Jesus was mythical. This is held by at least one of the founders of this site.