RLBaty's Argument for/against Atheism

[ynot]

The typically religiously conceited “You have a problem and 'we' can fix it” ploy - Pathetic!

[Ignosticist]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

[ynot]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

[eerok]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for rule 10.

[zooterkin]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

[ynot]

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for rule 10.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

How does searching for the real identity of someone who has chosen to use a pseudonym advance the debate?

It doesn't. When it gets personal then it has gone too far.

[Tricky]

Cut out the personal attacks as well as trying to reveal member information, as per rule 8.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:Tricky

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by joobz

RLBaty has sent me a PM commenting on my posts in this thread. Clearly he is reading this thread, but seemingly afraid to respond honestly to any of the posts contained herein.

He has also pm'd me, suggesting I would be interested in how he has dealt with I Am The Scum's argument on his homepage. I declined, politely I think, saying I would be far more interested in seeing any rebuttals he has on this forum.

And that is true, so, RLBaty, if you are reading (and I suspect you are), please post your rebuttals here. I really would be interested.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by eerok

No, it doesn't make it contingent; that is, it doesn't exclude other possible contexts for imagination. However, it probably is true that some familiarity is necessary, no matter how loose, abstract, or analogous.

If I were to rebut my own attack on I Am The Scum's argument, this is how I would do it.

Originally Posted by eerok

Also we're not dealing with anything absolute here. Given the same list of qualities, different people can no doubt imagine quite different things, making the idea of imagining "a thing" rather problematic.

I hadn't considered this point; I think it may be another significant argument against RLBaty's argument.

Originally Posted by eerok

Harking back to RLBaty's silly argument, it was never very clear what he was talking about in the first place; ie, what god concept in particular. The whole enterprise lacked specificity to the point of collapse.

Agreed. I think the most direct and fatal counter-argument to RLBaty is the simple question "Which god?"

Originally Posted by qayak

Not sure I agree. Being familiar with something does not mean one is capable of imagining. One might only be able to imagine if familiar with something but the ability to imagine must be present first.

Agreed, but I'm not sure if this is relevant to the argument either for or against.

Originally Posted by gayak

We also know that what humans call "imagining" is present in other species. The closer to humans, the better the imagining. This tends to show that the ability to imagine is a product of evolution, not proof of a creator.

Perhaps, but that's a different argument.

The more I think about it, the more I think that my nitpick with I Am The Scum's argument is simply an artifact of IATS trying to keep his premises short and thereby not fully explaining the key terms. Either that, or I am still misunderstanding.

Regardless, as joobz has said, the exercise is worthwhile, at least for me, because I keep learning.

Oh, and to joobz: I haven't added my kudos to other people's kudos, but I should have. Well done in this thread.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Originally Posted by eerok

Also we're not dealing with anything absolute here. Given the same list of qualities, different people can no doubt imagine quite different things, making the idea of imagining "a thing" rather problematic.

I hadn't considered this point; I think it may be another significant argument against RLBaty's argument.

I think that it's well worth paying attention to this kind of thing. There are tons of abstract arguments that don't address any of the particulars of the belief one is defending. For example, how does a First Cause argument support the specific case of Yahweh? It doesn't. There could as easily have been a First Cause agent who shot herself in the head after seeing what she'd done.

The more loose and fuzzy things get, the more people think it applies to what they believe, but it's illusory. Most of those who agree that they believe in a god don't actually agree on very much at all. They don't really care, though, since the illusion is comforting.

[joobz]

rule 8 violation?
Well, it seems that someone has been spending time trying to figure out who I am rather than discussing the topic. I must say that I am flattered, but as I said, my identity here isn't a secret. What I cannot figure out for the life is what relevance any of this has.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by joobz

RLBaty has sent me a PM commenting on my posts in this thread. Clearly he is reading this thread, but seemingly afraid to respond honestly to any of the posts contained herein.

What a shame. He continues to run from honest discussion. I've admitted my error. Will he do the same?

What, you mean he's secretly visiting?

[devnull]

Awww, I missed all the action.

Is this the bit where RLBaty thinks that intimidating people will win him the debate?

Theists are *weird* man.

[eerok]

In his earliest posts, RLBaty stressed the equivalency of believing in God and believing that ancient humans were capable of inventing Him. (I used Christian Caps because he did.) So if theists needed to provide evidence for their gods, atheists needed to provide evidence for their implicit argument that god concepts were purely the product of imagination. (The "pure imagination" part was quite gratuitous -- dunno where he got that from.)

Anyway, it's a common apologist ploy to try to shift the burden of proof onto atheism. That's basically all this was.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by ynot

Originally Posted by stevea View Post
IIRC the other thread was specifically about "strong atheism", and strong atheists do make the positive assertion that no gods exist. This differs from a weak atheism position which merely rejects belief in any gods.

Originally Posted by ynot

Regardless, the primary basis of Atheism is the total lack of any credible evidence to support the claims of Theism. Atheism isn't the result of the fact that gods could be a purely imaginary concept. (IMO)

Ynot - I think you are missing the point. No evidence for theism is a good reason to not believe in theism. But we also have no evidence for the strong-atheist position "no gods exist", therefore we should reject strong-atheism's positive assertion w/o evidence too.

Some people want to claim a "burden of proof" issue wrt to a positive assertion, but this is only a debate rule, and not a rule of logic. It is never applied in mathematics for example. Also all propositions can be restated as negatives or positives.

Some people (including James Randi in a vid) claim that asserting something exists requires evidence, b/c the default that something doesn't exist is acceptable without evidence. I think that is mumbo-jumbo biased thinking. Has nothing to to with logical inference. We don't know of everything that exists anymore than we know of everything that doesn't exist. Every assertion requires evidence to be considered valid.

Some want to invoke parsimony principal or other methods of science, but empiricism is about model building - not epistemology.

I think the core problem is that humans want a definitive yes/no answer to the deist and many other questions, and lacking all evidence we make poorly reasoned claims of true/false for emotional gratification. We do this even when there is zero evidence either way.. Why isn't "no evidence, moot point, move along" not as satisfying a result ?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by stevea

Ynot - I think you are missing the point. No evidence for theism is a good reason to not believe in theism. But we also have no evidence for the strong-atheist position "no gods exist", therefore we should reject strong-atheism's positive assertion w/o evidence too.

Some people want to claim a "burden of proof" issue wrt to a positive assertion, but this is only a debate rule, and not a rule of logic. It is never applied in mathematics for example. Also all propositions can be restated as negatives or positives.

Some people (including James Randi in a vid) claim that asserting something exists requires evidence, b/c the default that something doesn't exist is acceptable without evidence. I think that is mumbo-jumbo biased thinking. Has nothing to to with logical inference. We don't know of everything that exists anymore than we know of everything that doesn't exist. Every assertion requires evidence to be considered valid.

Some want to invoke parsimony principal or other methods of science, but empiricism is about model building - not epistemology.

I think the core problem is that humans want a definitive yes/no answer to the deist and many other questions, and lacking all evidence we make poorly reasoned claims of true/false for emotional gratification. We do this even when there is zero evidence either way.. Why isn't "no evidence, moot point, move along" not as satisfying a result ?

No. The default position is no gods. The same goes for pixies,elves,unicorns and dragons. I cannot consider the possibility of gnomes existing just because I cannot prove that they do not exist. We have to use common sense and draw the line somewhere.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by stevea

Ynot - I think you are missing the point. No evidence for theism is a good reason to not believe in theism. But we also have no evidence for the strong-atheist position "no gods exist", therefore we should reject strong-atheism's positive assertion w/o evidence too.

Some people want to claim a "burden of proof" issue wrt to a positive assertion, but this is only a debate rule, and not a rule of logic. It is never applied in mathematics for example. Also all propositions can be restated as negatives or positives.

Some people (including James Randi in a vid) claim that asserting something exists requires evidence, b/c the default that something doesn't exist is acceptable without evidence. I think that is mumbo-jumbo biased thinking. Has nothing to to with logical inference. We don't know of everything that exists anymore than we know of everything that doesn't exist. Every assertion requires evidence to be considered valid.

Some want to invoke parsimony principal or other methods of science, but empiricism is about model building - not epistemology.

I think the core problem is that humans want a definitive yes/no answer to the deist and many other questions, and lacking all evidence we make poorly reasoned claims of true/false for emotional gratification. We do this even when there is zero evidence either way.. Why isn't "no evidence, moot point, move along" not as satisfying a result ?

What part of 'no' seems positive to you?

[ynot]

Originally Posted by stevea

Ynot - I think you are missing the point. No evidence for theism is a good reason to not believe in theism. But we also have no evidence for the strong-atheist position "no gods exist", therefore we should reject strong-atheism's positive assertion w/o evidence too.

Some people want to claim a "burden of proof" issue wrt to a positive assertion, but this is only a debate rule, and not a rule of logic. It is never applied in mathematics for example. Also all propositions can be restated as negatives or positives.

Some people (including James Randi in a vid) claim that asserting something exists requires evidence, b/c the default that something doesn't exist is acceptable without evidence. I think that is mumbo-jumbo biased thinking. Has nothing to to with logical inference. We don't know of everything that exists anymore than we know of everything that doesn't exist. Every assertion requires evidence to be considered valid.

Some want to invoke parsimony principal or other methods of science, but empiricism is about model building - not epistemology.

I think the core problem is that humans want a definitive yes/no answer to the deist and many other questions, and lacking all evidence we make poorly reasoned claims of true/false for emotional gratification. We do this even when there is zero evidence either way.. Why isn't "no evidence, moot point, move along" not as satisfying a result ?

Why it’s valid to say - “No gods exist” . . .

(1) There is absolutely no credible evidence that a god or gods do exist.

(2) There is absolutely no credible reason why a god or gods should exist.

(3) There is absolutely no credible method by which a god or gods could exist.

(4) There are known credible explanations as to why some people claim and believe a god or gods exist (despite the above counts).

If there is absolutely no credible evidence, reason and method for a thing to exist then it’s perfectly valid to say it doesn’t exist. To claim such a thing could or does exist is invalid.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by dafydd

No. The default position is no gods. The same goes for pixies,elves,unicorns and dragons. I cannot consider the possibility of gnomes existing just because I cannot prove that they do not exist. We have to use common sense and draw the line somewhere.

Chi, Big Foot, telekinesis, touch therapy, perpetual motion, free energy, cold fusion, angels dancing on pin heads, thetans, Zeus, Jehovah, etc., etc.

They were all studied to death and still no evidence. At some point we must put away childish things.

[PixyMisa]

Well, childish beliefs, anyway. I'll put away my Lego when I'm dead and buried.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Well, childish beliefs, anyway. I'll put away my Lego when I'm dead and buried.

Can we pry them from your cold, dead hands? ....... Can we? ........ Please?

[PixyMisa]

You can have the trains and the airport, but not the robot dinosaur.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by ynot

Why it’s valid to say - “No gods exist” . . .

(1) There is absolutely no credible evidence that a god or gods do exist.

(2) There is absolutely no credible reason why a god or gods should exist.

(3) There is absolutely no credible method by which a god or gods could exist.

(4) There are known credible explanations as to why some people claim and believe a god or gods exist (despite the above counts).

If there is absolutely no credible evidence, reason and method for a thing to exist then it’s perfectly valid to say it doesn’t exist. To claim such a thing could or does exist is invalid.

Your item "(3)" seems spurious to me. What does "no credible method by which X could exists" even mean ? By what method do you exist ? Show me a method by which anything exists.

Item (4) is hogwash illogical. Whether people are inclined to believe in something or not has no bearing on it's existence. (4) can be used to explain why human cultural gods evolved in human societies. It cannot be used to evidence that no possible god(s) exist.

So to your points ....

Substitute "alien life" for god/gods and see if you come to the same conclusion (the assertion that no alien life exists).

Or how about if you just met the first explorer of Australia and you give this rebuttal to his un-evidenced rumors ....
(1) There is absolutely no credible evidence that platypus do exist.
(2) There is absolutely no credible reason why platypus should exist.
(3) There is absolutely no credible method by which platypus could exist.
(4) There are known credible explanations as to why some people claim and believe a platypus exist (despite the above counts).

Does that constitute a persuasive argument that no platypus can exist, or is it an affirmation of a belief that they don't ?

====

When there is no evidence - then you can draw no logical or statistical conclusions. The deist question in the general case provides no evidence (yes we can disprove gods that dwell in oak trees and on mountain tops, but not gappy, pan_dimensional, or hiding gods).. To draw a conclusion despite the lack of any evidence is an act of faith or belief, not reason. Strong-atheism is faith-based.

My opinion is that there is absolutely no possibility of acceptable evidence for or against the general deism argument.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by stevea

Ynot - I think you are missing the point. No evidence for theism is a good reason to not believe in theism. But we also have no evidence for the strong-atheist position "no gods exist", therefore we should reject strong-atheism's positive assertion w/o evidence too.

What sort of proof you would see for the NON existence fo gods, faery or leprechaun ? There is a good reason to ask for a positive proof of claim. The burden of proof of non existence varies probably from extremely difficult to downright impossible.

Quote:

Some people want to claim a "burden of proof" issue wrt to a positive assertion, but this is only a debate rule, and not a rule of logic. It is never applied in mathematics for example. Also all propositions can be restated as negatives or positives.

No. The reason is that the burden is assymetrical. The burden of positive proof is much easier than to prove that all entity imaginable by man are non existent. And even if you come up with the proof of non existence of *one* entity, anybody can claim a simple variation not covered by your proof. And bam ! This is for naught.

Quote:

Some people (including James Randi in a vid) claim that asserting something exists requires evidence, b/c the default that something doesn't exist is acceptable without evidence. I think that is mumbo-jumbo biased thinking.

Hu. No. This is the default position. The Null hypothesis.
The fact is that I can come up with 10 news type of entity , gods, and faery quicker than you write a post.

Quote:

Has nothing to to with logical inference. We don't know of everything that exists anymore than we know of everything that doesn't exist. Every assertion requires evidence to be considered valid.

Some want to invoke parsimony principal or other methods of science, but empiricism is about model building - not epistemology.

I think the core problem is that humans want a definitive yes/no answer to the deist and many other questions, and lacking all evidence we make poorly reasoned claims of true/false for emotional gratification. We do this even when there is zero evidence either way.. Why isn't "no evidence, moot point, move along" not as satisfying a result ?

No the core problem is that human want to have it the easy way, but sometimes there are NO easy way whatsoever. Which is why by the way I am agnostic atheist : I think there is no gods, but I think nobody will ever be able to demonstrate that proposition.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by stevea

Substitute "alien life" for god/gods and see if you come to the same conclusion (the assertion that no alien life exists).

We have no evidence of alien life. We do have evidence of life happenning on 1 planet. Until somebody provide evidence of alien life on another planet, INDEED the default position should be that there isn't any.

Now you can say there is life on earth, sample of 1 , but there could be a probability of alien life yada yada. But that is not evidence of alien life existing. The same proposal would be true even in an universe where we are the only life existing.

Quote:

Or how about if you just met the first explorer of Australia and you give this rebuttal to his un-evidenced rumors ....
(1) There is absolutely no credible evidence that platypus do exist.
(2) There is absolutely no credible reason why platypus should exist.
(3) There is absolutely no credible method by which platypus could exist.
(4) There are known credible explanations as to why some people claim and believe a platypus exist (despite the above counts).

Wrong again, on two ground. Firstly it would be the burden of proof of the explorer to show a platipus corpse or captured.

Secondly the DEFAULT position, SHOULD be that Platipus DO NOT EXISTS until evidence are provided for them. Yes you read that right.

Thirdly you are making the analogy of an animal existing, with gods existing. That is a Wiiiiide step.

Now if you had an example of such *paranormal* entity proven to exists I would give you that one. But an example of a truly bizarre animal ? I won#t let you get out with that one. Gods do not belong to the same sample as animal.

Quote:

Does that constitute a persuasive argument that no platypus can exist, or is it an affirmation of a belief that they don't ?

No. That consitute an argument that you are using POST HOC knowledge to draw a reasoning before the event.

Quote:

When there is no evidence - then you can draw no logical or statistical conclusions. The deist question in the general case provides no evidence (yes we can disprove gods that dwell in oak trees and on mountain tops, but not gappy, pan_dimensional, or hiding gods).. To draw a conclusion despite the lack of any evidence is an act of faith or belief, not reason. Strong-atheism is faith-based.

My opinion is that there is absolutely no possibility of acceptable evidence for or against the general deism argument.

Where there are no evidence you can have the default position those entity do not exists. And that should be it.
It does not matter WHAT sort of entity it is.
Once evidence are provided you can revise it.

The problem is that what is acceptable for faery, is suddenly out of cultural ground not anymore good for gods.

[stevea]

Originally Posted by tsig

What part of 'no' seems positive to you?

A simple definition is that a positive assertion is when you say that something is true. A negative assertion is when you say that something is not true(false). But that's not a useful definition.

A strong (historically called "positive atheist") makes the assertion that statements like: "No gods exist" is true.. We could just as easily rephrase this as: "some god exists" is false. So we can rephrase any assertion as positive of negative by the simplistic definition.

My meaning is that positive/strong atheists make a definite powerful assertion about the class of all possible gods being null set. That's very different from merely assessing that there is no evidence and therefore withholding judgement. (i.e. making no assertion).

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by stevea

A simple definition is that a positive assertion is when you say that something is true. A negative assertion is when you say that something is not true(false).

A strong (historically called "positive atheist") makes the assertion that statements like: "No gods exist" is true.. We could just as easily rephrase this as "that any gods exist" is false.

So my meaning is that positive/strong atheists make a definite powerful assertion about the class of all possible gods. That's very different from asserting that individual statments like "zeus is a god", "woden is a god" are false.

All possible gods?

Are strong atheists asserting the non-existence of gods that no one believes in?

If we limit this discussion to just those gods subject to human worship, would it be fair to say that none of those gods exist?

I am not including some vague Deist or pantheist notion of "the universe is god" or "the laws of physics..."; gods that don't do anything except exist, because: Who prays to such gods?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Well, childish beliefs, anyway. I'll put away my Lego when I'm dead and buried.

But you can have both.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by stevea

A simple definition is that a positive assertion is when you say that something is true. A negative assertion is when you say that something is not true(false). But that's not a useful definition.

A strong (historically called "positive atheist") makes the assertion that statements like: "No gods exist" is true.. We could just as easily rephrase this as: "some god exists" is false. So we can rephrase any assertion as positive of negative by the simplistic definition.

My meaning is that positive/strong atheists make a definite powerful assertion about the class of all possible gods being null set. That's very different from merely assessing that there is no evidence and therefore withholding judgement. (i.e. making no assertion).

You are complicating things without good reason. Atheists do not believe in the existence of any god or gods. If you take another position then you are not an atheist. It's very simple.

[Dancing David]

Stevea

Even as a weak atheist there is this statement

"No evidence of gods has yet been shown."

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by dafydd

You are complicating things without good reason. Atheists do not believe in the existence of any god or gods. If you take another position then you are not an atheist. It's very simple.

Simplest thing in the world, you'd think. and yet every single theist that comes along here trying to save us all has this insatiable drive to invent his own wrong-headed definition for atheism.

[eerok]

Perhaps the distinction of strong atheism is that some of us are simply fed up with walking on egg shells. There are careful ways to express atheism, but when all theists have is faith and hot air, bad math and worse logic, why is it up to us to make all the effort?

That being said, I don't know whether I qualify as a strong atheist. Based on the objective evidence offered by anthropology, psychology, and other academic disciplines, I provisionally accept that gods were invented by humans. This isn't so much a philosophical position regarding gods as a pragmatic statement regarding reality. Sure, this opinion is not absolute, but no opinion based on science can be more than provisional. I'm open to any evidence to the contrary, though of course anecdotes aren't going to cut it.

But, yeah, atheism itself is a pretty simple categorical break.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Simplest thing in the world, you'd think. and yet every single theist that comes along here trying to save us all has this insatiable drive to invent his own wrong-headed definition for atheism.

Stevae and his kind are always deliberately obtuse. Just to wind us up I suspect. They know full well what an atheist is. A child could understand it.

[RoboTimbo]

I'm only strongly atheistic about the gods that have been defined.

The ones that have remained undefined because the believers didn't have the honesty to define them, simply don't exist because they remain undefined.

[ynot]

Originally Posted by stevea

Your item "(3)" seems spurious to me. What does "no credible method by which X could exists" even mean ? By what method do you exist ? Show me a method by which anything exists.

Method might not be the best word to use but I think it’s good enough. Things exists by the method of having substance. We know things exists by the method of observing that substance. There is no credible evidence of any god substance or that gods can exists by any other credible method.

Originally Posted by stevea

Item (4) is hogwash illogical. Whether people are inclined to believe in something or not has no bearing on it's existence. (4) can be used to explain why human cultural gods evolved in human societies. It cannot be used to evidence that no possible god(s) exist.

Item (4) is a counter to the claim that - “Gods must exist because so many people believe in them”. There are known reasons why so many people believe in gods so that they do so doesn’t invalidate saying - “No gods exist”.

Originally Posted by stevea

So to your points ....

Substitute "alien life" for god/gods and see if you come to the same conclusion (the assertion that no alien life exists).

Or how about if you just met the first explorer of Australia and you give this rebuttal to his un-evidenced rumors ....
(1) There is absolutely no credible evidence that platypus do exist.
(2) There is absolutely no credible reason why platypus should exist.
(3) There is absolutely no credible method by which platypus could exist.
(4) There are known credible explanations as to why some people claim and believe a platypus exist (despite the above counts).

Does that constitute a persuasive argument that no platypus can exist, or is it an affirmation of a belief that they don't ?

====

When there is no evidence - then you can draw no logical or statistical conclusions. The deist question in the general case provides no evidence (yes we can disprove gods that dwell in oak trees and on mountain tops, but not gappy, pan_dimensional, or hiding gods).. To draw a conclusion despite the lack of any evidence is an act of faith or belief, not reason. Strong-atheism is faith-based.

My opinion is that there is absolutely no possibility of acceptable evidence for or against the general deism argument.

No I don’t come to the same conclusion and no intelligent person would or should.

We have plenty of credible evidence that life exists in many forms within our sphere of observation. As our sphere of observation has expanded we have found previously unknown forms of life. As our sphere of observation expands further it’s credibly possible we will continue to find previously unknown forms of life. This could credibly include extraterrestrial life.

Within our sphere of observation we have absolutely no credible evidence that gods exist. There’s no credible reason therefore to assume that expanding our observational sphere will ever enable us to observe credible evidence of gods.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by ynot

Method might not be the best word to use but I think it’s good enough. Things exists by the method of having substance. We know things exists by the method of observing that substance. There is no credible evidence of any god substance or that gods can exists by any other credible method.


Item (4) is a counter to the claim that - “Gods must exist because so many people believe in them”. There are known reasons why so many people believe in gods so that they do so doesn’t invalidate saying - “No gods exist”.


No I don’t come to the same conclusion and no intelligent person would or should.

We have plenty of credible evidence that life exists in many forms within our sphere of observation. As our sphere of observation has expanded we have found previously unknown forms of life. As our sphere of observation expands further it’s credibly possible we will continue to find previously unknown forms of life. This could credibly include extraterrestrial life.

Within our sphere of observation we have absolutely no credible evidence that gods exist. There’s no credible reason therefore to assume that expanding our observational sphere will ever enable us to observe credible evidence of gods.

I agree. There is reality and there are imaginary gods. Never the twain shall meet.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by eerok

Perhaps the distinction of strong atheism is that some of us are simply fed up with walking on egg shells. There are careful ways to express atheism, but when all theists have is faith and hot air, bad math and worse logic, why is it up to us to make all the effort?

<polite snip>

^ This ^

I find myself becoming, if not 'stronger' in my lack of belief, more strident about it. I don't know whether it's because I'm getting to be old and cranky obout everything or because I'm just sick up and fed with too many preachy theists telling me I'm doomed, but where I used to say things like "I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to have unquestioning faith in god without some solid evidence" these days I'm far more likely to say "Oh grow up. There's no such bloody thing, you dill."

[ynot]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

^ This ^

I find myself becoming, if not 'stronger' in my lack of belief, more strident about it. I don't know whether it's because I'm getting to be old and cranky obout everything or because I'm just sick up and fed with too many preachy theists telling me I'm doomed, but where I used to say things like "I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to have unquestioning faith in god without some solid evidence" these days I'm far more likely to say "Oh grow up. There's no such bloody thing, you dill."

Me too

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by ynot

Me too

Heh heh.

I wonder if RLBaty's argument thingy can accommodate the idea that 'strong' atheism is actually caused by theists.