63 Gambling For Salvation


You are at a table playing blackjack with a king and a nine on your hand, chances are that if you ask for another card, you will go over and lose it all, so your best bet is to keep what you have and play it smart, stay safe, no need to risk it, you don't even have to think about it, to ask the dealer to hit you would be stupid, suicidal, you would lose it all, so, you do what's best for you. Blaise Pascal understood this perfectly.

Pascal's wager is the idea that even though the existence of god can not be proven, a person should wager for his existence because there's a lot to win from it, doing otherwise would mean damnation in the fires of  hell. Pascal thought the safest bet would be to believe in the Judeo-Christian god of the bible, as if an omnipotent being couldn't tell if your belief was sincere or not. I'm not sure how god would react if he finds out you just had faith out of convenience, if you want to be serious about it, thats it for the wager, its over, but if you really want to bury Pascal's gambit, then what if Pascal was waging on the wrong god?.


Since we are talking about odds here, what are the odds that you are betting on the right god?, what if the hindus are right?, what if Thor was the right one, what about Quetzalcoatl, Shiva, Zeus or even Xenu?, how do you know your god is the right one?, the mathematical chances of a creator god are infinitesimal, the chances of that god being the god you pray to, are even more ridiculous. So thats it for the wager, unless of course, you take a different position.

Agnosticism, in essence it means standing in the middle of the debate, being fair and balanced, you can't absolutely prove god is real, but you can't prove he isn't, so, agnostics much rather not participate on debates but of course love to point out how their logic is the best, and saying otherwise is just pointless, of course i already wrote  about why it isn't pointless at all so i'll stick to expressing why i don't believe Agnosticism is the way to go.

First of all, my biggest problem with agnosticism is that, if you can't decide weather god is real or not, then you pretty much can't be certain about anything else, doing otherwise would be a huge contradiction to your convictions, now, before you say that the argument is illogic, well, analyze it, if you continuously claim that you don't have enough evidence to believe in god, then are you agnostic about fairies?, how about the pink invisible unicorn?, do you get diplomatic when your son asks you if there's a monster in the closet?, you know, if you tell your kid there isn't, god forbid you might offend the cryptozoologists. How many times do you add up 2 + 2 on a calculator just to make sure it won't randomly show 5 as a result next time?.

Of course we can be agnostic about many things, it's good to be an agnostic initially about certain things, but not when we are talking about god or any other imaginary creature, the answer is simple, you declare yourself an agnostic towards god, making the mistake of considering that the evidence for god's existence is the same for his non existence, it isn't the case, outside of bronze age books and anecdotal evidence, there is absolutely no evidence for god, on the contrary, the evidence for the non existence of an interventionist god grows every day, this is a fact.

I'm an atheist, and like any real atheist, i don't make the claim that god does not exist, but, it is improbable to a ridiculous scale that he does, and i'm talking about a non interventionist god, that only flicked the switch to create the universe, just imagine, the first thing ever created out of nothing, is an omnipotent being, why?, for no reason, it just happened, he felt lonely and created the mostly empty universe, and just left it there to float around, well, if that happened once, can't it happen again?, and again?, and again?, if indeed a non interventionist god created the universe, then you must also be intelligent enough to allow the possibility, that if a god with the powers of creation popped out somewhere for no reason, then surely there's a big chance of this being a repeating event in all of the unknown areas where the original god first came to be, outside the universe, by now we should have an army of gods floating around.

                                                                             God?

Many agnostics would agree that the chance of the god of the bible existing are too small to even be considered, but yet, they allow the possibility of a creator, non personal god, this is where i believe agnosticism fails, if you are agnostic about a non interventionist god, then there is no point to even consider yourself an agnostic, there's no point to even argue for the existence of said being simply because he doesn't care, i'm not against people believing stuff, i'm against people that shove their belief into others, nobody kills in the name of the uncaring, unloving god that won't care if you die, nobody prays to him, nobody builds churches in his name, so there's no reason to even bring it into a conversation, it would be like arguing that Atlas holds the world on his back, if the only reason you don't consider yourself an atheist is because in your mind there's a slim chance that some sort of god is out there and probably doesn't even know we exist is pointless, its just arguing for the sake of arguing, so what if i can't prove that some sort of being didn't create the universe?, if there really was a non interventionist god out there, we wouldn't even notice, because he doesn't care.

I understand that many atheists sound like assholes sometimes, i understand some agnostics are trying to be respectful towards religious people and their beliefs, but other than being polite, agnosticism doesn't have a good case, its childish at some point, there's no need to be in the middle of a debate if god exists or not, look at the evidence and analyze it, don't just say that we can't be absolutely sure about it, we can't be absolutely sure about many things and yet you aren't agnostic about the mouse who runs in a wheel in the middle of the earth to make it move in orbit. According to the evidence, god doesn't appear to exist, he might, but the chances are too slim to even be considered,

And so i remain an atheist, that means i don't believe in god, i don't worship god, i don't pray to god, i'm not thankful to god about anything, that's what it means to be an atheist, if you don't do this either, then you are an atheist too, not an agnostic, if you really want to consider yourself an agnostic, you have to be fair, balanced and dedicated to your agnosticism, so, in order for you to be a fair and dedicated agnostic, you need to say a little prayer after reading a science book, you know, because we can't be too sure.

63 Response to "Gambling For Salvation"

Naj said...

awesome read! seriously, that's the very reason why i'm not too fond of agnosticism.

btw, the pascal's wager was also mentioned in my atheist faq. hehe

grizz said...

yeah, that's some serious post. keep it up!

Zykei said...

Nice read!

James said...

great post man

All NY Love said...

it depends on how you look at agnosticism.
I'd consider myself agnostic at this point because i'm still trying to figure things out and I haven't come to that point yet. It's not a state of being, really, but rather a transition. I can't say if god exists or not. I just don't know. A lot of it comes from frustration with organized religion and the blind faith and fanatism it comes with.
Still, I see the arguments on both sides, I understand the improbability of his existence, especially an omnipresent, self-aware higher being. but then there are things that are unexplainable by logic, too.

One of my favorite arguments against Jesus freaks, though is this:
It's impossible for god to be all powerful and completely good. If god is all powerful, then he must be responsible for evil. If he is not responsible for evil, then that's a force that is not under his jurisdiction.

Great post.

Jack Anderson said...

i'm athiest too brasky...feels good man

Michele said...

Nice read!
Supp

Tal Zahn said...

While I call myself agnostic, I only say I am because it's the closest to what I consider myself. You did well to point out the flaws of agnosticism seen usually, but some arguments fall short and can be considered really reaching.

"...if you can't decide weather god is real or not, then you pretty much can't be certain about anything else, doing otherwise would be a huge contradiction to your convictions..."
I like chicken but I don't like chicken with rice, therefore that goes against my convictions of favoring chicken. Think about it. You continuously say you like chicken, therefore why can't like it with other things? Same logic used in another (ridiculous) scenario. Sounds silly? It should.

A person uses what they know to make a judgment, so the likelihood of a monster in a closet, pink invisible unicorn, or a calculator that incorrectly adds 2+2 is doubtful. However, the argument for a god's existence is a choice of faith or using science to explain everything. A person can choose to believe science is right while still ponder if god had some sort of action in any of this, and not get into a logical dilemma as you described. Plus, stranger things have happened. While you might not have luck getting a calculator to eventually add 2+2 wrong, you may run into a malfunctioning calculator that will add wrong. Scientists may clone/genetically engineer or something a horse with a horn that is pink, and then accidentally make it impossible to see. And perhaps that one time your child thinks a monster is in their closet, it might not be a monster but a snake or burglar instead! Of course, the chances are so low, it's considered ridiculous, (some more than others of course) but there's still that chance that people can choose to consider.

That argument generally comes back in your post actually, but I do understand the point you are trying to make; are agnostics questioning for the sake of questioning, or claiming to be agnostic but then acting like an atheist?

My question is this? What (non)religious label do you give a person who does not practice religion, does not particularly worship a god, but still says a prayer when in great need? Knows logically that wishes are rather factional, but still decides to make a wish on a birthday cake? Knows dreams are just figments of imagination but sometimes thinks a message is being made from it. A person who knows the idea of karma or "what goes around comes around" logically doesn't have scientific proof to it, but still decides to follow it. Just in case.

This is genuine curiosity as to what you define it as, not to support any arguments I made. I wish to know if this is still considered atheist? Or maybe it's simply undefined? They aren't trying to get in "safe" with god, as they aren't worshiping it at all just makes that wish or prayer just in case it can help. I suppose this person might be playing it safe, but not so much to the point where they foolishly think they will get into heaven if god does end up existing.

Wafflehaus said...

Proudly atheist..

ramrod360 said...

Thats an interesting philosophy. Chances are this he is waging his time on the wrong entity says my historical wisdom.

izmeer said...

Yeah

Nick said...

Agnosticism means "I can't be bothered to think about it"

ShredGuitar said...

Awesome post!

Swift Love said...

I can't wait for tomorrow's update!

Randy said...

good read :)

hunter time said...

pascals wager....i like that

doomboom9119 said...

keep it up

cooperlife said...

Pascal's Wager makes me laugh. I was able to figure out a major flaw in it right after the first time I heard it.

What if there IS a God, but his intentions are to see if we can be rational? Maybe the reason there is so much evidence to disprove religious beliefs is because he wants to reward people who follow the rational scientific explanations instead of blindly following a religion or deluding yourself with pseudoscience. If a God exists, and this is his plan, then Atheists have just as much a chance of getting into heaven as anyone else. Therefore, Pascal's Wager is flawed from the beginning.

I've never quite understand why anyone would be agnostic. I guess they just get swept up in the possibilities so much that they find it ignorant to deem something untrue. Atheism is a strong title to give one's self. It's making the stand that no god, and often, no supernatural things exist. For some people, that's a difficult thing to feel sure of.

Biff Tanner said...

Awesome

Deep Thought said...

I'm not athiest but I can see where you're coming from. And you don't sound like an "asshole" athiest.

deviants0ul said...

Interesting post... Look forward to your next update! :D I'll keep in touch.

Izzie said...

oh man, an entire blog about religion is definitely worth reading.
good stuff, keep it up.

Cynthia said...

I'll start by the end: "you need to say a little prayer after reading a science book, you know, because we can't be too sure."

First of all, the link you make between science and atheism is wrong. Science isn't atheist or anything, it's just, you know, science.

"there's no need to be in the middle of a debate if god exists or not, look at the evidence and analyze it,"

If it was so simple, we wouldn't be arguing by now, assuming we are reasonnable beings. Theists of all sorts also have some good points. Talk with someone who has made a bachelor degree or higher in theology, you'll see that what's his saying makes a lots of sense.

"Many agnostics would agree that the chance of the god of the bible existing are too small to even be considered, but yet, they allow the possibility of a creator, non personal god, this is where i believe agnosticism fails, if you are agnostic about a non interventionist god, then there is no point to even consider yourself an agnostic"

It's not my case, yet there are no such chance that can't be considered if you want to think with a minimum of intellectual rigor. When the doctor who created a vaccine with Aids infected monkeys kidney, I'm pretty sure he was thinking "The chances than AIDS contaminate the human population are too small to be considered." We know the result today.

"I'm an atheist, and like any real atheist, i don't make the claim that god does not exist, but, it is improbable to a ridiculous scale that he does"

So, you're a weak atheist. But sorry to contradict you, but strongs atheist are real atheist as you are. You should then defend only the weak atheist position. You're mixing things up here.

"if indeed a non interventionist god created the universe, then you must also be intelligent enough to allow the possibility, that if a god with the powers of creation popped out somewhere for no reason, then surely there's a big chance of this being a repeating event in all of the unknown areas where the original god first came to be, outside the universe, by now we should have an army of gods floating around."

Here I don't like how you state as a fact than God is non interventionist. He might as well be interventionist if I just take your text, which contains, sorry, many weaks arguments.

Also, that's an hyperbolic reasonment. I could say.. mmhh, let's see: "If indeed God doesn't exist, then you must admit the possibility than you're a brain in a jar submitted to experiment by some scientist." It's as much a poor argument as yours, and it doesn't resist the Hume's guillotine.

"the evidence for the non existence of an interventionist god grows every day, this is a fact."

If it's a fact that much, tell us more about it... I see everything but facts here.

"First of all, my biggest problem with agnosticism is that, if you can't decide weather god is real or not, then you pretty much can't be certain about anything else"

Hyperbolic reasonment again, and as you stated later in the paragraph, it is indeed, a poor and non valid argument.

There you go :3

In Dodd I trust said...

can i bet on the fact that the only thing we're certain of is that we're certain of nothing? cause i don't play black jack, i usually just bet on red or black.

Alex Raintree said...

Good article with some awesome comments! I do not consider myself any of the titles personally. I find the probability that there is a creator just as slim as there not being a creator. Maybe the only thing that exist at all is a vast intelligence that pervades and in fact IS all things. In this scenario there wouldn't be a creator per-se, because what was "created" already existed. The intelligent everything simply took a different shape, and continues to change shape according to patterns present within the "creation" itself. No real "creator," yet constant creation. :]

Mr. Black said...

Good post!

Nigma said...

Cynthia you didn't say anything valuable to express your opinion, you simply took lines out of my text, gave them your own meaning and responded to what you thought i said, not to what i really wrote about. The last line was supposed to be humorous, of course science has little to do with atheism except for the fact that 93% of the National Academy of Science are nontheists.

The line you quote about being in the middle of things is severely out of context, i didn't say anything specific about turning atheist, what i was saying is that you are either A or B by looking at the evidence and analyzing it and picking a side, might i also add that there is no theologian out there making any "good points", this isn't a matter of being clever, its a matter of presenting evidence.

Look at William Lane Craig, arguably the Richard Dawkins of theology, his debates are based on turning the burden of proof on the atheists, claiming that science can't answer everything and often defending the case for a non interventionist god as if he wasn't a Christian himself, just to make a point and look like the winner. Much like your rebuttal, theologians often incur on criticizing what is being presented instead of presenting some actual evidence themselves.

The AIDS thing is not true, it was just a hypothesis and i believe it has been proven that such vaccines were never used on the first place, even if that did happen, which of course didn't, the doctor wasn't thinking that there was a small chance of infecting people with AIDS because AIDS wasn't known at that time, if he had known about an infection like that they would've ran the appropriate tests to be absolutely sure the chimp was clean.

There is no such thing as "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism, you sound like a creationist by even mentioning that, i can't go around saying "im absolutely sure there is no god" simply because i'm not absolutely sure that there isn't an invisible zombie dancing behind my back, but the idea of it existing is too stupid to even be considered, in any case, look at this blog, do i sound like a "weak" atheist?.

The non interventionist paragraph is taken out of context too, i was talking about how many agnostics believe in a non interventionists deity and simply stated why that wouldn't work either, i think the examples sound hyperbolic and ridiculous because the idea that there has to be a god that pulled the lever to start the universe is hyperbolic and ridiculous to begin with.

What i meant by the evidence is the god of the gaps argument, through history god was attributed with everything, sunsets and sunrises, rain, earthquakes, thunder, animals, natural disasters, humans, people thought that god had a titan holding up the earth, now it sounds stupid, because science made it sound stupid with time, just remember that at one point in history, people had as much faith on those ideas as the people that fly plains into buildings today.

And finally, again, hyperbolic reasoning opens the door for more hyperbolic reasoning, or what?, you can believe that there's a chance some god started it all, but its too silly to think that many gods could have also come out of nothing?.

There's not a shred of evidence for god's existence, but science is slowly taking away god's powers.

Cynthia said...

First of all if I'm criticizing what is being presented, it's because you did the very same thing with agnoscitism, which you don't seem to understand.

So I shall explain a little. Agnosticism is a way to establish a belief on the existence of God solely, just as you said for atheism, by examining the proof. From one side, we have scientific advacement that makes more and more doubtfoul the existence of God and, of course, some good arguments like the jug of milk, etc., and on the other sides, most historian agree to says that Jesus indeed existed, the proof by the movement... etc. There's a bunch here, and yes I readed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_from_historical_events_or_personages

Then, by comparing those arguments amongst other, you make your belief.

About the Aids thing, here it's just arguing for arguing. I could've take numerous exemple, it was just to illustrate my thought. Let's say think of Tchernobyl or whatever.

By the way, if you can refutate all those argument flawlessy, I'll admit that there's not a shred of evidence for god's existence. But if it was possible, someone would've already done it, and your making a pointless statement.

Just a word about the burden of the proof. Since atheism is based on skeptiscism and doubt, I think that agnostiscm would be the last one to have it. You know, in fact that doesn't make any sense since I believe there is no proof.

Oh, and if you don't know about weak and strong atheism, well read a philosophy book or something, I won't do your education. There might even be something on wikipedia on that. Here you're negating simple facts. Weak isn't pejorative, it is to qualify you're type of atheism, just like I'm a weak agnostic.

Finally, religion from the past aren't that different from those of today. They just have slowly elvolved. Sure, the numbers, property and names of God changed over time, but the very essence of the belief is still the same.

Nigma said...

I am criticizing Agnosticism, but i'm not doing "the very same thing" because i'm actually trying to show WHY i'm against it, not just say that they are wrong period.

So what if Jesus existed?, the christians think he's god, the muslims say he isn't, the jews aren't even sure if he existed, i could probably write a column, and maybe i will eventually, refuting every single argument on that page and explaining why, not just sticking my finger out there. They are so immensely weak, just look at them, arguments from testimony, from personal experience, moral arguments, its pathetic, really. Almost like watching a kid throw a fit.

I agree, agnostics don't have the burden of proof, but i was talking about William Lane Craig, a christian theologian. I know about the concepts of "weak and strong" atheism, but i don't agree with them, i don't know a single serious, educated atheist that is 100% sure god doesn't exist, if you want to claim that, then you are the minority and i would like to hear reasons of why someone can assure us that there is no god. To me theres atheists and there's uneducated non-believers that shouldn't be taken seriously, just as there are creationists and young earth creationists.

If by "the very essence of the belief" you mean that some sort of intelligent being created the universe, then you are right, but thats were the similarities stop.

Dilly Skates said...

gambling is bad mmkay?

Eferhilda said...

Very interesting. I am going to enjoy following and supporting you.

Katie Greene said...

but you definitely can't be perfectly certain about anything...

Cynthia said...

I sure should've know by reading Nietzsche that he isn't nor serious or educated.

And then again, sorry to quote you since you don't seem to like that but what you're doing here:

"So what if Jesus existed?, the christians think he's god, the muslims say he isn't, the jews aren't even sure if he existed, i could probably write a column, and maybe i will eventually, refuting every single argument on that page and explaining why, not just sticking my finger out there. They are so immensely weak, just look at them, arguments from testimony, from personal experience, moral arguments, its pathetic, really. Almost like watching a kid throw a fit."

Which is finding flaws in your opponent argument, is the very same thing that I've done with you, to open the debate. Plus, you're doing it quite offensively which isn't necessary at all. Also, christians don't think Jesus is God -_-"

David Davidson said...

This time I'll let Nigma argue with Cynthia, he's better at phrasing these things than I am. Plus if I join in I won't be able to stop and it won't be fair 2 vs. 1.

. . . .

I lied, I couldn't help myself... There are Christians out there that consider Jesus to be God. Just typing in "Jesus is God" in Google, clicking the first link and reading a bit will tell you that.

http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html

And for those too lazy to do the typing and searching, there you go.

MacPCharmony said...

good point here...

- Enfermo - said...

I like ur content!

Nigma said...

This is the third time i state that there's a difference between plain saying "you are wrong here, here and here" and actually presenting a case, an analysis and the alternatives to what you are criticizing, i'm not just saying "agnostics are silly, lol, bye."

If i try to refute that whole wiki page i wouldn't be just finding flaws, i would be trying to demonstrate why they don't work, i'll use your last statement as an example of this.

John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 5:18 - "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

John 8:24 - "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."

John 20:28 - "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh62BL-0zfM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p_YZZ_4UTc

Cynthia said...

Anyway, okay, there is a difference, but you were still offensive, even more than if you just would've said "agnostics are silly, lol, bye.", thing which I don't think I ever was.

But debating with atheists forces me to defend a point of view I don't even share, don't force me to defend the dumbests member of christiannity too -_-"

And this passage from Phillipe appart being out of context, thing you reproched me, never says that Jesus = God.

It's just as when you don't recognize dumb atheists as real atheists.

Alex Raintree said...

I guess I may as well jump in here. The arguments for Yeshua (Jesus) being YHWH (Wrongly translated as "LORD or God") are flimsy at best. The trinity is hard for most Christians to explain and the good reason for that is the argument is weak. Now, there do exist text outside of the Bible that date roughly a few hundred years before Yeshua lived that predict YHWH embodying himself in the flesh of the descendants of 'Adam' so as to experience the hardships man had burdened himself with by the first sin and show the way out by example. As the story goes, now it's up to us to learn his lesson, which I assure you wasn't "Pray to me to talk to the Heavenly Father and be sure to be afraid of hell."

Good ideas in the scriptures but the scribes and the institution of Christianity have manipulated them and turned them into a weapon of mass control. But it doesn't matter, it never matters! know why? 'Cause it's just a ride. It's all just things that make ya go "hmmmm" :]

Nigma said...

Yeah the argument really wasn't about Jesus being god or not, it was weather Christians believed he was, most of them do, some of them don't, he obviously wasn't, to deviate the topic a bit more, just a random thought, if someone showed up this day claiming to do the stuff Jesus did on the bible, and saying he is the son of god, promoting peace and all the good values christians adore, he would be treated as a blasphemer, a fake, a hoax, a nutcase, just like the real Jesus.

Skunkfunk said...

I like your perspective on things

shirou said...

lifehackguy loves your blog..

David said...

Jolly good show old chap :D

Hitman said...

supportin!

Kevorkian said...

always deep and insightful posts here ;)

Life said...

wow, very insightful and deep.

Mike
Check out my lastest post on the lastest CPR technique.

crammarc said...

hmmm interesting take on Pascal

Muhunty said...

interesting read mate.

Naj said...

ok, just throwing something here:

"Oh, and if you don't know about weak and strong atheism, well read a philosophy book or something, I won't do your education. There might even be something on wikipedia on that. Here you're negating simple facts. Weak isn't pejorative, it is to qualify you're type of atheism, just like I'm a weak agnostic."

if you examine their beliefs, aren't agnostics just weak atheist?

Pulled a Mussel said...

You wrote this?

Jesus christ, I love it. I've been pretty observant of Pascal ever since I studied him in college, but I like the way you brought this up. I always thought him as logical, and he probably is - but nobody's always right..

Nice read!

PS Thanks for visiting my blog!

Mitsuru said...

don't have much to say on this topic but i think it's silly for people to say they don't believe and then say "oh but just in case i'll believe."

Cynthia said...

Well, there's not much to argue with your last answer Nigma, since I agree.

And Naj, to take back your question, Aren't weak atheist just agnostics? =P

Richard Hawdkin, a weak atheist (I think it's how you spell it), said that the difference was in the degree which some admit the probability that God exist. If someone says 50/50, 60/40 or something like that, he'll be agnostic.

Something like >1% will be weak atheist. Althought I think this description is oversimplyfing a little, it's hard to refute it, due to this very simplicity.

roguez4lifez said...

lol nice

Aspect said...

Agreed with everything you said. Nicely put too, next time my crazy religious cousins send me an email about jesus I might send this back :P

delphinium said...

love it

TheBerserkerHobo said...

Nice, I was actually talking about Pascal's Wager just last night. Very nice blog. Fully supporting and following. Look forward to more.

cooperlife said...

yes Cynthia, he is defending weak atheism, because that is the main kind of Atheism. In fact, all Atheists are weak atheists as well as strong atheists to some degree, and almost everyone in the world is a strong Atheist. To be a 'strong' Atheist, you just need to believe that one or more certain gods cannot exist. For example, if someone makes the claim that an interventionist God cannot exist, they are by definition, a strong Atheist. Even religious people are strong Atheists because they claim that Gods of all other religions cannot exist.

arnyke said...

I am impressed by your blog

David said...

Wow, this post got quite a response.

Fuuuuuuuu said...

that's pretty awesome

The Loon said...

Holy crap, so many opinions :O

Shane said...

I used to say I was agnostic and then i realized that it was silly

BLUERAD said...

Hmmmm I wouldn't hit, but then again, if I had a million dollars floating around, why not?

Post a Comment

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes | Converted by BloggerTheme