Thanks Message for the response. Let me think this through.
There are some models of god that are strictly god as creator. Should human kind be confronted with an alien species and given undeniable proof that the Earth was purposely taraformed to support a model of life for the continuence of their genetic strand, then I would have to say that we had found our 'god the creator'.

If I have no faith that a god entrenched in human dogma exists, then why would I need to assert the non-existence of any god that is known only through human dogma? I don't understand?

Me neither. I think as long as a person tries to live a good life; helps others, and doesn't harm anyone intentionally; I don't see any issue in not being religous.

Just noting here: this would leave open the question of whether the universe had a creator, or whether those aliens had a creator - if either of them did, that creator could maybe also be considered an indirect creator of humans.




I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else ought to have such need - only that there is value in having flexibility in the degree of granularity with which we discriminate amongst beliefs.

We can put all theists in one category, or we can consider theists as "Christian", "Muslim", "Jewish", etc...and amongst Christians, we can consider them all as one group, or discriminate between different branches of Christianity. Sometimes its useful to consider muslims as a group, and sometimes its critical to acknowledge the differences between different branches of Islam.

As you and I both know, atheists as a 'group' have NOTHING categorically in common with each other, except the absence of one kind of belief. Some atheist are spiritualist and anti-materialist, others are the opposite. Some look to science for their beliefs, others mistrust science. Some value evidence and reason, others don't. Some believe the existence of god is knowable, others are certain it isn't, others aren't sure, the list goes on.

The important thing, here, to my point of view, is to recognize that lacking a belief is different than asserting a disbelief. Oddly, many Christians seem to have a problem with this very simple concept, insisting that a person either 'believes' or 'disbelieves'. I don't get this. Maybe people are different - maybe some people simply can't leave something as 'no belief', but must form an opinion one way or another, and they think that others are just like them.

Did my neighbor have coffee this morning? I don't know. I lack a belief that he did, but I don't assert that he didn't. Did I have coffee this morning? I believe I did not.

Once we recognize that 'lacking a belief' is different than 'asserting a disbelief', the next step is simply one of categorizing people according to their beliefs. The literal use of the term 'atheist' doesn't convey 'asserting a disbelief', which is why the term 'strong atheism' comes into use.

God did NOT come to condemn the world but to SAVE the world.

AMEN!!!!

Well I am having coffee, I believe that, and it must have a positive effect on my brain cells because I think I'm getting the picuture. So if I'm bringing up skeptical remarks about the dogma; how it was conceived and how it is interpreted, I am not asserting a disbelief, I am simply questioning the logical progression that leads another to thier beliefs. So I am not a strong athiest, is that correct?

When is he going to start? I think we are in a bit of trouble here now.

Great minds think alike.

I thought the verse referred to Jesus


John 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved

Yep that's what I thought, but there are those who call Jesus God in the flesh.

I can understand that point of view, if the definition of 'good life' is merely a standard of not hurting anyone,,,,

I agree , that is clearly one perspective. I always read the verse to mean that the flesh was sent to us to show us through direct example the way to conduct our lives. I never took it to mean that our actions wont have consequences or judgment , just that God sent the flesh as an example instead of as a source to administer consequence.

Much like I give my daughter medicine to make her better, not sicker, but that doesnt mean she will never be sick by her own actions.

Yes, the position you describe is not a 'strong atheist' position. From the things you've said elsewhere, you are clearly an 'atheist'.

As JR is often quick to point out, 'strong atheism' is as much an assertion of a non-provable position as 'theism' is.


Edit: Oops, overnested quotes.

Thanks very much for haveing the patience, once again, to stick with me on this for my own understanding.

I don't see Redykeulous as a strong atheist at all. She is a very inquisitive intelligent and open minded person.