XnForums

What is the difference between an intellectual atheist and a philosophical atheist? (If there
is a difference).

Correct me if I'm wrong, an intellectual atheist sees no evidence, or not enough evidence, for the existence of God.

A philosophical atheist doesn't believe in God no matter what the evidence shows.

Just asking...

clean'

I haven't come across the two definitions before but I don't understand the philosophical atheist one. If there was evidence to believe in a god why wouldn't you?

After his emotional "Checking Out" thread..........I thought Clean Sword had departed never to return.

Much ado about nothing, I guess. So here he is......back again.

Typical FundaGelical. So very typical.

I've never heard of these distinctions. From what I gather there are only two distinctions that atheists themselves go by. One is "Weak Atheism" and the other is "Strong Atheism".

A weak atheist says "I lack belief in god(s)."
A strong atheist says "there are no god(s)."

These two can mix with just about any philosophy as atheism is, in and of itself, not a philosophy.

Weak Atheism may be the term sometimes used by people in defining themselves as agnostic. I'm not sure of the standard definition, if indeed there is one.

Philosophy and philosophical debate is part of man's intellectual reasoning ability. Without it life would be soooo boring. Without it man would not advance into knowledge of a more perfect truth.

Atheists have always existed in the world of the supernatural gods of superstitous people. However, when a Christian asks "do you believe in God?"', he or she may not be aware that their question specifys a particular god worshiped in the middle east and of the Jewish persuasion, the tribal Hebrew god they called Yahweh. Atheists then should always ask "which god?" for oftentimes this specification has not occured within the Christian mind. And if the Christian replys 'Jesus", well then, that's another god in the trinity of gods constructed by the church fathers. It can become complicated but not for us Atheists.

I don't believe in the Jewish God.

He was clearly psychotic......just a created reflection of the mentality of those who invented him.

Saul/Paul's "Christ" God was even more ridiculous in its own way.......a shameless rip-off of earlier Gentile God legends.

The REAL God, however.......that's a different story.

She's cool, not crazy.

So some aspects of living things are plausibly explained as the result of design, and inferences to design can be as scientific as other kinds of inferences. (8) Why, then, do Darwinists insist that design is unscientific? Their usual answer is that design in living things would have to be the work of God, and God is beyond the reach of natural science. Darwinists thus find themselves having to acknowledge that it is God they find objectionable. In other words, their allegiance is not to the evidence, or to scientific inference, but to naturalism. When the evidence fails to support the theory (as in the case of the fossil record), they read the theory into the evidence. In other words, Darwinists are using science to promote an anti-religious philosophy.

This article defines for me the difference between intellectual and philosophical atheism.

http://www.discovery.org/a/77

clean'

Ho hum. How utterly tedious.

You know what....I really think that you want to believe in God, but, you haven't come
across anyone who can convince you that there is a God.

I certainly can't...(nor have I tried, really), and actually, no one can..
It's not an intellectual thing..it's a heart thing...

But, in the heart of every man (even you), there is void that can't be filled by anything other than God.

When we were young, our parents lied to us about Santa Clause....He's not real.
Now that we're older, people talk about Jesus...and we think that's a lie too.
We don't want to be hurt again...(fool me once, shame on you..fool me twice, shame on me) type of thing..

He's real Logos...and He loves you.

Be Blessed...

Clean'

Strong and weak Atheism. That pretty much sums it up I think. Not intellectual and Philosophical. And no Roselyn. That is not the definition of Agnostic. That is in fact, the standard definition of Atheism.

Because it is not scientific. There is no scientific hypothesis that has been submitted for review. Design is an unsubstantiated claim with no evidence. Simply claiming something has design does not mean it does and is not science. What is the standard to determine what is designed and what is not? Is everything deisgned? Is a rock?

The proponents of design are very far away from being taken seriouly by real scientists.

Also, a scientific explanation about how things got here has already be developed. Should we abandon it?

Clean,
A couple of questions...


First:
What makes you think that logos doesn't believe in God?
Everything I've read from him suggests that he does.

Second:
Why do you conflate "Darwinist" (an archaic term, BTW) with atheists?
I accept the theory of evolution and I accept that there is a God. I even see no incompatibility between abiogenesis and the acceptance of God. Granted, maybe the literal biblical god is incompatible with it, but I don't accept that kind of god anyway.

And a little hint:
Very few people here are going to be persuaded by the "and he loves you" argument. Especially when what that is really saying is "and he loves you if you love him back, otherwise he will burn you in an eternal fire pit just for breathing or being born." At least that's what I hear from Christianity.

Oh and spare me the tired comeback that "god doesn't send anyone to hell he just gives them what they want" rubbish.

Clean,
Could you also clarify about what exactly in the fossil record shoots down evolution?

Manya, would you give your definition of "agnostic"? And is it the standard definition used by all agnostics?

CS, why is it important for you to try and convince people to believe in your God? And which God is it that you believe in?

I think Paul was a Calvinist.