You just said up there, *points* that that is not your statement of belief.
I believe that there are no gods. You stated your belief that you do not believe in any gods.
There is a distinct and recognised difference: most people in theoilogical discussion define the two positions as 'strong athiesm' (me) and 'weak athiesm (you). (ignore the 'better' implications of the words. Not the point.
Weak atheism is one of the most common positions, and the most valid, objectively. Lacking any evidence either way, you do not believe in a god.
I, on the other hand, have a firm belief in an absence of god. This is not lack of belief, it is belief in an absence. As a position, it's disprovable, but not provable, as one can't prove a negative.
I am of the opinion that there is no god, that there is no such thing as a soul, that there is no afterlife and karma is metaphrocal.
This is how I think the world is. It's an article of faith no less valid than that people who believe in resurrection, reincarnation and other equally comforting concepts.
The strawman theists use is to claim that strong and weak atheism are the same thing. This is not the case, which is why you have a case to argue. There is a difference, however, and it is the strong atheist viewpoint I take as my personal belief, despite the fact that weak athiesm is perhaps more valid.
Just because I believe in nothing doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.
Mat, your layout sucks worse in Firefox, for comment boxes.
no subject
I believe that there are no gods.
You stated your belief that you do not believe in any gods.
There is a distinct and recognised difference: most people in theoilogical discussion define the two positions as 'strong athiesm' (me) and 'weak athiesm (you). (ignore the 'better' implications of the words. Not the point.
Weak atheism is one of the most common positions, and the most valid, objectively. Lacking any evidence either way, you do not believe in a god.
I, on the other hand, have a firm belief in an absence of god. This is not lack of belief, it is belief in an absence. As a position, it's disprovable, but not provable, as one can't prove a negative.
I am of the opinion that there is no god, that there is no such thing as a soul, that there is no afterlife and karma is metaphrocal.
This is how I think the world is. It's an article of faith no less valid than that people who believe in resurrection, reincarnation and other equally comforting concepts.
The strawman theists use is to claim that strong and weak atheism are the same thing. This is not the case, which is why you have a case to argue. There is a difference, however, and it is the strong atheist viewpoint I take as my personal belief, despite the fact that weak athiesm is perhaps more valid.
Just because I believe in nothing doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.
Mat, your layout sucks worse in Firefox, for comment boxes.