religon and not a religon

[ډګروال]

kochagasht
is it you?

[khushal]

The adjectives "hard", "strong" and "explicit" are basically equivalent here, qualifying the intensity of the core beliefs, as opposed respectively to "soft", weak" and "implicit".

The first "A-" of both "Atheist" & "Agnostic" is a privative suffix ("without-"); each term literally mean "without God" and "without knowledge", respectively.
Within this context, "knowledge" essentially means "knowledge of the existence of God".

Therefore:
- a "strong" atheist explicitly denies the existence of any deity.
- a "strong" agnostic explicitly denies that it can be known if any deity exists at all.
Both are then positive statements of negative facts (the absence of something).

The "weak" forms, as Dawkins rightly pointed out, are in practice "strong" forms that either I) ignore or II) deny the concept as a whole; in other words:
- a "weak" atheist is not absolutely sure that no deity exists at all.
- a "weak" agnostic is not absolutely sure if the existence of any deity can be known or not.

Naturally, all these categories often overlap, especially the "weak" forms.

All that said, if Atheism is really to be understood here, as for any negative concept we must first understand its positive counterpart.

In other words: what is absent from "atheism" that is present in "theism"?
In the name of God; what is a God?gl

what does this have to do with the original argument. your saying that religion is at the center of human conflict.

[khushal]

by simply not believing as they do

Im not following here. We interact peacefully because we have different beliefs? This contradicts your original argument.

Are you drunk, this does not make sense.

[Kochagasht]

what does this have to do with the original argument. your saying that religion is at the center of human conflict.

the burden of proof for any proposition (including the existence of any god) necessarily rests entirely on the proposer; period. true believers of any religion are actually atheists for any other of the hundreds of religions. as you seem to consider that atheism is the rational and non-coward position, can you explain what is God?

[DaZahroJaam.]

so why doesn't the jew or the Christian that live in your city attack you or you attack them.

FYI, your answer lack intelligence by the way.

why I am a very insignificant factor in the realm of things. I am no where half as dedicated to ending up in heaven as some of the rest of you. Therefore, not as concerned about religion to track down a jew and get things even with him. Why don't we focus of the 100s and millions of people dying all over the world and specially the Middle East at the moment instead?? Why do Taliban need to stone people to death if not because of the immorality of their actions. And what are their actions judge by??
But one thing that this kochagasht as well as talib lovers either fail to accept or realize is that the issue here is not the conflict between a religion or the lack of it but what people have taken the liberty of translating, manipulating and defining both of those spheres to.
When that is how you define your religion then that is your religion. Not necessarily Christianity, Judaism or Islam but whatever you claim it to be.

[ډګروال]

the burden of proof for any proposition (including the existence of any god) necessarily rests entirely on the proposer; period. true believers of any religion are actually atheists for any other of the hundreds of religions. as you seem to consider that atheism is the rational and non-coward position, can you explain what is God?

OMG
kochagasht
are you serious?

"true believers of any religion are actually atheists for any other of the hundreds of religions."

^^^
did you mean this?

or

was it slip of the fingers?

[khushal]

the burden of proof for any proposition (including the existence of any god) necessarily rests entirely on the proposer; period. true believers of any religion are actually atheists for any other of the hundreds of religions. as you seem to consider that atheism is the rational and non-coward position, can you explain what is God?

your using straw man fallacies here. stick with the original argument.

[Kochagasht]

your using straw man fallacies here. stick with the original argument.

actually i simply directly asked you what is god

[khushal]

Its in the quran, why are you changing your original argument, because it has no merit?

[Kochagasht]

god does not exist has it's own burden of proof. that's essentially why the absence of belief position was adopted. usage is not set in stone however, and the definition has shifted within the community of atheism.

i happen to have read some of your previous posts; you show a good logical process. you must be well aware that you are demanding negative proof. ergo, that fallacy is not from ignorance. you know better than that. if you are deliberately renouncing to the chance of presenting some evidence for the existence of any god, it must be inferred that you simply lack any. i can perfectly understand faith; people might choose to believe even without evidence. from a religious perspective, that is commendable.

[$hiva]

I'm a follower of Buddha, because I always follow my heart.

[Kochagasht]

faith is commendable among true believers. that said, i think faith has been both the cause and excuse for many different actions across the entire ethical spectrum, including some really positive things. my impression is that most people able to inflict horrors under the excuse of faith would be in all likelihood able to inflict them even without such excuse

i would probably prefer an absolutely rational humanity too; however, the empirical fact is that for whatever reason religion is in one form or the other extremely prevalent all along the world, almost universal. after all, religious tolerance is a typical trait of atheism; it is usually easier to understand that other people may not share the same beliefs without being mentally unstable

[Khostai]

so why doesn't the jew or the Christian that live in your city attack you or you attack them.

FYI, your answer lack intelligence by the way.

Becuase she lives in a secular state whith a strong police and goverment. If peopel where so peacefull with other religions, thousand shias in Pakistan wouldn't be dead now, and not to forget the christians in Iraq an Egypt that are being harassd every day......

[Khostai]

not really, since your argument is that religion is the main motive then why do I buy meat at the local jewish store and why is the Jewish store owner selling it to me. He knows I am Muslim and I know that he is Jewish. Why do we interact peacefully.

Isn't meat from a jew haram?

[Badlun]

not really, since your argument is that religion is the main motive then why do I buy meat at the local jewish store and why is the Jewish store owner selling it to me. He knows I am Muslim and I know that he is Jewish. Why do we interact peacefully.

Such a beautiful argument for Secularism. When religion is not used for politics, economy and culture and only used for spiritual, moral, personal purposes then it is not dangerous. It becomes horrible when used for sectarian, political and other worldly purposes then we have problems.

I have no problem with a jew, a christian , a Hindu if we are neighbors but if I atatck India on the name of Islam then religion will not be the cop out or scap goat for the blood shed. If Taliban for applying Sharia behead people in public squares then religion is a disaster. A Sufi Islam is never dangerous, a Salafi political Islam yes is danger for humanity.