2bits

Talking about strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, ignosticism, etc is a bit fruitless without defining the god in question. You can have a different stance on each deity concept. Generally, the more truth statements made about a god, the more logical inconsistencies and absurdities, the more we are able to take a strong atheistic position. At the other end of the spectrum is deism and more amorphic/inconsequential gods. I think this is where atheists will start to sound more like agnostics.

Please correct my attempt if needed, but I'll try to paraphrase your argument: "We don't understand how life works. It is therefore sustained by a mysterious 'underlying energy'. Since this 'underlying energy' has no explanation, this must be God." Suffice to say that for me, your coupe-de-grace moment was the appeal to thermodynamics in the 5th paragraph... May I ask what kind of physical sciences background you have? Seriously though, imagine if someone went to a forum of physicians, stated that we don't understand germ theory, concluded sickness was caused by evil spirits, then expected those physicians to agree that evil spirits exist. Wrong on so many levels, yet you've just done the equivalent. Though some will try, I've never seen such pseudoscience and mysticism successfully reversed by an appeal to real science and logic. There is a fundamental knowledge gap here that can't be filled on a web forum. My only response and advice would be to recognize what you don't know, and be careful in making conclusions in those areas. I do apologize if this sounds like an appeal to authority, but I think most undergrad science students (and logical thinkers in general) would be able to rebut your arguments, thus it's not an appeal to any particular authority.

Commenting from the matter/energy definition of "exist" here.The only ascribable existence is to the medium containing the thought. Analogous to any information in a medium, thoughts are measurable because they are reflected in the arrangement of brain chemistry. We can of course recall information stored in our own brains, and as neuro-technology advances it's theoretically possible one day to objectively recall information stored in the brains of others.This is evidence of the existence of synapses, neurons, and neural transmitters, but the thought of an elephant or the number 3 doesn't have existence itself. I believe this resolves the apparent contradiction, but please correct me if needed. Thanks. I would like to discuss one more criterion for the definition of "exist".I have a Physics background, so something like thermodynamics is an important tool to me. Specifically, the Conservation of Mass and Energy is relevant here.If the combined mass and energy of a system is not affected by the presence or absence of a thing, then it can be said to not exist. This sounds a lot like "it exists if it's made of matter or energy", but I wanted to tie it into a law of thermodynamics and science, and get away from a semblance of arbitrariness.We could also consider entropy. To take a "thought" as an example, it reflects some ordered structure in our brains (a meme), and any order or arrangement is small but real amount of entropic energy. This is still consistent with the conservation Laws for two reasons:1. Two conflicting thoughts can't both be simultaneously valid, yet they both have energy. We can conclude that entropic energy doesn't provide validity to a thought.2. The gain in entropic energy as a meme is formed is countered by a loss of chemical energy (synapses fire, ATP consumed, etc). Thus, even with the creation of a new thought, the system's energy state is unchanged/conserved.I use "thoughts" as an example, but I suspect it's broadly applicable.

Welcome Eric! It's understandable to feel drawn into a social community like church, especially if that's your only social circle right now. They are very good at enticing new membership and retaining existing members. It's a business after all, the only thing unusual being most of the product is promised after you die... Do you feel comfortable calling yourself an atheist, or are you somewhere in between that and your prior Christianity right now?

Thanks Chiwoojo! I hesitate to expand much in this thread, considering the purpose of this child forum. An example of the 5% would be the frequent use of "does not exist". In my opinion, if we sufficiently define terms, using the word "exist" and "existence" is perfectly acceptable for concepts and abstractions like "god" and "government". An abstraction can exist, but it's just a abstraction and any attempt to attribute agency to it would be invalid, for example. A common meme in this community is that "exist" is only allowed for things with physical presence. While valid if we acknowledge this definition up front, all too often I see this being overlooked, and conversations digress into semantic arguments. I've also heard it said (not sure if this was Stefan or a guest) that "energy does not exist". Matter is condensed energy, yet we can all agree that matter exists. I could go on, but these are small nits I have to pick. I'm 100% onboard with core principals of logic, empirical evidence, rationality, secular morality and virtue, non-aggression, etc. I was a libertarian/minarchist for about 1.5 years as the things I thought we needed government for were slowly chipped away. The watershed event might have been the realization that the government is a monopoly of force and taxation is theft. Things fall into place very quickly after accepting this.

Hi all, I'm happy to have joined this community and I look forward to contributing. A little about myself in case you are curious: Despite being raised hardcore Pentacostal Christian from birth, I was able to free myself and become an Atheist at 16 years of age. I'm not sure if it was just because I was smart, intellectually honest, or just one of the lucky ones. I hope that doesn't come off as self absorbed. I have plenty of faults, but none of them doomed me to a life of magical thinking. I say this because being an Atheist and going to college explains my previous Marxist bent. It's unfortunate that most intellectuals and Atheists gravitate to the left, and I went with them. Til a few short years ago I could have been easily considered a flaming (non-classical) liberal, though I always felt the cognitive dissonance in the back of my mind. At the time, I just didn't have a basis or framework to resist Marxists arguments. They seemed correct because the alternative arguments I had were dismissible. Recent events saved me from that statist morasse: - Despite being for gun control, I was a gun enthusiast. In one of the threads on ar15.com, someone mentioned the "Peter Schiff was right" YouTube video. - After watching that video, I spent weeks absorbing Austrian Economics and Schiff material. At this point, I was a Libertarian, maybe a minarchist. - Stefan appeared on the Peter Schiff Show in April 2012, and I almost immediately "converted" to the more logically and morally consistent anarchist position. - I've been listening to Stefan's podcasts and YouTube vids since then. I don't agree with everything Stefan says, maybe 95% as of now, but i think that's a healthy thing. I need time to consider the remaining 5%. Maybe I'll agree eventually, or maybe I'll have valid counter-arguments to contribute. That's one thing I like about Stefan and this community; that kind of independence of thought is encouraged as long as it's sincere and intellectually honest. I have an awesome family: a wonderful wife of 15 years, and two smart and happy girls, 5 and 3. I've gone on long enough for now. Have a good day and thanks for reading! Steve.