From: masmith@apollo
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Do Atheists Have Their Own "Faith"?
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:19:13 GMT
Reply-To: masmith@apollo
Organization: Davidson College, Davidson, NC

In article <1992Apr15.154606.29256@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>, simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.135646.25623@apollo.hp.com> perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry) writes:
>>
>>"Strong atheism" in the sense "thinking that the weight of evidence
>>indicates that in all probability that which is called God does not
>>exist" is not the same as the theologically-based "believing as an act
>>of faith that God, an inherently unknowable entity, absolutely does
>>not or can not exist".
>>
>>-- 
>>Jim Perry   perry@apollo.hp.com    HP/Apollo, Chelmsford MA
>
>
>Sure enough. But both are "strong" in the sense of believe(not(god)) as
>opposed to the "weak" not(believe(god)).
>
>What I was attempting to suggest is that "strong" doesn't necessarily
>imply the kind of
>
>> theologically-based "believing as an act of faith that God, an
>> inherently unknowable entity, absolutely does not or can not exist"
>
>which you mention, and which is frequently (wrongly, I suggest) thought
>to be synonymous with the "strong" view.
>
>Ultimately it seems to boil down to how one defines "believe", or
>"believe that...", and whether it carries the theological baggage of
>faith.

	Well, I'm new here and just recently got caught up on all the back
messages, and I felt that I needed to reply to this thread.

	I happen to be a "strong" atheist, as in believing that there is not a
supreme.  In fact, I "believe as an act of faith that God [or any other supreme
being], an inherently unkowable entity, absolutely does not or cannot exist." 
Now, again, if I was presented with incontrovertible proof, I would admit to
the existence of such a being (making my parents very happy).  Of course, if I
was presented with incontrovertible evidence of a married bachelor or a square
circle, I would also admit to them as realities.
	As to why, there are some fairly straightforward answers.  First, an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being has certain inherent logical
inconsistencies (e.g. problem of evil, "can God make a rock so big he himself
can't lift it?").  
	Second, if there were a supreme being, and he/she/it wanted
us to worship him/her/it, why doesn't the being simply reveal some small and
definitely exhibitive bit of divine power (a la the prophets) to all the 
peoples of the Earth and unite them behind the One True Faith.  If he/she/it
has already done so, and all the faiths throughout time are effectively the
same, why is your God a jealous God?
	Third, I've tried to talk to God.  I've tried many other religions as
well.  I never got an answer, I never even got a dial tone (well, I did get a
dial tone after I got into certain magickal practices, but still no higher
beings bothered to take me into their fold).  It was pretty disheartening.
	After many years of struggling with this, I have finally formulated a
religion of my own, and I have a very strong faith in it.  It includes no messy
higher beings, and much fewer philosophical problems (although I still don't
have the afterlife worked out).  If anyone is interested in discussing this,
please e-mail me.

				-- Russell Nash
				   MASMITH@DAVIDSON.BITNET
				   MASMITH@APOLLO.DAVIDSON.EDU
************************************************************************
* Russell Nash                  * "Hey, hey, hey, clear the way!       *
* sca Lord Kern Damon Mauer Hall*  There's no escape from my authority.*
* mka Marshall Smith            *  I am the one, the only one!         *
* MASMITH@DAVIDSON.BITNET       *  I am the god of kingdom come!       *
* MASMITH@APOLLO.DAVIDSON.EDU   *  GIMME THE PRIZE!"                   *
************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:8136 alt.satanism:1303