So - to rewrite my original statement under this terminology: Strong atheism is a belief.
Bevoir, I already responded to this misinterpretation in an earlier post, which it seemed you missed altogether.
The omission of a belief does not make a belief. a-theism is the omission of belief. It is the common sense approach to
"not" believing in something without evidence. And, since no evidence can ever be presented on the existence of a God, common sense says,
"don't believe." A strong atheist is merely someone who is further inclined to logical analysis.
Look, Bevoir. Do you believe in blue fairies, magical unicorns, flying pegasi? You see, if you don't believe in those things, that does not make you a believer in not believing... it makes you sane, rational, grounded, applying common sense and logic. That's not a belief, it's not a religion, it's
"not" believing in something just because a group of people insist upon its existence, without provision for, nor reliance on, evidence.
Maybe you have read extensively on evolution - but do you think that everyone who believes in evolution has that level of knowledge or understanding or do you think some take it on faith?
Again, Bevoir, you're confusing "faith" on a belief and "trust" in the human spirit. When people are presented evolution, they don't "believe" it without evidence, they "trust" on the people presenting the information, because those people have researched it in-depth and have worked with that knowledge to provide scientific advances. You're also forgetting, Bevoir, the information is readily available, the evidence is readily available, the examples are readily available. If someone were to decide they don't "trust" the presenters, they can get off their ass and review the evidence for themselves.
You cannot do that on a faith, on a belief, simply because there IS NO EVIDENCE. The presenters never rely on evidence, they merely point at a book, a compilation of stories and ponderings, written by people from the bronze-age making outlandish claims, without a shred of supporting data. There's the difference, and it's a huge one. A chasm that differentiates faith in fantasy from trust in man.
Reasonable people don't take science on faith, they take it on trust.
I don't. Never said I did. I don't believe that god exists.
Convenient opt-out, but that was not an honest interpretation of my rhetorical question. Please spend the time to reread not merely what I wrote, but what I was responding to.
That's anecdotal evidence, Hell.
You're going to claim the examples I presented are anecdotal? They're clear examples of "a belief in a god" being intrinsically harmful to other people. It makes people gullible, easily manipulated on something other than logic, or reason. It allows those with ill-intent the ability to easily manipulate "god believers," holding their belief in hostage. Religion, belief in a god, hampers individual thought, reasonable, rational analysis, logical interpretation of data. Anything that incurs a dependency, whether it be physical, mental, or spiritual, is intrinsically harmful. De-facto, a belief in a god is intrinsically harmful.
You can't surely be trying to suggest that all faith is destructive?
"You can't surely be trying to suggest that all addictions are destructive?"
Faith is an addiction of the mind, a process in which a person lies to themselves, or allows others to lie to them, as a means to assuage their ill-feelings, give them good thoughts, make them happy, at least temporarily. That's the definition of the high aspired-to when ingesting a recreational drug.
Religious fervor has been scientifically tested, and determined, to inject chemicals into the brain, central nervous system, and other body particulars. The "high" of religious fervor, of faith, is a chemical reaction that, in many cases results in a dependency for that self-same feeling, which, in turn, results in efforts to duplicate this effect.