You've got to be kidding me. You agree with my argument, but you're going to nitpick with me over my use of terminology, even though I've already made myself clear on what I mean by those terms. I use disbelief to mean a belief that a statement or another belief is false (corresponding more closely with the common usage of the term), but you use disbelief to mean a lack of belief (corresponding more to the literal definition, but what I would term unbelief). Can't we just agree to mutually accept the context of our arguments, at least so long as they're explicitly stated?
Well, you are using two different terms and mix them up. The statement of "I don't believe a god exists." and "I belief that no god exists." are quite different from each other. The first one is a disbelief that conforms to my hole in the pocket. It simply doesn't exist. While the latter IS an actual belief, which you might construe as a disbelief but it isn't, because it IS a belief but about the opposite of your belief.
Then we agree that there are different levels and types of belief, and now we're simply arguing on the categories.
Again there is a problem here. what do you mean with "the power of science" and how would a belief in such be similar to a belief in god? There is a fundamental difference here, because god is accept on pure speculation without any proof at all, while "beliefing in science" is based on prior proof of what it can achieve, and a postponement of current achievements. If I say that at current time there is no anything can go faster than light, but I beliefe that scientists may overcome that barrier sometime in the future, it is very different from a belief in a god.
Exactly. I don't think Domarius has explained this sufficiently why this is negative.
Why is it negative? Earth will continue on it's path and the universe as well. Just because I cease to exist as myself, I don't see that as a negative.
That's actually the only regrettable part about it. So I pay for my house almost all my live, and by the time I'm finished with it, it's already over. When I read books about space science I'm quite curious how it will turn out. Such things would be quite interesting and for wchih life is to short.
Maximus has more than covered the flaws in your argument, so I think I just leave that bit alone for now. However--about the strawmanning--I know perfectly well what I was doing; I was simply illustrating our viewpoint. A strawman does nothing to refute another's argument, but it does show a great deal about their perceptions of said argument.
Nyarlathotep, yeah you did strawman my arguments - the idea that I don't believe in god but do, is ridiculous I'm not deluding myself. There are questions that are not answered, so there's a hole there. If you mean "deluding" as in "ignoring", then ignoring what? Ignoring the proof that nothing happens after death? There isn't any proof. I use things that I experience as a reason to beleive there is a guiding force, and something more than decomposition after death. That's pretty much it.
I wish I could give a more detailed argument, but I always wind up doing this just before I have go do something else--this time I have to go argue religion live, rather than behind the safe veil of pretend anonymity that a keyboard affords.