Weak/Strong Atheism the Same?

[EvoUK]

whilst i have little doubt that this has been chewed over many times in here, i decided to post anyways.

just so you know, i define Weak and Strong atheism like this:

Weak Atheism: the lack of belief in god(s)

Strong Atheism: the belief that a (usually defined) god simply cannot exist/ the belief that a (usually defined) god does not exist.

feel free to bicker over the definitions, as they are oversimplified and could probably use expanding over.

ok, now that's out of the way, here is my take on it (quoting myself from another forum to save my fingers):

i feel strong and weak atheism is much of a muchness.

if i had to define myself, i would be strong atheist towards defined, man made gods, and weak atheist towards undefined, deistic gods.

i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.

would the difference be that it would require a hell of a lot more in the way of "evidence" to convince a strong atheist as it would do a weak atheist?

i know the defined difference, as mentioned in the OP for example, but never really saw a practical difference in "real life" so to speak.




as i am not familiar with many of the members in here, i would be very interested to hear your take on it.

[rach12]

I really can't comment on your defitions other than to say I consider myself a strong atheist pretty much for the reasons you stated. Although I am also a strong atheist against all other gods - deistic, etc.

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357465#post357465)
EvoUK:


i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.

would the difference be that it would require a hell of a lot more in the way of "evidence" to convince a strong atheist as it would do a weak atheist?

I guess I must be a stronger atheist than you :wink: because I don't consider gods even remotely possible, so to me there is a HUGE difference. In my oh-so-humble-opinion, there will never be evidence for any sort of god, so I don't bother thinking about evidence. To me, the possibility of gods existing in any form is about as far out there as President Bush becoming a saint!

Plenty of people have called that sort of stance egotistical, presumptuous, illogical, and even anti-science, but to me it makes perfect sense. However, being the good scientist that I am (HEY, where's the angel smilie??), I am always open to checking out the evidence.:teeth:

Yes, in my case, I would need indisputable proof of god in order to believe. She had better come down here and give me a good ass-chewing. lol

Bleep! Hey, this is a G rated forum. Lets keep it that way. OK? Watch your language!!!!!

[EvoUK]

I guess I must be a stronger atheist than you

heh heh heh

In my oh-so-humble-opinion, there will never be evidence for any sort of god, so I don't bother thinking about evidence. To me, the possibility of gods existing in any form is about as far out there as President Bush becoming a saint!

oh come on- it must be more likely than twig becomming a saint surely... i think you're setting yourself impossible odds here... lol

same here. i don't honestly think evidence would show up for any god than it would show up for pixies at the bottom of your garden.

however, what i was asking was the ontological difference between a weak and strong atheist with regards to disbelief in gods?

i suppose according to your post that it would require more conclusive proof of a god (i'm just talking any kind of supernatural god here) to convince a strong atheist as it would do a weak one.

interesting that you say:

I am also a strong atheist against all other gods - deistic, etc

to me, a deistic god is merely a supernatural power somewhere in the universe. although i concider such a god to be irrelevent to my life- so therefore, it makes absolutely no difference to me if it exists or not- i still can't contribute the same sort of certainty in my disbelief as i can do towards defined gods who, for example- sacrificed himself to appease himself and keep himself from sending those he loves to the eternal pit of fire, that he, himself, created (just taking a silly myth out of the air, like).

so: although i don't concider deistic gods relevent in daily life, i still cannot contribute the same amount of disbelief to them as i do defined ones.

in what way do you view it differently?

[James]

I think that one can be a strong atheist towards certain gods and a weak atheist towards others. For example, I am a strong atheist toward gods whose followers' claims are frequently contradicted by reality, but I am a weak atheist to a concept of deity that doesn't make any specific testable claims - like the Deist god.

Edit: Oh, you said that too. Well, since most theists on this board are making specific refutable claims about their deit(y)(ies), it will probably seem like most atheists here are strong atheists.

[rach12]

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357705#post357705)
EvoUK:

interesting that you say:

rach12:

I am also a strong atheist against all other gods - deistic, etc

to me, a deistic god is merely a supernatural power somewhere in the universe. although i concider such a god to be irrelevent to my life- so therefore, it makes absolutely no difference to me if it exists or not- i still can't contribute the same sort of certainty in my disbelief as i can do towards defined gods who, for example- sacrificed himself to appease himself and keep himself from sending those he loves to the eternal pit of fire, that he, himself, created (just taking a silly myth out of the air, like).

so: although i don't concider deistic gods relevent in daily life, i still cannot contribute the same amount of disbelief to them as i do defined ones.

in what way do you view it differently?
I guess I have a problem with the term "god."

To me "god" implies a sentient being (or in this case omniscient?) and may or may not have human-like qualities, such as desiring things. I have a hard time believing there is anything out there that can be called a "god."

Deistic gods don't make sense to me. Maybe I don't understand what Deism is, but it simply looks like a Deist would consider Mother Nature something of a god. Is that wrong? I don't like to ascribe any god-like qualities to the natural world as I don't believe a god would ever be naturally caused. In truth, even if something god-like introduced itself to me, I'd probably think it was some sort of advanced alien life form that developed elsewhere via another evolutionary process.

I view the universe and everything in it as the wholely natural consequence of the very ordered interactions between the myriad of particles that exist or have ever existed.

:eh: Er... did that make sense? lol I have never actually put those thoughts on paper or screen before, so they aren't exactly well thought out. Does that make me a hyper-naturalist?

[EvoUK]

rach12:

yeah, it makes sense. i found a definition of deism at

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_deism.htm

Deism was a rationalistic movement which arose in England in the 17th century and argued that it was possible to know that God existed not through revelation (like the Bible) but through a study of nature. According to deists, blind faith in revelation created religions which oppressed humanity.

In contrast, deists hoped to create a new religion based upon the use of reason and logic. In essence, deism relies upon traditional design arguments to support belief in some sort of god or force which is responsible for the origin of the universe.

Deism during the 17th and 18th centuries was not a coherent movement because individual deists differed so greatly in what they actually believed. Nevertheless, they did agree on the rejection of revelation and promotion of reason.

i'm not sure how accurate that is, so i might go and try to find the odd deist to see what they think.

(another definition, and longer explanation can be found at the same site here:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_theism_deism.htm )

To me "god" implies a sentient being (or in this case omniscient?) and may or may not have human-like qualities, such as desiring things. I have a hard time believing there is anything out there that can be called a "god."

why do you limit your use of the word "god" to the aramatic definition? although i disagree when people make statements such as (god is "love" and everything that is good with the world) etc, i wouldn't limit "god" to merely the personified version of the aramatic religions.

god to me is a supernatural power- aliens wouldn't be gods, because they are just as much a result of naturalistic forces as we are. believe it or not, i attribute a higher probability to UFOs existing than i do gods precisely because they are a product of naturalistic laws etc (although obviously i'm not going to hold my breath to actually seeing a genuine UFO case in the near future).

[rach12]

Today @ 08:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358095#post358095)
EvoUK:

rach12:

why do you limit your use of the word "god" to the aramatic definition? although i disagree when people make statements such as (god is "love" and everything that is good with the world) etc, i wouldn't limit "god" to merely the personified version of the aramatic religions.
Hmmm... I guess I wasn't aware that there was another definition of god. To me, the word "god" implies a being that holds some sort of power over the natural world.

god to me is a supernatural power- aliens wouldn't be gods, because they are just as much a result of naturalistic forces as we are. believe it or not, i attribute a higher probability to UFOs existing than i do gods precisely because they are a product of naturalistic laws etc (although obviously i'm not going to hold my breath to actually seeing a genuine UFO case in the near future).
To me, there is nothing permanently unknowable about the universe. I believe that anything that can be called 'supernatural' actually has a natural explanation, we are simply limited by a lack of knowledge at this point and are incapable of adequately defining what, or whatever, it is.

I don't think there is anything in this universe that can't eventually be explained by natural means.

[EvoUK]

To me, there is nothing permanently unknowable about the universe. I believe that anything that can be called 'supernatural' actually has a natural explanation, we are simply limited by a lack of knowledge at this point and are incapable of adequately defining what, or whatever, it is.

I don't think there is anything in this universe that can't eventually be explained by natural means.

ditto. i think ultimately, everything has a materialist (natural) explanation. however, the above was just my definition of how i view the word "god".

personally, although i think that ultimately, many things which we simply don't understand now (things like the singularity, abiogenesis in more detail etc) will become more obvious in time. i have to keep in mind that although to us it seems we're peaking with regards to knowledge and science, you have to look back in history.

the only variable to me is time i guess. oh- and our own limitations with regards to our brains, which simply haven't evolved with some things in mind (ever wondered why the brain has difficulty picturing really high numbers/distances/passes of time for example?)

[Origian]

Apologies in advance if I'm WAY off the mark here, but I had always thought weak atheism was the expression of a disbelief in the existence of a god, whereas strong atheism was the belief that a god does not exist. Thus I had always considered myself a weak atheist, because to say that "God does not exist" would require taking on a burden of proof.

[rdalin]

whilst i have little doubt that this has been chewed over many times in here, i decided to post anyways.

just so you know, i define Weak and Strong atheism like this:

Weak Atheism: the lack of belief in god(s)

Strong Atheism: the belief that a (usually defined) god simply cannot exist/ the belief that a (usually defined) god does not exist.

feel free to bicker over the definitions, as they are oversimplified and could probably use expanding over.

ok, now that's out of the way, here is my take on it (quoting myself from another forum to save my fingers):

i feel strong and weak atheism is much of a muchness.

if i had to define myself, i would be strong atheist towards defined, man made gods, and weak atheist towards undefined, deistic gods.

i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.

would the difference be that it would require a hell of a lot more in the way of "evidence" to convince a strong atheist as it would do a weak atheist?

i know the defined difference, as mentioned in the OP for example, but never really saw a practical difference in "real life" so to speak.




as i am not familiar with many of the members in here, i would be very interested to hear your take on it.Although the difference is subtle, it's real. I stole the following from someone on another forum. It's the best analysis I've seen.

Consider my red car. Do you believe I have one? Well, since you don't know me at all, it's overwhelmingly likely that you lack a belief in my red car. It's unlikely, I suspect, that you believe I don't have one. You'd have to have a lot more information before you could logically make such a decision.

There's a real distinction.

I am, FYI, a strong atheist.

[rdalin]

Apologies in advance if I'm WAY off the mark here, but I had always thought weak atheism was the expression of a disbelief in the existence of a god, whereas strong atheism was the belief that a god does not exist. Thus I had always considered myself a weak atheist, because to say that "God does not exist" would require taking on a burden of proof.As a strong atheist, I don't think this is correct. I am a strong atheist because I have concluded from the complete lack of evidence for any sort of supernatural god that it's overwhelmingly likely that such entities don't exist. Technically speaking, my position is tentative and conditional, since I'll be forced to reevaluate it if any reasonable evidence is ever put forth.

As a conclusion, right or wrong, it carries no burden of proof.

[Bodabass]

Interesting topic. As you may gather from my signature, I do not think that there are simple answers to complex problems. I think adding another dimension to the (dis)belief spectrum may be helpful. Take this graphic . . .

http://www.missouri.edu/~jtwd36/theism2.jpg
It should be pretty self explanatory. But, just for the sake of example; these would be the positions commonly known as strong atheism. . .

1) God does not exist and we can know this.
4) God does not exist and we cannot be sure if we can know this
7) God does not exist and we cannot know this.

On the weak atheism side. . .

2) God may or may not exist and we can know if (S)He does
5) God may or may not exist and we cannot be sure if we can know this
8) God may or may not exist and we cannot know if (S)He does.

I think this makes things much more clear. I will make the observation that in using this graphic for many years, I have yet to see a 7. I would, therefore, say the major difference between weak and strong atheist camps is the not only ontological certainty about God, but ontological certainty about ontological certainty.

Cheers,
John

PS: I'm a 5.

Cheers,
John

[rdalin]

Interesting topic. As you may gather from my signature, I do not think that there are simple answers to complex problems. I think adding another dimension to the (dis)belief spectrum may be helpful. Take this graphic . . .

http://www.missouri.edu/~jtwd36/theism2.jpg
It should be pretty self explanatory. But, just for the sake of example; these would be the positions commonly known as strong atheism. . .

1) God does not exist and we can know this.
4) God does not exist and we cannot be sure if we can know this
7) God does not exist and we cannot know this.

On the weak atheism side. . .

2) God may or may not exist and we can know if (S)He does
5) God may or may not exist and we cannot be sure if we can know this
8) God may or may not exist and we cannot know if (S)He does.

I think this makes things much more clear. I will make the observation that in using this graphic for many years, I have yet to see a 7. I would, therefore, say the major difference between weak and strong atheist camps is the not only ontological certainty about God, but ontological certainty about ontological certainty.

Cheers,
John

PS: I'm a 5.

Cheers,
JohnJohn -

You'll have to add one more strong atheist position: God does not exist, and I've concluded this. As you may have guessed, that's my position. It's similar to #4, but I don't think it's the same.

[Bodabass]

Richard,
I'm not trying to be facetious, but concluding that there is no God is sort of implied by being an atheist. #1, 4, and 7 have all concluded this. The difference is, #4 is not sure if people can know for a fact that God exists. A more colloquial way of stating #4 would be:

"One cannot be sure if he or she knows that there is or is not a God. By what I have seen, I think the evidence points to there being no God."

Cheers,
John

[Spiderman&Co.]

Apologies in advance if I'm WAY off the mark here, but I had always thought weak atheism was the expression of a disbelief in the existence of a god, whereas strong atheism was the belief that a god does not exist. Thus I had always considered myself a weak atheist, because to say that "God does not exist" would require taking on a burden of proof.As a strong atheist, I don't think this is correct. I am a strong atheist because I have concluded from the complete lack of evidence for any sort of supernatural god that it's overwhelmingly likely that such entities don't exist. Technically speaking, my position is tentative and conditional, since I'll be forced to reevaluate it if any reasonable evidence is ever put forth.

As a conclusion, right or wrong, it carries no burden of proof.
I think that is the very point that Origian was stressing. If you make the statement "God does not exist," (strong atheism) you assume a burden of proof. In other words, you must have evidence to support this claim. This is very different from weak atheism. Weak atheism (as it is being defined in this thread) is simply looking at the statement "God does exist" and concluding that there is not enough evidence to support this claim. (A weak atheist then, by definition, would be open to any new evidence to support the claim "God does exist." In contrast, a strong atheist has evidence that concludes that "God does not exist," and then is not open to any new evidence.)

The burden of proof taken on by strong atheism is very difficult to sustain. In my opinion, it is impossible. The reason is that is requires proving an absolute negation. To make an absolute negation such as "God does not exist," seems to require an infinite knowledge. For example, if I say, "There are no purple rocks," then I must have infinite knowledge of all rocks everywhere. It is not enough for me to say that I have never encountered a purple rock. Substantiating the claim "There are no purple rocks" requires that there is no rock anywhere that is outside of my knowledge. I'm just not sure how an infinite being can have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty, "God does not exist."

[Gilgaron]

I think that is the very point that Origian was stressing. If you make the statement "God does not exist," (strong atheism) you assume a burden of proof. In other words, you must have evidence to support this claim. This is very different from weak atheism. Weak atheism (as it is being defined in this thread) is simply looking at the statement "God does exist" and concluding that there is not enough evidence to support this claim. (A weak atheist then, by definition, would be open to any new evidence to support the claim "God does exist." In contrast, a strong atheist has evidence that concludes that "God does not exist," and then is not open to any new evidence.)

The burden of proof taken on by strong atheism is very difficult to sustain. In my opinion, it is impossible. The reason is that is requires proving an absolute negation. To make an absolute negation such as "God does not exist," seems to require an infinite knowledge. For example, if I say, "There are no purple rocks," then I must have infinite knowledge of all rocks everywhere. It is not enough for me to say that I have never encountered a purple rock. Substantiating the claim "There are no purple rocks" requires that there is no rock anywhere that is outside of my knowledge. I'm just not sure how an infinite being can have sufficient knowledge to say with absolute certainty, "God does not exist."
You could do it a bit like Powell does. He holds that it is probabilities we should be worried about, as how we think about knowledge derived via science as probable but tentative. Thusly he ends up deciding that God probably doesn't exist and this is then his strong atheism position.

For more details you'll have to ask him, though.

[John Powell]

POWELL:

The Gnosticism-Theism Graphic

What is implied by the graphic at http://www.missouri.edu/~jtwd36/theism2.jpg is the existence of four distinct attitudes with regards to knowing and believing in the existence of God.

#1: We can know whether God exists and I believe He does not. This is what I would call a gnostic atheist.
#3: We can know whether God exists and I believe He does. This is what I would call a gnostic theist.
#7: We cannot know whether God exists, but I believe He does not. This is what I would call an agnostic atheist.
#9: We cannot know whether God exists, but I believe He does. This is what I would call an agnostic theist.

The other positions, #2, #4, #5, #6, and #8 are merely borderline cases of these four.

I satisfy #7. I believe we cannot know for sure whether or not God exists, but it's my belief that God does not exist. Similarly, I believe we cannot know for sure whether or not Santa Claus, as usually described (north pole address, flying reindeer, magical elves) exists, but I believe He does not.

To differentiate these categories, I prefer a single number line of "Confidence in the Existence of God" which goes from 0 to 100. A gnostic atheist (GA) would be at or near 0. An agnostic atheist (AA) would be somewhat above zero, but below 50. An agnostic theist (AT) would be above 50, but below 100. A gnostic theist (GT) would be at or near 100.

Another way to think of it is that a gnostic atheist says "God certainly does not exist," an agnostic atheist says "God probably does not exist," an agnostic theist says "God probably exists," and a gnostic theist says "God certainly exists."

. . . . Confidence in the Existence of God. . . .

0 . 10 . 20 . 30 . 40 . 50 . 60 . 70 . 80 . 90 . 100
GA . AA . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . AT . GT

On this basis, both weak and strong atheists are below 50, but I suspect that strong atheists tend to be less confident in the existence of God, in the 10s and 20s, whereas the weak atheists are typically slightly more confident, say 30s. An "agnostic" who denies being an atheist, I think, is typically in the 40s, and so really a weak atheist. However, the 40s are so close to the borderline these "agnostics" feel uncomfortable affirming their atheism.

Burden of Proof

All rational beliefs require reasons for those beliefs.

All beliefs bear a burden of proof if the proponent wishes to persuade others to his way of thinking. If the weak atheist believes there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in the existence of God and he wishes to persuade others to that way of thinking then he has some burden. However, strong atheism typically carries a significantly heavier burden than weak atheism.

The strong atheist position implies they have good reasons to believe God does NOT exist whereas the weak atheist merely sees insufficient evidence to warrant belief that God DOES exist.

If a believer doesn't care to persuade others to believe as he does then he doesn't have a burden of proof except, I suppose, to himself.

John Powell

[plabius]

i so badly want to say im a strong atheist, but as a skeptic i cannot settle so easily at conviction as many here do. Skepticism is what brought me into atheism in the first place, and i feel that atheism can only exist in a environment of pure skepticism, (or agnosticism, being the theological equivelant).
This concept of strong atheism seems deeply contradictory.
Reason and belief are mutually exclusive by definition. There can be no reason to believe something, because belief is basically a word for baseless or irrational conviction. There is no reason to believe in nongod, it is just as true to believe in god, or buddha, or the therepeutic value of doorknobs.
In fact, it seems as if skepticism is the furthest possible point from theism, that is, what is labelled here as weak atheism. It is easy, once at this position of utter freedom and free dynamic thought, to keep going past it. Strong atheism overshoots its mark, and curves round in a circle back again towards theism.

Theism is really only one specialized term lying within the camp of conviction-ism, of which skepticism is the only concievable opposite. Strong atheism is really just weak skepticism.

[EvoUK]

You're thinking strong atheism is in the same league of non-belief as strong belief in a god- this isn't the case.

A strong atheist merely attributes such a low probability to a given man-made god to actually existing, that the thought of it existing is laughable. A strong atheist thinks about a given god like you would do a garden gnome, or pixies, or the tooth fairy. He/she just considers it absurd to believe such a creature exists.

[Archimedes]

A strong atheist merely attributes such a low probability to a given man-made god to actually existing, that the thought of it existing is laughable. A strong atheist thinks about a given god like you would do a garden gnome, or pixies, or the tooth fairy. He/she just considers it absurd to believe such a creature exists.
Which here is the distinguishing characteristic of strong atheist compared to weak atheist: the low probability, or the attitude towards the idea?

[Seasanctuary]

Which here is the distinguishing characteristic of strong atheist compared to weak atheist: the low probability, or the attitude towards the idea?
Attitude, not level of probability.

In other words, a strong Atheist isn't a weak Atheist only more so. :wink:

It's a qualitative difference in perspective. As a weak Atheist I just say that I've not been convinced there is a God, so therefore I must be an Atheist.

A strong Atheist, on the other hand, is convinced there is no God.

Quite often, people are weak Atheists in general, but can list a God or three that they believe to definitely be nonexistant.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Here, I post responses to Plabius, Evouk, Archimedes, and Seasanctuary.

To PLABIUS

PLABIUS:
i so badly want to say im a strong atheist, but as a skeptic i cannot settle so easily at conviction as many here do. Skepticism is what brought me into atheism in the first place, and i feel that atheism can only exist in a environment of pure skepticism, (or agnosticism, being the theological equivelant).


POWELL:
You seem to be confusing the gnostic strong atheist with the agnostic strong atheist. A gnostic strong atheist believes and is certain that there is no God. An agnostic strong atheist believes that there is no God, but isn't certain. Compare this with an agnostic weak atheist who does not believe there is a God, but isn't certain about the existence of God.

PLABIUS:
This concept of strong atheism seems deeply contradictory.


POWELL:
Not at all.

Are you certain that there is no living T-Rex in your home? If you are then you are a gnostic strong aT-Rex-in-his-home.

PLABIUS:
Reason and belief are mutually exclusive by definition.


POWELL:
What are the reasons that you claim to believe that nonsense?

PLABIUS:
There can be no reason to believe something, because belief is basically a word for baseless or irrational conviction. There is no reason to believe in nongod, it is just as true to believe in god, or buddha, or the therepeutic value of doorknobs.


POWELL:
I believe / think / am of the opinion / view that you don't understand the meanings of some of these words.

To say "I believe that X" is essentially the same as saying:

It is my opinion that X.
It is my view that X.
I think that X.

PLABIUS:
In fact, it seems as if skepticism is the furthest possible point from theism, that is, what is labelled here as weak atheism. It is easy, once at this position of utter freedom and free dynamic thought, to keep going past it. Strong atheism overshoots its mark, and curves round in a circle back again towards theism.


POWELL:
Perhaps what you mean to say is that you're skeptical of certainty.

PLABIUS:
Theism is really only one specialized term lying within the camp of conviction-ism, of which skepticism is the only concievable opposite. Strong atheism is really just weak skepticism.


POWELL:
Gnostic strong atheism is as skeptical of the existence of God as one can get. Whether they're skeptical about the wisdom of certainty about such things is a separate question.


TO EVOUK

EVOUK (to Plabius):
You're thinking strong atheism is in the same league of non-belief as strong belief in a god- this isn't the case.

A strong atheist merely attributes such a low probability to a given man-made god to actually existing, that the thought of it existing is laughable. A strong atheist thinks about a given god like you would do a garden gnome, or pixies, or the tooth fairy. He/she just considers it absurd to believe such a creature exists.


POWELL:
I think using one's sense of humor is not a wise way to distinguish these categories.

Are all three of these persons strong atheists or is one a strong atheist, one a weak atheist, and one an agnostic theist?

Jack: You believe in God? Ha, I don't. In fact, I believe that God does not exist. I attribute such a low probability (20%) that the thought of God existing sometimes makes me laugh.

Jill: You believe in God? Ha, I don't. I attribute such a low probability (30%) that the thought of God existing sometimes makes me laugh.

Hill: You believe in God? Ha, so do I. However, I attribute such a low probability (barely over 50%) that the thought of God existing sometimes makes me laugh.


to ARCHIMEDES and SEASANCTUARY

ARCHIMEDES (to Evouk):
Which here is the distinguishing characteristic of strong atheist compared to weak atheist: the low probability, or the attitude towards the idea?

SEASANCTUARY (to Archimedes):
Attitude, not level of probability.


POWELL:
Yes. However, I believe that it's pretty consistent that strong atheists generally have a lower confidence than weak atheists.

SEASANCTUARY:
In other words, a strong Atheist isn't a weak Atheist only more so.


POWELL:
All strong atheists also satisfy the condition to be a weak atheist. Weak atheists say "I don't believe X" while strong atheists say "Not only do I not believe X, but I believe not-X."

SEASANCTUARY:
It's a qualitative difference in perspective. As a weak Atheist I just say that I've not been convinced there is a God, so therefore I must be an Atheist.

A strong Atheist, on the other hand, is convinced there is no God.


POWELL:
Someone certain that there is no God is what I would call a gnostic strong atheist. In my book, if you believe that God does not exist then you're a strong atheist regardless how convinced you are about it.

SEASANCTUARY:
Quite often, people are weak Atheists in general, but can list a God or three that they believe to definitely be nonexistant.


POWELL:
True. Technically, a person is a theist / atheist with respect to a particular God-concept. They might be a theist about Yahweh, but an atheist with respect to Zeus. Generally, however, a theist is a person who believes in at least one god regardless how many they don't believe in while an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any of the typical god concepts.

John Powell

[plabius]

i am having trouble with this concept of gnosticism, and subsequently that of gnostic strong atheism and how it differs from the agnostic sort.
How do you ascertain the possibilty of knowledge of god's existence?
If it is simply probability, as EvoUK suggests, then what is this probability and on what is it based?

[John Powell]

PLABIUS:
i am having trouble with this concept of gnosticism, and subsequently that of gnostic strong atheism and how it differs from the agnostic sort.


POWELL:
Theism / atheism is about BELIEF. Gnosticism / agnosticism is about KNOWLEDGE. Now, if you KNOW that something is true then, of course, you also BELIEVE it. However, you might BELIEVE something is true that you don't KNOW to be the case. In this sense, gnosticism / agnosticism is an indication of how certain you are in your belief.

A theist BELIEVES in God. An atheist does not BELIEVE in God. On my belief continuum, anyone above 50% confident that God exists is a theist and anyone below 50% is an atheist. For those whose opinion is oscillating around 50%, it's not clear which they should be called until their opinion stabilizes. Either they could say that a week ago they were a theist, but now they're an atheist which could change next week or they could note that they're too undecided to say. However, they are agnostics because they clearly aren't certain either way.

A gnostic KNOWS, is certain. An agnostic doesn't KNOW, isn't certain. On the same belief continuum, a gnostic is at or near either 0% confident that God exists or at or near 100% confident that God exists. An agnostic is between 0% - 100%.

So, a gnostic theist is nearly 100% certain that God exists. He knows and believes. A gnostic atheist has nearly 0% confidence that God exists. He knows and believes that God does not exist. An agnostic theist believes that God exists, but isn't certain. An agnostic a-theist (weak atheist) does not believe that God exists, but isn't certain that God doesn't exist, while an agnostic athe-ist (strong atheist) believes that God does not exist, but isn't certain that God doesn't exist.

Your earlier post about skepticism would seem to support the view that atheists should not be gnostic.

Does that make sense?

PLABIUS:
How do you ascertain the possibilty of knowledge of god's existence?


POWELL:
Using logic and your experience with related questions.

Do you think that it's possible to know whether Santa Claus, as usually described (north pole address, flying reindeer, magical elves), exists?

PLABIUS:
If it is simply probability, as EvoUK suggests, then what is this probability and on what is it based?


POWELL:
Each person judges the likelihood of a specific claim being true based on how extraordinary / ordinary the claim is or, you could say, how much general evidence about similar claims there is and also based on the specific evidence available in support of the specific claim.

John Powell

[Benster]

"To me, there is nothing permanently unknowable about the universe..."

You may be right...you may be wrong. There is no way to tell now whether or not ALL the aspects of the physical world will be knowable by man's puny brain.

I happen to think it's actually VERY unlikely. There are probably some things we will never know. There is already so much science that we have partially known for many years. And further research hasn't gone anywhere. We know enough.

"...anything that can be called 'supernatural' actually has a natural explanation..."

ESP would be a good example. I don't believe in it, but if it were shown to be true, it would probably have something to do with brainwaves being transmitted somehow from person to person, which isn't THAT far-fetched.

"I don't think there is anything in this universe that can't eventually be explained by natural means."

But the definition of natural may change. What if scientists discovered an alternative reality...which looked a lot like heaven. It would become part of the natural world, by definition.

It's narrow minded to believe that there is NO WAY that a God could possibly exist. Just as it is to be sure that you are not a brain in a jar.

[plabius]

Ok so the only difference between gnostic and agnostic is that a gnostic believes they can know whether what they believe is true.

I am now coming to realize that, casting my own personal skepticism aside (which for purely practical reasons i shall warrant), we are really all on the same page here, us strong and weak atheists.

As much as we would love to administer a savage (metaphorical) beating to this creature called god, he is, quite simply, indestructible. In this fact, this invulnerability, many would see proof of god (or proof enough), but in us, the atheists, we see that the essence of this indestructiblity is the fact that god is but a hologram, an illusion. Any punch we throw can do no damage, not because of gods divinty, but because of the fact that no being exists where our fists land.
The irrefutibilty of god as a concept comes from the infinite flexibilty of metaphysical propositions. As science has pushed forward, so too god has been led further out into the metaphysical realm, with the aid of Descartes Spinoza, Kant and his ilk. My personal skepticism neccessetates a metaphysical realm that is indeed infinite, as this skepticism rests upon two principles
1. that at any given time there cannot be any fully-known reality

2. that at any given time there is always a fully-knowable reality
Given 1. (based on the infinite regress of knowledge ie.we can know but how do we know that we know and how do we know that we know that we know etc.) science, the quest for reality, will never fully erase all doubt, doubt being the place in which metaphysics can survive.

The metaphor of the hologram illustrates the nature of god as a concept. We can attack the individual facts: we can say 'hey, that's not god, its just physics' but they'll always just find one place where physics hasn't reached and say 'there's god, hiding(for example) at the beginning of the universe at the big bang singularity (where science breaks down)...we knew he was there all along!'

I submit that strong and weak atheists alike see this, and it is precisely what drives those who choose to strike at the hologram (the strong atheists) to do so. The act is in all likelihood a quixotism, but is nevertheless noble in it's futility. And perhaps, and it is quite likely, my skeptical principle 'no 1' will be proven wrong in some way, at some point in the future,and the perpetual metaphysical wave will break on some beach. And there, the hologram will fade


PS>please excuse any contradictions or falacies (but feel free to point them out) in this post. I didn't really plan it very well, i just felt like getting some philosophy off my chest.

[Benster]

"Ok so the only difference between gnostic and agnostic is that a gnostic believes they can know whether what they believe is true."

The distinction is lost to time. A Gnostic was someone who believes that the existence of God can be, or has been, proven by logic and/or science. There are no more Gnostics anymore! At least no educated ones.

I agree that it is impossible to prove that there is no God. But I am a practicalist or a subjectivist (a bit of both). I acknowledge that there are lots of very unlikely things that could be true. But I believe only the ones that I think have been demonstrated with some conviction. It is absurd to waste time even contemplating the very unlikely, unless there is some compelling reason. I am pretty sure that there is nothing even remotlly like a God. I would call myself a strong atheist. But there is always the possibility, as there always will be, that I am wrong, and God exists.

Someone who calls themself an agnostic is really probably a weak atheist. Everybody is agnostic, these days, including the methodist preacher at my local church.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I think what primarily motivates the difference between weak and strong atheism isn't deep philosophical issues, but merely the burden of proof. The weak atheist doesn't feel justified affirming the non-existence of God, so he says "I'm not saying that you're wrong, that your God does not exist, but merely that I don't believe in him. If you think that I should then what's your evidence?" The strong atheist, on the other hand, feels comfortable with the greater burden of his position, so he can say "I think you're wrong, and I will defend that position."

I'm annoyed at insincere skeptics who are strong atheists among other skeptics, who feel justified in affirming the non-existence of God, but put on the facade of being weak atheists when arguing with believers merely to avoid taking their fair share of the burden.

John Powell

[plabius]

POWELL:
I think what primarily motivates the difference between weak and strong atheism isn't deep philosophical issues, but merely the burden of proof. The weak atheist doesn't feel justified affirming the non-existence of God, so he says "I'm not saying that you're wrong, that your God does not exist, but merely that I don't believe in him. If you think that I should then what's your evidence?" The strong atheist, on the other hand, feels comfortable with the greater burden of his position, so he can say "I think you're wrong, and I will defend that position."

I'm annoyed at insincere skeptics who are strong atheists among other skeptics, who feel justified in affirming the non-existence of God, but put on the facade of being weak atheists when arguing with believers merely to avoid taking their fair share of the burden.

John Powell
ok. i think its obvious that i am troubled with certain concepts, and this is all i really meant to convey in my posts. You're right though, more is required, more is at stake for the strong atheist.

[Lagomorpha]

I´m not a strong atheist.
I admit that you can score shots against God(s),granted that there is a coherent definition and predictions.

If we´re going by the vague definition of "an allmighty power that govers the universe and affects thy life" (basic theism?),I do not have much to say.

Seriously,how would you know whether this God exists?
How do you calculate the "probabilities"? Someone who says "the evidence is,to me,that there is not one" must logically have a coherent definition in mind.Some specific predictions have been made.Only then could (s)he have calculated the probability,if possible.
For such reasons,I find it a bit rushed to claim knowledge.

[John Powell]

Lagomorpha:
I´m not a strong atheist.


POWELL:
Are you a strong aSantaist?

You can determine that by deciding which statement below better represents your belief concerning the existence of Santa Claus, as usually described (north pole address, magical elves, flying reindeer).

weak aSantaist:

1. I personally don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I don't go so far as to believe that Santa Claus does not exist.

strong aSantaist:

2. Not only is it the case that I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I believe that Santa Claus does not exist.

LAGOMORPHA:
I admit that you can score shots against God(s),granted that there is a coherent definition and predictions.

If we´re going by the vague definition of "an allmighty power that govers the universe and affects thy life" (basic theism?), I do not have much to say.

Seriously, how would you know whether this God exists?


POWELL:
Your question suggests that you're an agnostic weak atheist. I don't think you can justifiably be absolutely certain about the question.

LAGOMORPHA:
How do you calculate the "probabilities"?


POWELL:
By using the most efficient method at your disposal.

LAGOMORPHA:
Someone who says "the evidence is, to me, that there is not one" must logically have a coherent definition in mind. Some specific predictions have been made. Only then could (s)he have calculated the probability, if possible.

For such reasons, I find it a bit rushed to claim knowledge.


POWELL:
If you're talking about certainty then I doubt that it's reasonably possible to obtain on this question. However, I don't think you have to deal with each God-concept individually to be justified in disbelieving them. Rather, you can group like God-concepts together and reject them together.

John Powell

[lucaspa]

whilst i have little doubt that this has been chewed over many times in here, i decided to post anyways.

just so you know, i define Weak and Strong atheism like this:

Weak Atheism: the lack of belief in god(s)

Strong Atheism: the belief that a (usually defined) god simply cannot exist/ the belief that a (usually defined) god does not exist.
The definition of weak atheism is simply bad semantics. What is the difference betweeen "I lack belief in the existence of deity (god or gods)" and "I believe deity does not exist." NONE.

Both weak and strong atheism are the same and are a faith. That faith can be accurate or inaccurate, but it is a faith.

i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.I'd like to think so, but take a look at the atheistic community's response to scientific papers on intercessory prayer, including Shermer's column in the recent Scientific American. Shermer attacks the science because he thinks IP points to the existence of deity. Rather than change his mind, he attacks the science.

[lucaspa]

I´m not a strong atheist.
I admit that you can score shots against God(s),granted that there is a coherent definition and predictions.Note that theists have tested and falsified versions of deity thruout history. No theist any longer thinks that Zeus exists, for example. That version of deity has been falsified.

If we´re going by the vague definition of "an allmighty power that govers the universe and affects thy life" (basic theism?),I do not have much to say.

Seriously,how would you know whether this God exists?The same as you know any entity exists: personal experience. If you have such experience, you are convinced. If you do not, then you are either agnostic or atheist.

The difficulty is that personal experience of deity is not intersubjective. Intersubjective experience is a subset of personal experience where everyone has the same experience under approximately the same conditions.

[rdalin]

The definition of weak atheism is simply bad semantics. What is the difference betweeen "I lack belief in the existence of deity (god or gods)" and "I believe deity does not exist." NONE.It can be demonstrated quite easily that this is false.

Here's my claim: I have a red Ford Explorer SUV.

Do you lack belief in my car, or do you believe that I don't have one?

Both weak and strong atheism are the same and are a faith. That faith can be accurate or inaccurate, but it is a faith.Theists keep claiming this, and it never makes any sense.

Based on what I have concluded to be a lack of valid evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods, I have concluded that no such gods exists. My conclusion is conditional and tentative, in that I will have to reevalute it should evidence ever be presented, but there's nothing of faith about it.

[John Powell]

EVOUK:
whilst i have little doubt that this has been chewed over many times in here, i decided to post anyways.

just so you know, i define Weak and Strong atheism like this:

Weak Atheism: the lack of belief in god(s)

Strong Atheism: the belief that a (usually defined) god simply cannot exist/ the belief that a (usually defined) god does not exist.


LUCASPA:
The definition of weak atheism is simply bad semantics. What is the difference betweeen "I lack belief in the existence of deity (god or gods)" and "I believe deity does not exist." NONE.


POWELL:
The difference does not seem so subtle to those who want to make the distinction.

Consider a related distinction. Do you see a meaningful difference between the two positions below?

1. I do NOT affirm that God exists. (A person who does not affirm that he is a theist).

2. I DO affirm that God does NOT exist. (A person who affirms that he is an atheist).

RDALIN (to Lucaspa):
It can be demonstrated quite easily that this is false.

Here's my claim: I have a red Ford Explorer SUV.

Do you lack belief in my car, or do you believe that I don't have one?


POWELL:
Given the way you ask the question, I'm thinking that you don't really have a red Ford Explorer SUV, so I don't have the belief that you own that kind of car. In fact, I believe that you do NOT have that kind of car.

LUCASPA:
Both weak and strong atheism are the same and are a faith. That faith can be accurate or inaccurate, but it is a faith.


POWELL:
What an atheist trusts or has confidence in is a separate question from whether there is a meaningful distinction between weak and strong atheism.

RDALIN (to Lucaspa):
Theists keep claiming this, and it never makes any sense.


POWELL:
It makes sense to me. They are claiming that both the theist and the atheist use faith. What these theists too often fail to realize are the important differences between the kind of faith a theist usually has in his God and an atheist has in his skeptical methods.

RDALIN:
Based on what I have concluded to be a lack of valid evidence for the existence of any supernatural gods, I have concluded that no such gods exists. My conclusion is conditional and tentative, in that I will have to reevalute it should evidence ever be presented, but there's nothing of faith about it.


POWELL:
Faith / trust is a related, but separate issue.

EVOUK:
i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.


LUCASPA:
I'd like to think so, but take a look at the atheistic community's response to scientific papers on intercessory prayer, including Shermer's column in the recent Scientific American. Shermer attacks the science because he thinks IP points to the existence of deity. Rather than change his mind, he attacks the science.


POWELL:
I haven't read what Shermer is saying. If Shermer is confident that the deductive inference is valid (IP data implies that God exists), but the conclusion (God exists) is false then his only rational option is to attack the premises (the data) as being false. If the inference is invalid, then the premises might be true while the conclusion is still false.

If the argument is inductive (which it probably is) then things are less certain. It might be that the inference is strong, the premises true, and the conclusion still false. That's possible, but unlikely. On the other hand, maybe the "IP data implies that God exists" inductive argument is a weak argument, so even if the premises were true, probably the conclusion is NOT true.

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

POWELL:
Consider a related distinction. Do you see a meaningful difference between the two positions below?

1. I do NOT affirm that God exists. (A person who does not affirm that he is a theist).

2. I DO affirm that God does NOT exist. (A person who affirms that he is an atheist).

Excellent question John.

Unfortuantely, I am time limited here so I can only pick snipets of posts and comment.

This was very to the point and had good clarity.

A "well asked question" indeed.



Russ

[MonkeyBoy]

i don't see there being much of a difference because for the vast majorety of people in here who identify themselves as "strong" atheists- if new evidence was to surface about a specific god (or even a god full stop) actually existing, they would modify, or even change their stance on it.

would the difference be that it would require a hell of a lot more in the way of "evidence" to convince a strong atheist as it would do a weak atheist?

As far as your definition, I'd consider myself a "strong atheist"; although the word atheist is often mistaken as someone that opposes everything that's taught in the bible. That's unfortunate, because I agree with much of the bible, just no in any gods. Anyway, to ask what evidence would be make me believe, I'd like to ask what evidence would cause a believer to dis-believe?

I used to be a believer, and it was a long an lengthy process. :lol:
If I discovered that the god of the bible existsed, I'd tell him/her/it, "What's up? Get up off your cloud, and fix this mess! There are people killing in your name, children are being molested, women are being raped, people are starving, being oppressed, vicitmized and you have done nothing! Certain people that follow and others that don't even believe in you are helping, but it is not enough! Get to it!"

as i am not familiar with many of the members in here, i would be very interested to hear your take on it.
I'm new here, so take my opinions for what they're worth.:teeth:

[Warcraft3]

I'm new here, so take my opinions for what they're worth.:teeth:


.....and keep in mind the guys username is "MonkeyBoy"....

..so really now, how much can his opinions be worth......?

:tongue:

[EvoUK]

Oi! Naturalism forum people! Steadele- control yourself!

[Seasanctuary]

I finally got to see a Theist post here before the inevitable moderation. Yay.

[MonkeyBoy]

.....and keep in mind the guys username is "MonkeyBoy"....

..so really now, how much can his opinions be worth......?
What does this mean?
Just curious....

[Sacrificial Ram]

Which here is the distinguishing characteristic of strong atheist compared to weak atheist: the low probability, or the attitude towards the idea?
I would say the attiude towards the idea, mainly. There is the same amount of evidence either way (absolutely zero).

[Sacrificial Ram]

POWELL:
Given the way you ask the question, I'm thinking that you don't really have a red Ford Explorer SUV, so I don't have the belief that you own that kind of car. In fact, I believe that you do NOT have that kind of car.

l
The difference between that statement and any belief statement about the existance/non-existance of any deity is that there is a way to prove/disprove
the existance of that alledged red Ford Explorer SUV. You can go his garage, and see if it is there. You can go to the state's DMV, and look at what cars he has registred. There is a logical path to determine the validity of the claim.

The same can not be said for supernatural claims.

[Sacrificial Ram]

.....and keep in mind the guys username is "MonkeyBoy"....

..so really now, how much can his opinions be worth......?

:tongue:
As much as anybody elses opinion who is not a professional , and selling their professional services.

[John Powell]

ARCHIMEDES:
Which here is the distinguishing characteristic of strong atheist compared to weak atheist: the low probability, or the attitude towards the idea?


SACRIFICIAL RAM:
I would say the attiude towards the idea, mainly. There is the same amount of evidence either way (absolutely zero).


POWELL:
I think it's a mistake to claim there is no evidence for God. I think we should claim things like there is no good evidence or no compelling evidence or that the preponderance of the evidence favors the non existence of God.

You should concede they have evidence to avoid the inconsistency of accepting certain kinds of things as evidence for your beliefs that you would not allow to be counted as evidence for the theist.

Furthermore, to deny the existence of evidence for someone's belief is tantamount to claiming their belief is irrational, that THEY are irrational for holding to it, since they believe things for which they have no reason, no evidence for that belief. In that case, it would seem foolish to try to reason with them about it.

If you wish to reason with believers then you should concede that they are rational persons, holding to their beliefs because they have reasons, evidence for those beliefs.

POWELL:
Given the way you ask the question, I'm thinking that you don't really have a red Ford Explorer SUV, so I don't have the belief that you own that kind of car. In fact, I believe that you do NOT have that kind of car.


SACRIFICIAL RAM:
The difference between that statement and any belief statement about the existance/non-existance of any deity is that there is a way to prove/disprove the existance of that alledged red Ford Explorer SUV. You can go his garage, and see if it is there. You can go to the state's DMV, and look at what cars he has registred. There is a logical path to determine the validity of the claim.

The same can not be said for supernatural claims.


POWELL:
Why not? Can't science potentially verify that a person now alive was dead yesterday or that a mountain that was over there yesterday is now here and that it floated en route?

For historical claims, can't we use the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" criterion to determine whether or not we should believe the claim to be correct?

John Powell

[Warcraft3]

Oi! Naturalism forum people! Steadele- control yourself!

Ooops....looked at recent posts and failed to notice what forum it was in.

My apologies.

[rdalin]

Given the way you ask the question, I'm thinking that you don't really have a red Ford Explorer SUV, so I don't have the belief that you own that kind of car. In fact, I believe that you do NOT have that kind of car.[quote]
Why? How should I have phrased it?

Maybe you're reading too much into the way I asked the question.

Suppose I put it this way:

Do you believe or disbelieve I have a red Ford Explorer SUV?
Do you believe or disbelieve I have a green Honda CR-V?

I have at least one of these cars. Without driving by my house, or checking DMV records, what is your basis for belief or disbelief in these claims?

[quote]POWELL:
It makes sense to me. They are claiming that both the theist and the atheist use faith. What these theists too often fail to realize are the important differences between the kind of faith a theist usually has in his God and an atheist has in his skeptical methods.My faith, if you wish to call it that, is in the efficacy of my logical abilities and reasoning powers. I have what I consider to be sufficient examples of my capabilities in these areas to trust them when drawing conclusions of this kind.

As you say, however, faith is a multi-valued word, and theists commonly conflate different meanings of the word. This, I believe, is what lucaspa is doing.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Given the way you ask the question, I'm thinking that you don't really have a red Ford Explorer SUV, so I don't have the belief that you own that kind of car. In fact, I believe that you do NOT have that kind of car.


RDALIN:
Why? How should I have phrased it?


POWELL:
It depends on what your goal was. If you wanted me to believe you had one you should have just claimed it matter-of-factly.

RDALIN:
Maybe you're reading too much into the way I asked the question.


POWELL:
Sure, that's possible.

RDALIN:
Suppose I put it this way:

Do you believe or disbelieve I have a red Ford Explorer SUV?
Do you believe or disbelieve I have a green Honda CR-V?

I have at least one of these cars. Without driving by my house, or checking DMV records, what is your basis for belief or disbelief in these claims?


POWELL:
Then I believe you have a green Honda CR-V and you do not have a red Ford Explorer SUV, 60% confidence. It's based on your language here and before. You claim to own one or the other. This is an ordinary claim, so your mere say-so as an apparently sincere, honest person could be sufficient evidence to justify me believing you. Based on the way you asked the other question I have more doubts about you owning the SUV than the CR-V.

If there were a big difference in the kind of car or price then that could affect my decision, but the SUV and CR-V seem comparable enough after a casual look. They both seem to be nice vehicles, by the way, so good choice.

POWELL:
It makes sense to me. They are claiming that both the theist and the atheist use faith. What these theists too often fail to realize are the important differences between the kind of faith a theist usually has in his God and an atheist has in his skeptical methods.


RDALIN:
My faith, if you wish to call it that, is in the efficacy of my logical abilities and reasoning powers. I have what I consider to be sufficient examples of my capabilities in these areas to trust them when drawing conclusions of this kind.


POWELL:
Good.

RDALIN:
As you say, however, faith is a multi-valued word, and theists commonly conflate different meanings of the word. This, I believe, is what lucaspa is doing.


POWELL:
That could easily be the case.

John Powell