Doubting your disbelief?

[thaiboxerken]

And you're still misusing straw man dumbass.

Yes, really. The "difference" between strong and weak atheism is a construct, a straw-man. If you want to believe there is a difference, that's your woo to deal with. I simply won't buy into it. Either a person believes in a god or they don't.

 

[Beerina]

There may be some weirdness as to why reality is as it is that isn't pure physics -- but it sure won't remotely resemble any religion known to Man.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Allow me to restate what I said earlier since it's been driven off topic.

I believe that disbelievers/unbelievers are simply missing the forest through the trees. We are examining each tiny aspect of our universe while not looking at the "big picture" to see how it all comes together in a way which contradicts our world view.

I have been thinking about some arguments supporting a theistic world view for a while now and there are quite a few of them which don't fit into your typical theistic arguments but are quite convincing.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Yes, really. The "difference" between strong and weak atheism is a construct, a straw-man. If you want to believe there is a difference, that's your woo to deal with. I simply won't buy into it. Either a person believes in a god or they don't.

The difference between strong atheism and weak atheism can be summed up in two sentences:

"I believe that God/gods doesn't/don't exist" (Strong Atheism)

"I don't believe that God/gods does/do exist" (Weak Atheism)

In strong atheism, the negation and therefore the focus of the sentence is on the existence of God/gods, whereas in weak atheism, the negation and therefore the focus of the sentence lie on one's belief.

I fail to see how this is a "construct" and implicitly a false distinction. The statements are about two completely separate and (presumably) mutually exclusive sets of things: "things that I believe" (strong atheism) and "things that I don't believe" (weak atheism). Therefore, they cannot be logically equivalent.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I fail to see how this is a "construct" and implicitly a false distinction.

I fail to see any distinction. I don't believe Santa exists or I believe Santa doesn't exist mean the same thing to me. Logically, both convey the same message.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Mijopaalmc is right obviously. The statement "I believe that God does not exist" is a positive denial of the existence of God. However the statement "I do not believe that God exists" is not necessarily a positive denial of the existence of God but simply a statement of a lack of belief in a God. Denial and lack of belief are two separate things and are the root of the differences between "Strong" and "Weak" atheism.



However can a Mod please separate this "Definition of Atheism" discussion from this post? It's off topic.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Mijopaalmc is right obviously. The statement "I believe that God does not exist" is a positive denial of the existence of God. However the statement "I do not believe that God exists" is not necessarily a positive denial of the existence of God but simply a statement of a lack of belief in a God. Denial and lack of belief are two separate things and are the root of the differences between "Strong" and "Weak" atheism.



However can a Mod please separate this "Definition of Atheism" discussion from this post? It's off topic.

I'm sorry that I did hijack your thread, but is particularly difficult to have a discussion on questioning one's beliefs if it is believed that there are no beliefs to question in the first place.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Have you ever doubted that you don't believe Santa is real?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. As I stated earlier, I have been thinking about some arguments supporting a theistic world view for a while now and there are quite a few of them which don't fit into your typical theistic arguments but are quite convincing. I'm saying that there might be a rational way to believe in a God supported by purely logically consistent arguments. That perhaps I along with all other non-believers have simply been missing the forest through the trees. We are examining each tiny aspect of our universe while not looking at the "big picture" to see how it all comes together in a way which contradicts our world view.

 

[thaiboxerken]

God and Santa are both the same thing, fictional beings. However, if you feel that there is a logical, rational reason to believe in a god, feel free to present it. Oh, and don't forget to mention which god it is that you are trying to show is reasonable to believe in.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

God and Santa are both the same thing, fictional beings. However, if you feel that there is a logical, rational reason to believe in a god, feel free to present it. Oh, and don't forget to mention which god it is that you are trying to show is reasonable to believe in.

I'm talking about Yahweh I.E. the God of Abraham here specifically. Have you read Spinoza, Kant, Aquinas or C.S. Lewis and their arguments in support of a God? I have been reading about and thinking of numerous arguments in support of a God, specifically the God of Abraham and they simply aren't your old run of the mill easily refutable arguments and are highly sophisticated and convincing to even the most critical and prudent of people which I consider myself. Have you actually read these philosophers and their actual books?

 

[MrFrankZito]

Has anyone here distinctly doubted their atheistic or agnostic beliefs after having become an atheist or agnostic? I was wondering if anyone here has ever come to a period when they doubted their disbelief in the existence of God for one reason or another. People are always changing and it's rare for a person to hold a single belief their entire lives so I am wondering if anyone here has come upon let's say an argument supporting theism that made them stop and think that maybe their disbelief was faulty.

I'm not brilliant enough to be 100% secure in anything I hold to be true. So, I have had moments of doubt. But, there are some things that snap me right out of my doubt and return me to staunch atheism:

The vastness of the universe in relation to God's apparent "chosen" creation.

The 10,000 other religions vying for my allegiance.

The scientific absurdities found in the Bible by the dozen.

The lack of hard evidence for most of Christianity's ********.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Dustin, the biblical god is simply absurd. Instead of telling me to read books to find out what arguments you think might be impressive, why don't you simply post the arguments in the thread? I'm sure the fallacies will be quickly pointed out. In short, there is no valid, sound, logical argument for the existence of the biblical god.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Really? Man you're pretty ignorant of your own position. Perhaps you should read this helpful Introduction to Atheism. You'll find the definitions to strong and weak atheism there.

And you're still misusing straw man dumbass.

Yes, really. The "difference" between strong and weak atheism is a construct, a straw-man. If you want to believe there is a difference, that's your woo to deal with. I simply won't buy into it. Either a person believes in a god or they don't.

No stupid. If atheists themselves like the Internet Infidels article I directed you to note a distinction by definition it cannot be a straw man since it is not a character or false representation of what atheists themselves describe themselves as.

If you're too dense to understand theres a difference between a negative or neutral "I don't believe gods exist" and a positive "I believe gods don't exist" that's something I can't help you with, but if you're going to toss around "straw man" you need to at least use it appropriately.

 

[Tricky]

What the hell is an atheistic belief?

The belief that the worship of any God or gods should be based on the evidence for the existence of said entities.

 

[Apathia]

I'm talking about Yahweh I.E. the God of Abraham here specifically. Have you read Spinoza, Kant, Aquinas or C.S. Lewis and their arguments in support of a God? I have been reading about and thinking of numerous arguments in support of a God, specifically the God of Abraham and they simply aren't your old run of the mill easily refutable arguments and are highly sophisticated and convincing to even the most critical and prudent of people which I consider myself. Have you actually read these philosophers and their actual books?

I've read all of the above and taken their arguments seriously. The result of considering all those classic arguments for Theism, is for me, that I'm no longer a Theist.

I'd say, dive in! Even take Theism for a spin and try it out.
It's best to give such a pivotal cultural matter you full personal investigation.

 

[fromdownunder]

Instead of telling me to read books to find out what arguments you think might be impressive, why don't you simply post the arguments in the thread?

Bingo!

Dustin, expecting people to read three or four books, and then trying to second guess what particular arguments in these that you find convincing, is a waste of peoples time.

It is no better than me saying:

"Read the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was right. Then you read it, point out something that is false, but I reply, no I did not mean thast passage!"

What we need to know is why you think what you think, or this discussion will go nowhere, which is why it fell off the tracks in the first place.

Norm

 

[Wheezebucket]

Aquinas and Lewis were both instrumental in helping me realize what a load of chum the idea of God was.

I'll leave you to re-read them and figure out why.

 

[andyandy]

I'm talking about Yahweh I.E. the God of Abraham here specifically. Have you read Spinoza, Kant, Aquinas or C.S. Lewis and their arguments in support of a God? I have been reading about and thinking of numerous arguments in support of a God, specifically the God of Abraham and they simply aren't your old run of the mill easily refutable arguments and are highly sophisticated and convincing to even the most critical and prudent of people which I consider myself. Have you actually read these philosophers and their actual books?

Highly sophisticated and convincing? Don't keep them to yourself. Give a summary.

I await your most prudent and critical evaluation.

 

[Kahalachan]

I'm talking about Yahweh I.E. the God of Abraham here specifically. Have you read Spinoza, Kant, Aquinas or C.S. Lewis and their arguments in support of a God? I have been reading about and thinking of numerous arguments in support of a God, specifically the God of Abraham and they simply aren't your old run of the mill easily refutable arguments and are highly sophisticated and convincing to even the most critical and prudent of people which I consider myself. Have you actually read these philosophers and their actual books?

I think C.S. Lewis was horrible. Good children's author but didn't support Yahweh well at all. Which arguments of his did you find convincing?

Spinoza felt pantheist from all that I've read. I don't think he supported the Biblical god at all.

To answer the original question, I don't know if I doubt my disbelief. I do question it or say "What if" or "Wouldn't it be cool if" to myself. I don't really think these questions are enough to make me retract my atheism or consider it.