Justification for strong atheism

[Bri]

Only the Wikipedia source referred to 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism'. The other one did not mention these terms at all.

Sorry, there is a link at the bottom of the page to an article on "strong vs. weak atheism" by the same author on that site. Here is a direct link to it. You can do a search on "strong atheism" or "weak atheism" and find plenty of references. All of the definitions I posted are in common use, and were taken from multiple sources. They were not my own.

Perhaps I should have said that the definitions I posted are "commonly used" rather than "generally accepted" since, as I pointed out, they are used differently.

Try the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which pours cold water on the idea that atheism might just have one meaning:

I never said that "atheism" had one meaning. In fact, I said quite the opposite, that they are often used in more than one way. I also noted two distinct uses of the word "atheism" termed "weak atheism" and "strong atheism."

None of this means anything unless you first define what you mean by God or god.

The word "strong atheism" does in fact have a meaning without defining a specific god. When you're not referring to a specific god, the term "strong atheism" indicates the belief that no gods exist. I'll grant you that many strong atheists do qualify their belief as pertaining only to gods defined using terms like "omnibenevolent," "omniscient," or "omnipresent." However, it is not necessary to define a particular definition of god in order to claim that you are a strong atheist.

How hard did you look?

I looked in three different dictionaries:

American Heritage: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

Princeton University WordNet: the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Meriam Webster: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Please post a reference which has a different definition for "theism."

I never said it was.

You originally said "An Agnostic believes that certain metaphysical truths are unknowable (as opposed to unknown)." I said that in reference to God, agnosticism generally means the belief that the existance of God is unknown rather than unknowable (although some agnostics might also believe that the existance of God is unknowable). You summarized Huxley's position quite nicely when you said "So I suppose Huxley's definition of an agnostic is someone who is prepared to say 'I don't know' when they don't know." This meshes quite well with the definition I posted, a commonly used definition of agnosticism.

-Bri

 

[ehbowen]

Funnily, if someone believed in a non-Christian deity, that good fortune that you had would be attributed to that persons' belief in that particular deity. Say, a person who believed in FSM. That particular scenario you mentioned, if applied onto this person, would strengthen his belief in FSM. No reason why it should be attributed to one particular deity over another.

Actually, there is a reason: Because I had entrusted my life to and committed to follow Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite reasonable for me to attribute any instances of divine intervention to him.

Is it possible that I am mistaken as to the identity of my benefactor? Yes, it is. But what is clear is that there is someone out there who is aware of my circumstances and who has the capability to and is willing to intercede upon my behalf. If I am mistaken as to his identity, he is aware of that and is apparently not offended by it. He also would be well aware that in that circumstance my greatest desire would be to in fact know the truth of who and what he is and that I would welcome any revelation he might choose to give in that area.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Hallo ehbowen,

I'm interested - can you please explain something to me?

You state:
But what is clear is that there is someone out there who is aware of my circumstances and who has the capability to and is willing to intercede upon my behalf.

Why is it clear? How do you know?

Thank you in advance....

YBW

 

[Robin]

Sorry, there is a link at the bottom of the page to an article on "strong vs. weak atheism" by the same author on that site. Here is a direct link to it.

Actually your link is about agnosticism rather than atheism:

Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism

You can do a search on "strong atheism" or "weak atheism" and find plenty of references. All of the definitions I posted are in common use, and were taken from multiple sources. They were not my own.

As I said before, the ones you posted earlier were all from Wikipedia.

Perhaps I should have said that the definitions I posted are "commonly used" rather than "generally accepted" since, as I pointed out, they are used differently.

Well that's all I said - there is no generally accepted meaning. And as the Stanford (and other articles I have referenced) pointed out they depend on what you mean by theism.

The word "strong atheism" does in fact have a meaning without defining a specific god. When you're not referring to a specific god, the term "strong atheism" indicates the belief that no gods exist. I'll grant you that many strong atheists do qualify their belief as pertaining only to gods defined using terms like "omnibenevolent," "omniscient," or "omnipresent." However, it is not necessary to define a particular definition of god in order to claim that you are a strong atheist.

So if I defined the word 'god' to mean 'banana' then some strong atheists would then believe that there was no such thing as a banana? Or does it at least require some definition?

Please post a reference which has a different definition for "theism."

Well I have already pointed out the Wikipedia one as well as extensive articles on the subject. But here is the Wiktionary one for another example:

Theism (from Greek Θεϊσμός)
Belief in the existence of God, especially by or through revelation.

But even the one's you quote go beyond the simple 'belief in god or gods' that you originally claimed.

You originally said "An Agnostic believes that certain metaphysical truths are unknowable (as opposed to unknown)." I said that in reference to God, agnosticism generally means the belief that the existance of God is unknown rather than unknowable (although some agnostics might also believe that the existance of God is unknowable). You summarized Huxley's position quite nicely when you said "So I suppose Huxley's definition of an agnostic is someone who is prepared to say 'I don't know' when they don't know." This meshes quite well with the definition I posted, a commonly used definition of agnosticism.

Well my original definition was wrong, hence I quoted Huxley's. But by his definition an agnostic would not necessarily say God was unknown or unknowable. A Huxleyan agnostic is perfectly free to say "I know" in relation to anything, including God, if they had satisfied themselves that God did in fact exist. And as I said, Huxleyan agnosticism is not a belief.

 

[arias]

Actually, there is a reason: Because I had entrusted my life to and committed to follow Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite reasonable for me to attribute any instances of divine intervention to him.

Is it possible that I am mistaken as to the identity of my benefactor? Yes, it is. But what is clear is that there is someone out there who is aware of my circumstances and who has the capability to and is willing to intercede upon my behalf. If I am mistaken as to his identity, he is aware of that and is apparently not offended by it. He also would be well aware that in that circumstance my greatest desire would be to in fact know the truth of who and what he is and that I would welcome any revelation he might choose to give in that area.

I am relatively satisfied with your reply. You concede that you may not be worshipping the Christian Tripartite God.. but my question is, why don't you stop entirely in that direction and just believe in a supreme deity without a religious tag anyway? That would be a big departure from Christianity, AND in particular, Christian doctrine. Remember, this "benefactor" is on your side, but he's not given you a book of do-s and dont-s. Assuming the benefactor is Jesus Christ, and in turn, committing to the Church and its doctrine.. is a big leap from just "There's a spiritual benefactor out there, looking out for me."

Regardless, I lay my case to rest, and I *sincerely* hope you got my point. I love the way you could come to terms with it, because I did this exact thing (strengthening belief in a deity X, where identity of X is determined by pre-existing values one has been indoctrinated/taught with) with one of my close friends and all she can come up with was: "Oh well.." and mumble it away. Thank you for your measured humility.

 

[ehbowen]

Hallo ehbowen,

I'm interested - can you please explain something to me?

You state:
But what is clear is that there is someone out there who is aware of my circumstances and who has the capability to and is willing to intercede upon my behalf.

Why is it clear? How do you know?

Thank you in advance....

YBW

To be fair, I should have said that it is clear to me that there is someone out there. This is based upon circumstances like the one which I mentioned above (the first time I was fired). There have been several such events in my life; the job I am in now and have been in for the past five years was the result of another such incident. There have been many other instances of provision, such as the old man driving the truck with a full gas can in the back who stopped by when I ran out of gas along the road in Arkansas, the passerby who interrupted the proceedings when two men were attempting to mug me, or the lady who offered me a ride to the hospital at a time when there was no way I could have afforded an ambulance fee. It's quite possible that many if not most of these were just helpful human strangers, but--who arranged for them to be there when I needed them? There have also been quieter and more personal touches, such as flashes of insight when I was wrestling with what seemed an insoluble quandry.

I am sure that anyone sufficiently motivated to insulate himself against accountability to a Creator could find a way to deconstruct any one of these incidents in accordance with his chosen worldview. To me, though, the picture is clear: Somebody up there loves me. And I think that I am sufficiently convinced of that by now that I would continue to hold to it if the roof were to fall in and everything seem to go the wrong way for a time--as indeed has happened before. But each and every time, after the season of testing passed, a way out has opened up and the end result was better than the former.

I want to be careful about the possibility of misrepresenting God as a coin-operated genie--insert a quarter and make a wish. There are some prayers that I have yet to see answered--including three in particular which have been on my mind for more than twenty years now. It would be easy to give up, but I choose to believe that, when all is said and done, God will either do all that I have asked for or else will do something which I and everyone else involved will agree was, in the long run, better all around.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thank you ehbowen,

I'm happy for you that you find comfort in your beliefs.

I'm afraid, however, when I look at these sort of things I just think "What a curious coincidence", and move on - for example, just a few weeks after I lost my job (this was years ago), I saw an advert for a new one, requesting exactly the same skills as I had. Coincidence - yes - hand of God - not necessary.

The problem with this for me, is that why would God care enough to help me - an Atheist - when he wouldn't help any of the devout religious poeple who were killed in New Orleans, for example. There must have been many who were killed in agony, and many more suffering because they've lost loved ones. All God had to do was wave his hands, or whatever, and the hurricane would have stayed out at sea until it faded away.

YBW

 

[Bri]

Actually your link is about agnosticism rather than atheism

Sorry again! That site has some incorrect links. Try this one.

Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. All use the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism." The first link even claims in its FAQ that the term "atheism" by itself means "weak atheism" (lack of a belief in the existance of a god or gods).

Your own source (Wiktionary) defines atheism like this:

atheism

1. the absence of belief in deities. (weak atheism)
2. the claim that no God or gods exist. (strong atheism)
3. the antonym of theism (belief in a god or gods).

So if I defined the word 'god' to mean 'banana' then some strong atheists would then believe that there was no such thing as a banana? Or does it at least require some definition?

When a strong atheist claims that "no gods exist" they likely have in mind at least some requirements for what constitutes a "god" (and excludes bananas). I would think that a strong atheist who doesn't specify a definition for "god" generally means something like "any supernatural being." You'd have to ask the folks who make claims such as "there are no gods" without defining "god" (there are some on this forum).

Well I have already pointed out the Wikipedia one as well as extensive articles on the subject. But here is the Wiktionary one for another example

Wikipedia defines "theism" like this:

Theism is the belief in one or more gods or goddesses.

It goes on to give a secondary definition which differentiates theism from deism (rather than supporting the notion that theism is a form of deism):

More specifically, it may also mean the belief in God, a god, or gods, who is/are actively involved in maintaining the Universe.

Even your Wiktionary definition states that a theist doesn't have to arrive at his or her belief through any particular means by the use of the term "especially." None of the sources supports the notion that theism is a form of deism, although by most definitions, the reverse might be true (deism is a form of theism). From Wikipedia:

However, theism can include faith or revelation as a basis for belief, while deism includes only belief which can be substantiated through reason.

Deism can be considered as the form of theism in opposition to fideism, while other schemas separate deism and theism.

But even the one's you quote go beyond the simple 'belief in god or gods' that you originally claimed.

Yes, but they all use qualifiers such as "especially" or "specifically" and none of them state anything about how the creator is known.

Well my original definition was wrong, hence I quoted Huxley's. But by his definition an agnostic would not necessarily say God was unknown or unknowable. A Huxleyan agnostic is perfectly free to say "I know" in relation to anything, including God, if they had satisfied themselves that God did in fact exist. And as I said, Huxleyan agnosticism is not a belief.

The word "agnostic" literally means "without knowledge," and I don't see anything in Huxley's definition that would allow one to claim to know for certain that God exists and still be an agnostic. In addition, there are commonly used definitions of agnosticism that state it as a belief that God is unknown, and none that state agnosticism as the belief that God is known. Your own source (Wiktionary) defines "agnosticism" like this:

agnosticism

1. the view that the existence of any god is unknown at present
2. the view that any god's existence is unknowable
3. the view that theism is incoherent (see ignosticism)

-Bri

 

[HypnoPsi]

For people who claim atheism is a religion, or that (strong) atheism requires just as much faith as theism:

I'm a strong atheist. I claim no gods exist. Do I know this with certainty? No. But certainty is an impossible and unecessary burden for belief (or non belief) to be rational.

Unless you can show me god is logical via reason, or verfiable via either my senses, or the scientific method, the default mode HAS TO BE that no gods exist. This has to be the deafult mode.

Since I cannot sense any gods, nor have I seen any compelling logical arguments for a god's existence, my strong atheism is perfectly rational.

Atheism can be described as a possible candidate for the default position - but "materialistic atheism" (physicalism) definately cannot.

Logically, many assume that "Solipsism" is the "real" default position - but there is an obvious problem with the idea that "Self" is the only thing that can be known to exist: namely that you cannot have a sense of "Self" without a sense of that which is "Not-Self"; the "Other-than-Self". So, within us, as conscious beings, there is the "known knower" of both Selfness and Otherness.

Understanding the origin of "theism" depends on understanding the "Otherness" since it is that "Otherness" which is appropriated by those who teach that it is all "Krishna Consciousness", "Allah", "Our Father, who art in Heaven...", "Buddha Nature", etc.,.

Either way, whatever the default is, something like "Panpsychism", "Pantheism" or "Animism" either is the default position - or is much closer to it than "Materialistic atheism". Why? Because first, the "physicalist" has to believe that the phenomenal world/universe is, in reality, some fundamental form of M/E (matter energy) - when, in truth, all we can really know are phenomena in consciousness.

In addition, the physicalist, then has to believe that this fundamental form of M/E is it's own Source (that it has not been "created".) Next, the physicalist then has to believe that he and his consciousness are the result of physical processes. And finally, he has to believe, without any direct knowledge of such that his consciousness came into existence with the body and will die with the body.

That's not the default position. That's not even [/i]close[/i] to the default position. That's "faith" in this, that and the next thing....

It's easy to think that because you are "absent" of belief in "God" that you are more default than those "with" belief in "God", but it just can't be the case logically. We "know" consciousness while we don't, and can't, ever really know "matter".

However you look at it panpsychism or pantheism is always going to be one or two steps from the real default position of either solipsism or "Known Knower" of Selfness and Otherness.

Materialistic atheism is at the same level of knowledge removed from default as Monotheism. The monotheist considers himself more refined than the animist, but he believes in matter. The monotheist has taken his sense of Otherness and coupled it with his belief in "physical reality" (as opposed to simply believing in the "phenomenal" world/universe) and came up with "God" as "Creator".
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Robin]

Your own source (Wiktionary) defines atheism like this:

My source? Remember I am only quoting Wiki because of your preference.

When a strong atheist claims that "no gods exist" they likely have in mind at least some requirements for what constitutes a "god" (and excludes bananas). I would think that a strong atheist who doesn't specify a definition for "god" generally means something like "any supernatural being." You'd have to ask the folks who make claims such as "there are no gods" without defining "god" (there are some on this forum).

Why would I ask them? You are the one that claimed that these terms might have meaning in the absence of a sufficient definition for God and gods.

Even your Wiktionary definition states that a theist doesn't have to arrive at his or her belief through any particular means by the use of the term "especially."

But my original definition which you complained of used the term "generally". I didn't say it exclusively meant belief in God through revelation.

Yes, but they all use qualifiers such as "especially" or "specifically" and none of them state anything about how the creator is known.

Except for the Wiktionary one (by or through revelation). Oh and the Brittanica article I quoted earlier, and the Hasting article. The Oxford dictionary definition of theism mentions the role of revelation also.

The word "agnostic" literally means "without knowledge," and I don't see anything in Huxley's definition that would allow one to claim to know for certain that God exists and still be an agnostic.

Literal renditions of a words root are pretty meaningless, especially when the person who coined the word has given a good definition. Huxley says that you should say you don't know when you don't know. He does not say that you must be "without knowledge" about everything. So someone who did believe they had knowledge of God through good empirical means would be a strong Theist and technically a Huxleyan agnostic.

In addition, there are commonly used definitions of agnosticism that state it as a belief that God is unknown, and none that state agnosticism as the belief that God is known.

There are many commonly used definitions. I repeat Huxley coined the word so lets use his.

Your own source (Wiktionary) defines "agnosticism" like this:

Again, I quote wiki because you like it. When you first used Wiki I said I didn't
consider it a good source - so why do you persist in calling it my source.

My source for the definition of agnosticism is primary.

My other sources are the very extensive article in the Brittanica macropedia and the article in Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

 

[Bri]

My other sources are the very extensive article in the Brittanica macropedia and the article in Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.

I'll let you have the last word on this. Enough said.

-Bri