Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[H3LL]

Atheism is surely the default position.

Strong atheism is, in my mind, similar to the 'belief' that there can be no two snowflakes the same.

Larger, complex snowflakes are all different. The number of possible ways of making a complex snowflake is staggeringly large. To see just how much so, consider a simpler question -- how many ways can you arrange 15 books on your bookshelf? Well, there's 15 choices for the first book, 14 for the second, 13 for the third, etc. Multiply it out and there are over a trillion ways to arrange just 15 books. With a hundred books, the number of possible arrangements goes up to just under 10158 (that's a 1 followed by 158 zeros). That number is about 1070 times larger than the total number of atoms in the entire universe!
Now when you look at a complex snow crystal, you can often pick out a hundred separate features if you look closely. Since all those features could have grown differently, or ended up in slightly different places, the math is similar to that with the books. Thus the number of ways to make a complex snow crystal is absolutely huge.
And thus it's unlikely that any two complex snow crystals, out of all those made over the entire history of the planet, have ever looked completely alike.

Any god must be more complex than a simple snowflake.

Too improbable to consider.

.

 

[Marc L]

I'm a militant agnostic:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/23084574cc78e14d6.jpg[/qimg]

Cool. I like this one myself.

We don't know, and we don't care!

Marc

 

[hammegk]

How is weak atheism illogical?

I see no evidence there is a God, so I don't believe there is one.

There may be one, there may be evidence, I just haven't seen it.

Where's the failure in logic?

See comments below.

Yeah, but that's not really addressing god at all. That's just a semantic rename of "the universe" with none of the baggage of god. I might as well rename my toes "god" and say that gods exist on the end of my feet. While true, it doesn't say anything except that I mess around with words.

I agree ymmv using that concept.

What do you mean? How do they devolve into "dualism"?

Assuming one is basically a materialist, if the 'god' concept they hold invokes 'the supernatural' it's dualism.

What is "objective idealism"?

A philosophical position that is the opposite of materialism. Thought, not matter, is what exists.

What do you mean by "monism"?

Materialism is a monism, and can be logically defended.

Idealism is a term for materialism's antithesis, also a monism.

My understanding of reality is based on observations of it, a lot of them done by people smarter than me, that's all.

Me too.

You seem to also be a materialist

No.

so this doesn't seem to be about some lifegazer style "reality doesn't exist" thing.

That's right.

So, what's up? Are you basically saying "I think these two things but not really for logic but just because it's my personal preference."?

Sorry. I don't understand that question.

Also, 100%? So, does that mean that like me you don't think god exists for the same reason you don't think santa exists, or are you going even further and stating "I can never be convinced that god exists, even if evidence is presented", which is the step I fall short of because it's just saying you only BELIEVE god doesn't exist, and well being right for the wrong reasons is still wrong. It's like saying "1 + 1 = 2 because every addition problem equals 2". Right answer, bad work.

No, I take no 100% position on the existence of god. As others have noted, I've never seen a definition of god I'd accept, although I'd consider myself an a-theist.


ETA. As I see it, a 100% materialist should use the epistemology of science to deny the possibility that any concept that could be considered god could exist. An idealist accepts that same epistemology but need not absolutely deny the god concept.

 

[Meadmaker]

One complicating factor in deciding which category fits in is that the answer might be different for different religions. I'm really, really, confident that Jesus was not God, or 1/3 of God, or the son of God, or any more God-like than anyone reading this. So, with respect to Christianity, I'm a strong atheist.

With respect to God in general, I'm much less certain. I think strong agnostic describes me best, a position I got from reading the Buddha's argument about whether or not God exists.

 

[Rufo]

The evidence is the imperfection of our world. The only definition we then need is God as omni-everything and its clear that the two things are not compatible.

It's a slam-dunk really, but the vehemence with which theists argue their case is usually indirectly proportional to how strong their argument is. So this argument, being a real killer, has generated volumes and volumes of sophistry designed to counter it.

This has largely been successful in producing the perception that the problem is really very subtle and complicated. This overlooks the fact that not one of the apologist counter-arguments is actually any good.

God is (in the problem of evil) defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Those are the terms I think should be defined invoking the problem of evil as evidence - for a start. It is particularly the term 'omnibenevolent' that disturbs me. And since you mentioned it, 'imperfection' would be another one.

There is similar slam-dunk evidence for the existance of God as well. By getting into the definitions of terms used in this evidence, philosophers have proven it to be useless - yet it is still occasionally discussed. I would be surprised if the same had never been done with the problem of evil.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that even defining god, even if you don't think it exists, as "supernatural" is wrong because it contradicts a materialistic viewpoint? That's silly. Defining something that doesn't exist has no bearing on your viewpoint of what does exist. Why should I make my ideas on things that I don't think exist somehow be compatible with my ideas on things that do exist? It's irrelevant if they "use the same monism". It's irrelevant if I even have a monism for the massive number of things that are not.

 

[joobz]

Why is there a desire to define how one views the nonexistence of something? Is there only 1 true path to atheism?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

To the first question, because we're trying to make it clear why we don't think god exists. That's only important because there's a lot of people who ask that.

To the second, path? It's the default position from birth, and if you've read a number of stories here, you'll see people have come from all sorts of backgrounds before eventually giving up the faith (those that believed in a god at least).

 

[hammegk]

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that even defining god, even if you don't think it exists, as "supernatural" is wrong because it contradicts a materialistic viewpoint?

Er, you talking to me???

If so, no. Materialism, if held as a logical position, cannot possibly define god.

That's silly. Defining something that doesn't exist has no bearing on your viewpoint of what does exist. Why should I make my ideas on things that I don't think exist somehow be compatible with my ideas on things that do exist?

Worse than silly. Doing so would move one to some dualism stance.

It's irrelevant if they "use the same monism".

If someone can suggest how materialism can possibly accept the concept of god, I'd like to hear it.

It's irrelevant if I even have a monism for the massive number of things that are not.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[joobz]

To the first question, because we're trying to make it clear why we don't think god exists. That's only important because there's a lot of people who ask that.

To the second, path? It's the default position from birth, and if you've read a number of stories here, you'll see people have come from all sorts of backgrounds before eventually giving up the faith (those that believed in a god at least).

I understand that completely. But there seems to exist some debate as to the viability and/or legitimacy of various types of atheism. To an external observer, this subdivisioning of atheists into groups seems a lot like denominations of religion. I'm not saying it is, but I wonder if the element that causes humans to fractionate into religious denominations also drives the need for these distinctions.

With that said, I exist in the nondefensible completely irrational realm of
agnostic-theist. I don't believe but I want to.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I understand that completely. But there seems to exist some debate as to the viability and/or legitimacy of various types of atheism. To an external observer, this subdivisioning of atheists into groups seems a lot like denominations of religion. I'm not saying it is, but I wonder if the element that causes humans to fractionate into religious denominations also drives the need for these distinctions.

With that said, I exist in the nondefensible completely irrational realm of
agnostic-theist. I don't believe but I want to.

I don't really think there's much division within the atheist position. Everyone's an individual of course and since there's no central authority to define rules and protocols everyone comes to atheism by their own path. But it's very rare that I encounter a "strong atheist". Claiming absolute knowledge that no gods exist seems like hubris to me and I've more often encountered the "strong atheist" as a straw man than as a real person. Most atheists, myself included, seem to fall into the "weak atheist" category. "There is no evidence of the existence of gods." The ability to admit the limits of our knowledge is, I feel, an important part of our ability to gain knowledge.

That said, I must say I don't care for the term "weak atheist". It sounds too wishy washy to me. To me it coveys the impression that my position is not based on years of rational thought.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I understand that completely. But there seems to exist some debate as to the viability and/or legitimacy of various types of atheism. To an external observer, this subdivisioning of atheists into groups seems a lot like denominations of religion. I'm not saying it is, but I wonder if the element that causes humans to fractionate into religious denominations also drives the need for these distinctions.

With that said, I exist in the nondefensible completely irrational realm of
agnostic-theist. I don't believe but I want to.

What's with the font BTW? Did Kleinman get to you? He put a pod in your room while you were sleeping didn't he? OMG!!! You're "Pod-Tom" aren't you? EVERYBODY PANIC!

 

[Tricky]

I don't really think there's much division within the atheist position. Everyone's an individual of course and since there's no central authority to define rules and protocols everyone comes to atheism by their own path. But it's very rare that I encounter a "strong atheist". Claiming absolute knowledge that no gods exist seems like hubris to me and I've more often encountered the "strong atheist" as a straw man than as a real person.

There are a few though. I think "The Atheist" claims to be a strong atheist, as does Thaiboxerken. But if pressed, you will find that what they really mean is that their certainty is so close to 100% that the difference is insignificant. They will usually admit that 100% certainty requires absolute knowledge.

But you are right. Such atheists are rare, even here.

Most atheists, myself included, seem to fall into the "weak atheist" category. "There is no evidence of the existence of gods." The ability to admit the limits of our knowledge is, I feel, an important part of our ability to gain knowledge.

Perzackly.

That said, I must say I don't care for the term "weak atheist". It sounds too wishy washy to me. To me it coveys the impression that my position is not based on years of rational thought.

Me neither, which is why I use "agnostic atheist" which short-circuits the "are you atheist or agnostic?" question. I'm both.

But you are right, we need another adjective instead of "weak". Flexible atheist? Appraising Atheist? Pragmatic atheist?

 

[Foster Zygote]

There are a few though. I think "The Atheist" claims to be a strong atheist, as does Thaiboxerken. But if pressed, you will find that what they really mean is that their certainty is so close to 100% that the difference is insignificant. They will usually admit that 100% certainty requires absolute knowledge.

But you are right. Such atheists are rare, even here.

Perzackly.

Me neither, which is why I use "agnostic atheist" which short-circuits the "are you atheist or agnostic?" question. I'm both.

But you are right, we need another adjective instead of "weak". Flexible atheist? Appraising Atheist? Pragmatic atheist?

Sparkley atheist? Happy-happy, joy-joy atheist? Orgasmotronic atheist?

 

[Mercutio]

That said, I must say I don't care for the term "weak atheist". It sounds too wishy washy to me. To me it coveys the impression that my position is not based on years of rational thought.

The whole concept makes no sense unless viewed with theistic assumptions. It makes sense to ask how much one believes in X (say, on a scale of 1-10), and dichotomize some to "strong" and others to "weak" belief. But the absence of a belief is just that. There is no 0! that is greater than 0, but less strong than 0!!!. The terminology seems to be a sneaky way to be able to claim that atheism is a belief system just like theism (and therefore--to take one possibility--we cannot ask the schools to disallow school-sponsored prayer, because that means they are promoting an atheistic belief system). (see the "atheism is a faith" thread.)

When asked to label myself with these silly labels, I have always refused. The labels do not apply, and any attempt at forcing them to fit leads to misunderstanding. I am an atheist. That's as far as I need go. It makes no sense to ask if I "don't believe there is a god" or "believe there is no god". The whole concept of a god is defined by those who believe in them, so the question is utterly irrelevant to me, and I will not play that game.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

That said, I must say I don't care for the term "weak atheist". It sounds too wishy washy to me. To me it coveys the impression that my position is not based on years of rational thought.

You may wish to try out negative atheist.

 

[hammegk]

"Closet Dualist" works too.

 

[joobz]

What's with the font BTW? Did Kleinman get to you? He put a pod in your room while you were sleeping didn't he? OMG!!! You're "Pod-Tom" aren't you? EVERYBODY PANIC!

No, it's me. I just did a spell check in word to make sure I'm not an idiot....but as it turns out.

I just forgot switch the font back.

 

[Mercutio]

"Closet Dualist" works too.

How many threads does this make?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The whole concept makes no sense unless viewed with theistic assumptions. It makes sense to ask how much one believes in X (say, on a scale of 1-10), and dichotomize some to "strong" and others to "weak" belief. But the absence of a belief is just that. There is no 0! that is greater than 0, but less strong than 0!!!. The terminology seems to be a sneaky way to be able to claim that atheism is a belief system just like theism (and therefore--to take one possibility--we cannot ask the schools to disallow school-sponsored prayer, because that means they are promoting an atheistic belief system). (see the "atheism is a faith" thread.)

When asked to label myself with these silly labels, I have always refused. The labels do not apply, and any attempt at forcing them to fit leads to misunderstanding. I am an atheist. That's as far as I need go. It makes no sense to ask if I "don't believe there is a god" or "believe there is no god". The whole concept of a god is defined by those who believe in them, so the question is utterly irrelevant to me, and I will not play that game.

I like that approach too. No one label can ever be detailed enough to describe by position without me having to explain the finer details. I'd prefer to answer numerous questions rather than have someone make assumptions based on some simple label.