Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[drkitten]

Couldn't agree more, but do you think the churches which actually do charity work mightn't be a whole lot more effective if they didn't kneel around saying how cool their god-bloke was?

Out of curiosity, which churches are you thinking of that don't do charity work?

In my experiences, groups of people that don't "kneel around saying how cool their god-bloke was" tend not to participate in charity work as much as groups that do.

 

[The Atheist]

Out of curiosity, which churches are you thinking of that don't do charity work?

In my experiences, groups of people that don't "kneel around saying how cool their god-bloke was" tend not to participate in charity work as much as groups that do.

This is a question I'd like to have answered as I would be in danger of tempering my anti-religion stance if it were shown that christians comparatively give more time and money to charity than atheists. I guess it's one of those things which isn't researched as it's of very limited interest, but I would dearly love to be shown actual and factual detail on the subject.

I have a sneaky suspicion you might be right as I do know some very selfish atheists.

As to which churches do which charity, first off we'd need to specify what is charity and what isn't. There are several fundamental churches close to my home which count charity as providing scholarships to "Spend a Year in the Son" as they so succinctly put it. I don't class that as charity, and they're the type of church I mean. I accept that some churches do charity very well, including one of the most-despised [by me] churches, the Salvation Army.

 

[Mercutio]

What this all sounds like is people saying they have the same degree of certainty that there is no god as a religious fundamentalist has that there is a god.

Um... the null hypothesis is axiomatically assumed. It is the default position. Any measure of belief is measuring a different thing than lack therof. "Degree of certainty" can only be understood in terms of positively defined things, as far as I know.

I think perhaps this is what gets frustrating. I hoped to have been clear that the whole idea of "degree of certainty" is a theistic notion, and what it sounds like is exactly what I am arguing against.

*sigh*

 

[The Atheist]

Um... the null hypothesis is axiomatically assumed. It is the default position. Any measure of belief is measuring a different thing than lack therof. "Degree of certainty" can only be understood in terms of positively defined things, as far as I know.

I think perhaps this is what gets frustrating. I hoped to have been clear that the whole idea of "degree of certainty" is a theistic notion, and what it sounds like is exactly what I am arguing against.

*sigh*

Ok, let's turn it around.

Religion is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated. This is something I do believe and it's a statement I make frequently.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

'bated breath. Abated. Held.

Oops. But who knew how much debate there is about this?

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Ok, let's turn it around.

Religion is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated. This is something I do believe and it's a statement I make frequently.

Now, this is a positive belief. It is also (obviously) not a necessary part of atheism, so you can see how a measure of the strength of this belief is irrelevant to any "strength of atheism" sort of thing.

For instance, I do not agree with you. Not because your statement is necessarily wrong, but because it is overly simplistic. I would not agree or disagree with such a broad and hazy assessment.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Um... the null hypothesis is axiomatically assumed. It is the default position. Any measure of belief is measuring a different thing than lack therof. "Degree of certainty" can only be understood in terms of positively defined things, as far as I know.

I think perhaps this is what gets frustrating. I hoped to have been clear that the whole idea of "degree of certainty" is a theistic notion, and what it sounds like is exactly what I am arguing against.

*sigh*

It sounds like a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo to escape from the responsibility of holding a belief. Everything that has no proof will have a similar situation where skeptics will deny it due to lack of proof until there is proof. Some things will ultimately be shown to be true and others not , so it has no bearing on the truth of the concept.

 

[Tricky]

Oops. But who knew how much debate there is about this?

A master debater?

 

[Jekyll]

The blue bit, if I understand drkitten properly, is more or less the definition of a privative. For any number of gods, you have looked at the evidence and said "absolutely not!" But each of those decisions is framed by the theist's definition of that god. You are not rejecting entities you have yourself invented. Your stance requires theirs.

Your red bit is, I would argue, more of a personal thing. For me, the "I see no evidence to convince me of a god" which might sound "neutral" to you, is the same "no" as yours. I am simply accustomed to thinking of null hypotheses, burdens of proof, and the like. I cannot conceive of someone who has less belief in a god than I do, and yet I cannot conceive of that as being an extreme position. It is just zero on the scale(s)...frankly, it is a "hey, it's your scale, why do you insist on measuring me?" I don't care about their scale. On a scale of 1-10, how blue is the concept of time? Which is greater, three or cement? Sorry, I am not going to rate myself "EXTREME ZERO!!!!" just because 1-10 don't apply. Let theists use their scale. I have better things to do.

I think this is going to come down to a difference in Bayesian/Frequentialist perspectives. To my mind, I've weighed the case for a deity and found it wanting and this is as much a shift as weighing the case for god and finding it plausible. My priors have shifted accordingly and I'm much more likely to dismiss out of hand someone who says, "We're only here because of god." than someone who says, "We're only here because of *unknown-process-that-sounds-vaguely-scientific*." I'll at least try and find out what the second person is talking about, even when I'm not in the mood for debate.

This fundamental difference between informed rejectance and uninformed unawareness is tacitly acknowledge by every church that continues to send missionaries to Africa despite the higher secular population density in Western Europe.

I suppose that in terms of hypothesis testing, we could say that the repeated failure to validate the god hypothesis has created the need for a much greater p-value at the next round, in order to validate God's existence at the meta-analysis level.

 

[The Atheist]

Now, this is a positive belief. It is also (obviously) not a necessary part of atheism, so you can see how a measure of the strength of this belief is irrelevant to any "strength of atheism" sort of thing.

The trouble is that what other way is there of separating the differing attitudes of atheists?

I can't see how it's irrelevant at all. There have been an extraordinary number of threads on the subject and there are degrees within atheism.

We agree that "atheism" is your null hypothesis.

I go a stage further than that null hypothesis, having made a positive, anti-religion statement. Maybe "strength" is the wrong term as it does imply degrees of faith rather than action, which is where I make my point. The vast majority of atheists are happy to be atheists and the thought of gods and religion never crosses their mind. Then there are those like myself who are as different from them as chalk and cheese. There deserves to be some kind of separation between us - I'm sure the moderate atheists don't really want to be associated with me and my kind, for starters.

I think that the weight of opinion is agin you as well.

 

[Mercutio]

It sounds like a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo to escape from the responsibility of holding a belief. Everything that has no proof will have a similar situation where skeptics will deny it due to lack of proof until there is proof. Some things will ultimately be shown to be true and others not , so it has no bearing on the truth of the concept.

So...why, again, is it that not believing something for which there is no proof is termed "philosophical mumbo jumbo"? Methinks once again, the theistic majority has determined the language that will be used, and can dictate which beliefs one must be "responsible" about. Sorry, but I am not going to do the legwork of trying out every religion in case one holds water. I have my beliefs; there are, likely, an infinite number of possible beliefs that I do not have. The rules and practices of the beliefs I do not hold are not mine.

Have you shirked the responsibility of holding a belief in the debate about whether the former Craig family property should be developed into a practice field, although it is a mere 70 feet from residential homes? This is a very real issue, affecting very real people. True, it is one of the millions of billions of things you cannot be expected to care about, but there is, at least, evidence that you could examine to help you come to a conclusion.

(Which brings up an odd point. I can care deeply about the behavior of religious individuals; I can care about what various religious institutions have done, positively or negatively. Indeed The Atheist has demonstrated that he has strong feelings on these issues. This is quite separate from the issue of theism and atheism. Where is the "responsibility of holding a belief" about a topic that is unfalsifiable even if evidence could possibly be clear...which it never is. Sorry again, but as Interesting Ian used to say, I can't be arsed about this.)

 

[Mercutio]

The trouble is that what other way is there of separating the differing attitudes of atheists?

As positive beliefs, of course. Antipathy toward a given church is not the sole provenance of atheists; other churches share some of those beliefs. (Check out Landover Baptist for this, taken to an extreme )

Oddly enough, the only people I have known who actually hate god have been quite religious (they had recently lost their second child). Dislike of religion (any, or all) is different from dislike (or hatred) of god. I fear that your desire to measure the attitudes of atheists is a tangled mess; the attitudes you measure will be shared by (some) theists, and not a measure of their atheism at all.

It behooves us to be precise in our definitions. There is too much imprecision in these questions already; there is no need to add to it.

 

[Dogdoctor]

So...why, again, is it that not believing something for which there is no proof is termed "philosophical mumbo jumbo"? Methinks once again, the theistic majority has determined the language that will be used, and can dictate which beliefs one must be "responsible" about. Sorry, but I am not going to do the legwork of trying out every religion in case one holds water. I have my beliefs; there are, likely, an infinite number of possible beliefs that I do not have. The rules and practices of the beliefs I do not hold are not mine.

Have you shirked the responsibility of holding a belief in the debate about whether the former Craig family property should be developed into a practice field, although it is a mere 70 feet from residential homes? This is a very real issue, affecting very real people. True, it is one of the millions of billions of things you cannot be expected to care about, but there is, at least, evidence that you could examine to help you come to a conclusion.

(Which brings up an odd point. I can care deeply about the behavior of religious individuals; I can care about what various religious institutions have done, positively or negatively. Indeed The Atheist has demonstrated that he has strong feelings on these issues. This is quite separate from the issue of theism and atheism. Where is the "responsibility of holding a belief" about a topic that is unfalsifiable even if evidence could possibly be clear...which it never is. Sorry again, but as Interesting Ian used to say, I can't be arsed about this.)

If someone suddenly figures out the forces involved in gravity and tells everyone of these new previously undescribed unproven forces and that there is no proof that they exist then everyone will be skeptical saying there is no proof they exist. Once methodology is developed to test these forces then it could be shown to be true. The fact that there is no evidence for a concept has nothing to do with the ultimate truth of that concept. So whatever you say about it being null or whatever is merely an escape from having to consider that it might exist or that is how I see it.

 

[scepticat]

[SIZE=-1]This shellfish debate has gone on long enough. It's time for me to clear things up:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Leviticus 11:11 "Shellfish shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination"[/SIZE]

Amen.

[SIZE=-1]Many interesting replies. I have posted on many internet communities and forums, but you guys seems to be the most active, engaged group of people I've seen to date.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

 

[Mercutio]

If someone suddenly figures out the forces involved in gravity and tells everyone of these new previously undescribed unproven forces and that there is no proof that they exist then everyone will be skeptical saying there is no proof they exist. Once methodology is developed to test these forces then it could be shown to be true. The fact that there is no evidence for a concept has nothing to do with the ultimate truth of that concept. So whatever you say about it being null or whatever is merely an escape from having to consider that it might exist or that is how I see it.

Until that time, are you obligated to take a stand about these hypothetical forces? Or will you shirk your responsibility of holding a belief about them? And given an indeterminate number of possible concepts that may be true or false but which have no evidence to consider, how many of them do you feel the need to "have to consider that it might exist"? Could you list a few?

Seriously, does it make any sense whatsoever to measure the strength of my lack of belief in these as-yet undiscovered, unproven forces? This smacks of the Conspiracy Theorist "it's your responsibility to prove it didn't happen" mentality! This is the whole reason for burden of proof. What you are suggesting asks us to hold positive opinions on things that are not part of our world view--the fact that it happens to be the historically popular idea of a god or gods is the only reason anyone would give it a second thought, and IMO it is a pretty lame reason.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The same religion which obstructs safe-sex education and condom dissemination also commands abstinence. I think it's a bit of a stretch to insist that these people are dying because of their 'strict obedience' to their religion, when in fact they aren't obeying their religion at all. I think the real truth of the matter is, people are going to have sex whether or not their religion tells them not to, AND whether or not condoms are available.

The religious organizations are lying to people about birth control and safe sex options, meaning that even non-religious people are adversely effected by the well intententioned deciets of belivers.

 

[Checkmite]

The religious organizations are lying to people about birth control and safe sex options, meaning that even non-religious people are adversely effected by the well intententioned deciets of belivers.

So the non-religious people do not think the religious organizations are credible on the question of religion, but are perfectly willing to believe them when it comes to the efficacy of birth control methods? I think that claim is a little hard to believe.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So the non-religious people do not think the religious organizations are credible on the question of religion, but are perfectly willing to believe them when it comes to the efficacy of birth control methods? I think that claim is a little hard to believe.

You are aware that's exactly what's happening in Africa right now, with these U.S. government funded and Catholic abstinence only-sex education programs, right? These people are often given no information besides anti-birth control rhetoric.

 

[drkitten]

The trouble is that what other way is there of separating the differing attitudes of atheists?

By avoiding the whole "strength" metaphor?

How about by examining, not "strength" of non-belief (which is asinine), but instead examining reasons for non-belief? Is there a difference between the cynical atheist, the critical atheist, the lazy atheist, and the ignorant atheist?

Just a quick thought.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And at least one positive attribute (as Mercutio mentioned) just to add another adjective -- militant atheist.

John Brown did not believe any more strongly than many others that slavery was an absolute evil. He merely used that belief in a positive way to work vigorously towards its end.

Can you tell that I finally got around to reading Russell Bank's Cloudsplitter?

(although I must confess that this invites confusion since Brown had a positive belief that does admit to gradations, rather than as is the case with atheism)