Steven Mading

Why are you making the false equivocation that "reject their claim" is the same thing as "put forth the claim in the exact opposite direction"?
Both weak and strong atheists reject the claims of theists. Strong atheism is going one step further and also offering a counterclaim.

Steven Mading

Maybe because you claimed you wanted to understand, and yet your poll, as phrased, requires respondants to accept a premise that they do not in order to answer it - not a good path to understanding.

The problem is your poll still assumes an indivudal only has one radio button to answer. That is false. Just as there will be a spread distribution graph if you graph all the weak atheists (what you are after here) there will ALSO be a similar spread distribution graph if you graph the opinions of ONE SINGLE weak atheist with regards to many gods. Asking a person who is a weak atheist with regards to some gods to only plot a single answer for only one of the many gods he does not believe in and hope that this is accurately representative of how he feels about other gods he doesn't believe in, and it just won't work.

So long as you insist on asking for just one answer in a situation where the respondants know it is not accurate to give just one answer, it cannot work.
[/QUOTE]

Steven Mading

Here's another idea, then: To allow people like me to answer accurately, list several gods and ask the question seperately for each.

!) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god A?
2) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god B?
3) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god C?
4) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god D?
5) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god E?
6) which of these statements accurately describes what you think of god F?

Where maybe A = Yahweh, and B = Zeus, and C = Pantheism, and D = the generic concept that there is a creator, without specifying any attributes... etc.

(So for example, someone who does not believe any of the existing religions are correct but does think there might still be some other sort of creator - just not one we know much about, would not answer question D the same way as question A, and that would tell you something useful.)

With this type of poll, you do have to allow for an answer of "N/A because I don't know what you're talking about" as well - you might name gods some people have never heard of, and those people's answers should not count into the total (for that question, the population of respondants will then be one less.)

If you're really after some type of understanding, you won't get it from a poll that doesn't allow people to record their actual positions on things.

Dlugar

If there is a spread distribution graph (no clustering), then my hypothesis is incorrect, regardless of whether we're talking about all self-describing weak atheists, or a single person self-describing as a weak atheist with regards to many gods. That's why I said I don't care which one you pick--it really doesn't matter with regards to the information I'm after.

In any case, I have yet to find someone who self-describes as a weak atheist (feels that the term "weak atheist" best describes their belief) with regard to multiple gods, and yet would choose a different answer for each in this poll. So all this debate over a hypothetical seems quite misplaced.

Or are you someone who self-describes as a weak atheist with regard to multiple gods, and yet would choose a different answer depending on the god? I would be highly interested in learning more about such a person's belief, so if you are, or anyone else is, please make yourself known!

Smohg

I kind of agree with this. I guess I'm a weak atheist by some definition I read on one of the boards. I don't believe in god simply because there isn't any reason to believe in god after you get past the reassuring/comforting/explanatory function that religion plays.

Personally, I WANT there to be a god. I wish I could believe in a savior/redeemer/parent figure/friend that was always there to lead me through life and give me a purpose.

Well, I did. I guess I'm over that now and am more comforted by dealing with the facts. I guess my earlier days of trying to believe would be more like denial. Now I'm pretty comfortable realizing that: 1. If I fuck up, its on me. 2. When I die, I'm dead. 3. When bad things happen to me, its not a divine test. 4. ETC.

I'm not sure that atheism makes me a better person, but I'm sure that religion wouldn't either. It would just make me feel better.

Unfortunately for me, I can't believe. Its just impossible, I can't bring myself to believe in any supernatural crap. Ghosts, goblins, vampires, demons, spirits, higher conscieness, humanity, none of that mystical crap.

It just requires a faith ability that I do not seem to posess.

Steven Mading

Yes you have - me. Read on for explanation.

Yes.

Here's some examples:
(A) With regards to the Yahweh described in the bible : I'm a strong atheist. There's plenty of proof the Bible is a fictionalization of events - stories based very very loosely on real events, but with an awful lot of embellishment, and the bits about god existing are contained entirely inside the embellishment part of them. I'd rate this a 7 on Dawkin's disbelief scale. (a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being strong atheism, and 1-6 being different degrees of weak atheism.)

(My answer for the islamic Allah is the same as for the Christian Yahweh, which are sort of the same character, by the way)

(B) With regards to the Yaweh most moderate salad-bar pick-and-choose Christians seem to believe in (which is not the one described by the bible, regardless of how they try to metaphor-dodge around that fact) : I am only a weak atheist, but about as close as one can be to strong atheist without quite being one - I'm almost on the edge of tipping into strong on this one, but not quite. I'd rate myself a 6 for this god.

(C) With regards to Gaia - the notion that the earth itself is god: I'm a weak atheist - the world in which planet earth is alive and feels pain wouldn't look that different from the one where it isn't. But presumably it would look at least a little bit different - there'd be at least SOME degree of behavior that was non-random coming from the earth. I do see such behavior. So on the lack-of-evidence-that-should-be-there basis, I reject Gaia. This is a less convinced stance than my stance on B up above. I'd rate myself a 5 for this god.

(D) With regards to Pantheism - the notion that the universe itself is a god (mind with sentience) and that we, collectively are all part of that god.: I am a weak atheist. The universe where pantheism is true would appear (at least to us anyway) identical to a universe that is non-pantheistic. I honestly cannot tell if it is false or not. But I do know Occam's Razor, and on Occam's Razor alone (and honestly on nothing more than that alone), I don't think it's rational to propose the existence of a thing that cannot be detected and you're only proposing it because you can't disprove it. I'd rate myself at about a 2 or 3 with regard to this god.

Dlugar

This is quite interesting to me for several reasons. First, because you rate yourself as being an even "stronger" atheist than Dawkins himself. Second, because you equate a 7 with "strong atheism", whereas I would say that Dawkins (a self-described 6) is a strong atheist by nearly every definition.

A few questions here.

1) If someone walked up to you and said, "What label would best describe your belief with regard to Pantheism?" would you in fact commonly say, "I'm a weak atheist with regard to Pantheism"? Or would you more commonly use another label, such as "agnostic" or "ignostic"?

2) If you would, in fact, commonly use the term "weak atheist" in this way, what do you feel the term imparts to the questioner that another label (such as "agnostic") would fail to convey adequately? Or do you see "weak atheist" as the only label accurately describing your position?

3) If my poll had explicitly said "Pantheism" as the belief I was interested in, which option (A-F) would you have chosen? Or do you feel that none of them quite accurately describes your position? If so, is there one that you're closest to, but still wouldn't feel comfortable actually choosing as representative?


Thanks in advance for subjecting yourself to my barrage of questions. This discussion board is proving to be a most useful source of information.

show_no_mercy

Since my opinion isn't selectable on the poll, here's my position:

Specific gods, like the Abrahamic one, cannot possibly exist. However, there may be some sort of god out there... but the evidence isn't looking too good for it. And it may be impossible to ever know if such a god exists.

Lugubert

Haven't voted. For the first 60+ years of my life, I hadn't even encountered the distinction weak/hard. I joined this board in 2004. Now, I'd rather equate "weak atheist" with agnosticism. I think I'm rather a hard atheist using the distinction offered; I'm sufficiently convinced that there is no supernatural force whatsoever acting anywhere (except in nuclear physics).

Steven Mading

Here's where I sit, in summary: None of the gods that have ever been described to me in detail could possibly exist. The reason I'm a weak atheist is entirely because people often don't describe their posited gods in detail like that. They give so few properties that it makes it impossible to tell whether or not such a god exists and then the only thing I have to fall back on is a simple application of Occam's Razor. And I don't think a simple application of Occam's Razor is a strong enough thing to call it Strong Atheism. It's just "I'll assume you're wrong for now since your belief is based on nothing but the useless tool called raw faith, but I'll leave my mind open to the fact that you could actually find some proving evidence later that you don't have now, despite the fact that it seems highly unlikely."