Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sweetiepie · 12-12-2005, 02:07 PM

(just to start something moderately controversial)
Often when christians discuss faith, they use a definition that involves varying degrees. Most random church-goers for example will admit that they have less faith than their church leader. Many christians think that if you did have perfect faith, then you would be a perfect person, but since you don't, you are not. Faith, basically amounts to how much confidence you have in God. Both in God's general existence and in God's particular characteristics.
Many, although certainly not all, christians will say "I don't know for certain that God exists."
This is also true for "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism". The difference is basically a matter of which way you are leaning.
All 3 of these categories are immune to the burden of proof.

FatherMithras · 12-12-2005, 02:38 PM

Ummm.... I don't agree at all. They're not immune to the burden of proof. If they make a positive statement, they will still have the burden of proof. If you say "I dunno what god is, but i believe he's there." they still have the burden of proof if they're trying to argue it's existence.

fast · 12-12-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetiepie

This is also true for "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism".

What is "weak agnosticism"?

sweetiepie · 12-12-2005, 02:50 PM

Sorry, perhaps this was poorly worded. This is targeted at the many "atheists" on this board who denounce their formal religion on a lack of evidence.
I'm suggesting that "weak" atheists/agnostics/theists neither making a positive statement nor arguing towards it's existence. They are, by definition, admitting to a lack of evidence.
The point is, a lot of "weak atheists" are more confident of God than theists, but feel that because they can't express their reasoning, they ought to throw off their religion.

sweetiepie · 12-12-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fast

What is "weak agnosticism"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

fast · 12-12-2005, 02:55 PM

thanx

FatherMithras · 12-12-2005, 03:03 PM

Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.

sweetiepie · 12-12-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.

The theists I am referring think there is a chance that God exists. This is equivalent to weak atheism. Weak atheists are not being asked to provide a proof that God may exist, except by Strong Atheists, who already have to provide a proof that He does not.

Barefoot Bree · 12-12-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetiepie

The point is, a lot of "weak atheists" are more confident of God than theists, but feel that because they can't express their reasoning, they ought to throw off their religion.

Excuse me? Are you saying that a lot of weak atheists are actually closet theists?

sweetiepie · 12-12-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

Excuse me? Are you saying that a lot of weak atheists are actually closet theists?

Bingo!

Also, that many theists are infact closet weak atheists-- though you already knew that.

12-12-2005, 02:07 PM	#1
sweetiepie Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: east jersey Posts: 1,858	"weak theism" and the burden of proof (just to start something moderately controversial) Often when christians discuss faith, they use a definition that involves varying degrees. Most random church-goers for example will admit that they have less faith than their church leader. Many christians think that if you did have perfect faith, then you would be a perfect person, but since you don't, you are not. Faith, basically amounts to how much confidence you have in God. Both in God's general existence and in God's particular characteristics. Many, although certainly not all, christians will say "I don't know for certain that God exists." This is also true for "weak agnosticism" and "weak atheism". The difference is basically a matter of which way you are leaning. All 3 of these categories are immune to the burden of proof.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2005, 02:38 PM	#2
FatherMithras Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3,890	Ummm.... I don't agree at all. They're not immune to the burden of proof. If they make a positive statement, they will still have the burden of proof. If you say "I dunno what god is, but i believe he's there." they still have the burden of proof if they're trying to argue it's existence.

12-12-2005, 02:50 PM	#4
sweetiepie Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: east jersey Posts: 1,858	Sorry, perhaps this was poorly worded. This is targeted at the many "atheists" on this board who denounce their formal religion on a lack of evidence. I'm suggesting that "weak" atheists/agnostics/theists neither making a positive statement nor arguing towards it's existence. They are, by definition, admitting to a lack of evidence. The point is, a lot of "weak atheists" are more confident of God than theists, but feel that because they can't express their reasoning, they ought to throw off their religion.

12-12-2005, 02:55 PM	#6
fast Contributor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Carolina, USA Posts: 14,025	thanx

12-12-2005, 03:03 PM	#7
FatherMithras Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 3,890	Any kind of theist, even a weak one, is asserting the positive "A god exists" as their belief statement and thus has the burden of proof.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.