Philosoft

Yet these are not mutually exclusive opinions. Since you specified a particular god in your formulation of "strong atheism," there can be many reasons for a positive disbelief. What if 'God X' was defined as possessing two or more logically contradictory attributes (say, omniscience and omnipotence)? The "strong" atheist would say, "I believe 'God X' does not and cannot exist because the concept contains two or more logically contradictory attributes."

Now, assuming your formulation of "weak" atheism holds true, the "weak" atheist would have to say something like, "I lack belief in 'God X' because the concept contains two or more logically contradictory attributes but I cannot rule out the possibility that 'God X' exists in some form whereby logically contradictory attributes can co-exist." It seems exceedingly silly to think someone would parse his atheism in that manner. But if the "weak" atheist doesn't express the belief that said attributes might co-exist, how is he different from the "strong" atheist?

<strong> I submit that "strong" atheists do exactly this as well.

Jamie_L

Philosoft:

Your points are well taken. The strong atheist, as I originally undersood it (this is not my formulation) is essentially a subset of weak atheists. By these formulations, one could be a weak atheist in general but a strong atheist with respect to certain gods. It is also possible to be a strong atheist with respect to all gods (i.e. No gods can possibly exist.), though this stance seems significantly harder to defend.

My original point was that I don't think the other distinction between strong/weak atheism (I don't believe in god vs. I lack belief in god) is muddy at best and non-existent at worse. I am pretty much in the camp that finds no meaningful difference between the statements "I don't believe in God" and "I lack belief in God".

Jamie

randomsyllable

Well, as to differentiate from Bill, I guess I would be forced to describe myself as a pacifist atheist. ;p

Basically I take a very laid back attitude to the religious arena. As I see "hardliners" from every belief system (I include atheism in that - feel free to disagree, by belief is a convienient term) I have decided that throwing myself to the wolves can be harazdous.

Therefore, I have dabbled with many different religions from the fairly ordinary to the less so. However, I find the addmission of ignorance by someone to be a worthy act and continued faith in the face of evidence to be something feared or admired depending on the person professing this claim.

Oh well, suffice to say I tend to play hands-off and let others make the first move in my life, while I react to them. My moral structure is as convoluted as anyones, with rationalizations of actions paving the way for guilty recrimination later ;p


-random

Philosoft

I think the scope of "strong atheism" gets wrongly expanded when it is claimed that there is a significant number of atheists who make statements like "no gods can possibly exist." This is what gives theists the ammunition to stereotype atheists as having dogmatic positive beliefs about the existence of gods. I, for one, have never met an atheist whose philosophy encompasses anything more than a rejection of the claims of various theists and the attendant concepts that they (atheists) know about.

<strong> I'm a little unclear on your wording. Do you think there's a meaningful distinction between common definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheism?

Jamie_L

Philosoft:

I should rephrase.

The common (and I might argue incorrect) distiction between weak/strong atheism is: weak=lack belief, strong=belief in nonexistence.

Although this is technically a distinction, I think that practically there is no difference between the two. I don't believe that anyone merely "lacks a belief" in god, other than people who have never heard of or can't formulate the concept.

Either you think the statement "God exists" is true, or you think it is false. If you choose not to make up your mind, you are not an atheist, you are agnostic. In my opinion.

Jamie

Philosoft

Good. I thought as much.

<strong> Well said. I agree.

Dr S

I have heard some people claim that they were Christian/agnostics. Specifically several Fundi preachers who also boasted that they had also been drug addicts, wife beaters and drunks but now thanks to Jesus...yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.
I don't really understand what they were talking about.
Can a person be an Agnostic-that is admitting their lack of knowledge- and a believer-that is claiming that they "know" something-at the same time?

Philosoft

I guess the term "agnostic theist" is ostensibly for one who draws a distinction between belief and knowledge. People who self-identify as such are exceedingly rare; the only one I'm aware of is HelenSL (I believe she has refered to herself as an "agnostic theist" before?), although Rev. Joshua seems like a prime candidate.

Dr S

That still leaves me at a loss.
I thought that the knowledge an Agnostic was missing was specifically whether or not a god existed.
While to be a Theist one must, by definition, "believe" in the existence of a god.
Isn't the word "belief" in this case the assertion that the person has this knowledge?

Philosoft

Some would say this. Others would say the agnostic is someone who says, "even if God exists, it is fundamentally impossible to know this."

<strong> I imagine theists are as variably adamant about their beliefs as anyone else. If a particular theist wishes to say, "I believe God exists but it is conceivable that I am wrong," I am really in no position to argue. I'll simply file that one somewhere in the continuum between ignorance and knowledge.