Melkor

Hi all.

Like most that I've encountered here on IIDB, I define Atheism as pretty much the literal meaning of the word implies: "A", meaning "without", and "theism", meaning "belief in a god or gods".

Basically put, a broad category that includes both Strong and Weak Atheists, or pretty much anyone that lacks a belief in a god or gods.

I'm discussing some stuff with someone on another website that basically came out and said this in response to that:He posted as evidence of this the dictionary definition of "atheism", which is:

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


Which I pointed out still supports my argument, namely by the fact that there is room in the term for those who simply lack belief, AS WELL AS those that firmly assert that god does not exist.

What are your thoughts on this? I've encountered this before, but I've never really had much else to say than "Atheism is both... whether one is Strong or Weak about it, all that is required for Atheism is a lack of belief in deities."

But I feel a bit repetitive on that. Anyone have anything better?

Psycho Economist

You're dead-on.

Definition 2a) includes lack of active belief. Tell that turkey to get bent.

What is his stawm... er, argument that's somehow contingent upon atheists actively asserting no deities exist? Is he trying to shift the burden of proof? While not all atheists phrase their beliefs in positive terms, every Christian does.

Melkor

What makes matters worse is the fact that this guy is an Atheist himself (the "Strong" variety).

mike_decock

Tell him to read this article on the Religious Tolerance website regarding the Definitions of Atheism. It goes a long way to understanding the lack of concensus.

-Mike...

beastmaster

I don't think he is saying that weak atheists aren't atheists. He's just saying that non-cognitivists and apatheists (the "don't know and don't care" crowd) shouldn't be considered atheists. And maybe he's right.

Melkor

Good link... thanks.

nermal

This seems a good thread, and I'll jump on and hope to learn something. I've been confused about this for some time. I'll start with a couple of assertions, and by all means, let me have it if I'm wrong. First, assume we are talking about thinking, rational people.

1. It is the nature of belief that you either believe something or you don't. Sure, there are degrees of conviction with certainty on one end and skepticism on the other, but once you cross over to the "believe" side, you cannot be a non-believer. Put more succinctly, while there are degrees of belief, there are no degrees of disbelief. One doesn't "kind of" not believe.
2. This is a consequence of 1. Once you are exposed to an idea, you are without choice--you will either believe the concept or not believe it. You can choose to withold judgement, but that is really opting for nonbelief (default) until further evidence makes you a believer.
3. One may choose to fake belief, and act as if (a) were true. Eventually a sort of delusional belief state will occur out of the habit developed by repitition. As I understand it, some people can pass lie detector tests using this method (convincing themselves they never committed a crime for instance.) This takes deliberate action and a great deal of work.
4. Disbelief is the default state. We don't go around believing everything until we are convinced each thing isn't true. Quite the opposite. Even children will only believe something if they are exposed to it in some way, although their standards of evidence are nearly nonexistent. Summed up: Ignorance is disbelief. This point is critical.

Now to the point:
Dismissing those who disbelieve out of ignorance (see 4), what is the difference between weak and strong atheism? Where does agnosticism fit in?

It is my assertion that agnostics are simply atheists who haven't come to terms with their disbelief. You cannot say "I don't know of the existence of God," or "The existence of God is an untestable hypothesis," without saying by implication that you do not believe in God. You are in the default state, which is disbelief, which makes you an atheist. I contend that the word "agnostic" has no meaning.
As to weak and strong atheism, I think this distinction also does not exist. While most atheists will say "there is no God," (myself included) they never stand on that assertion. It is shorthand for "there is no reason to believe in God." The distinction is important.
Read the threads on II. I challenge anyone to find an atheist who argues the point that there is no God without falling back to two arguments:

1. The existence of God is an assertion, and therefore the burden of proof is on those who make the claim.
2. There is no physical evidence for the existence of God.

A strong atheist, of such a thing existed, could not use those arguments. He is making a positive assertion: "There is no God," and therefore the burden of proof is on him. He is in an impossible position. Prove there are no leprachauns, for instance.

Why all the trouble? Simply this:
I am sick and tired of hearing the canard "Atheism is a religion." That's garbage of the most foul kind. It is a cheap attempt to put atheism into the same category as any arbitrary theism, and make its arguments equally impotent. To make the assertion "You have great faith that there is no God" tries to make my arguments faith based, and the debate comes down to "your religion, or mine." B.S.!!!
Problem is, whenever we acknowledge strong atheism, we implicitly give credence to the lie. Let's put it to rest.
There are no agnostics; there are no strong and weak atheists; there are atheists, and theists. Period.

Ed

Psycho Economist

William James would love you.
*BUZZ* At least as the general consensus here goes, atheism v. theism and gnosticism v. agnosticism are independent of one another. An agnostic is one who believes the answer to the question "does God exist" is not known (and may not be knowable). You can believe but not know for a fact. You can disbelieve and claim to know. The two are not dependent upon one another.

It's true that many people who call themselves agnostics are, by rule atheists. Some are theists. But I think it's permissible for them to choose to identify themselves as agnostics because their answers to the questions "Do we know? Is it possible to know?" are more important to them than the answers to the question "Do deities exist?"
First, on what basis can you presume to speak for others like that? How can you know that they mean what you think they mean and not what they actually said? Not everyone here debates theists, and not everyone has won against a theist in single combat... are you sure the people advocating the strong atheist position are the swinging the clubs?

Secondly, you're neglecting "strong atheism" that could follow from "weak metaphysical naturalism". Try this on for size:

1. I do not believe in the existence of any class of supernatural influence or agent. (A negative disbelief of all things supernatural, which carries no burden of proof.)

2. Deities are supernatural agents.

Therefore, I believe that deities cannot exist.

Demigawd

The "Is it possible to know?" question is my stance and justification for being an agnostic. There very well may be a god or gods that somehow interact with the natural universe, but nobody yet in the history of humanity has made a compelling enough observation to warrant an absolute yea-or-nay response. All who argue for supernatural agents are engaging in day-dreaming, no matter how cleverly or authoritatively presented. Those arguing against are merely critiquing said wishful thinking.

I prefer a ground-up approach to life, as in "this is what we can observe".

nermal

This is atheism. It simply omits the assertion that there is no evidence. Again, the default is disbelief, and the agnostic you posit is a nonbeliever, unless he is a believer who concedes unknowability, and therefore not an agnostic, but a theist.

That is the definition of belief. If you know for a fact, you no longer believe, you know.

Not rationally, you can't. If you know it, prove it. You cannot prove nonexistence because the existence of the supernatural is by definition, an untestable hypothesis. You can only rationally disbelieve, and claim to disbelieve.

It's permissable for them to identify themselves as Raliens, Venutions, Liliputions. But does it serve any purpose?

I should have phrased that more carefully. Change it to "I have never seen an athiest argue...without falling back on two arguments." If any strong atheist has attempted to defend the position that "There is no God" without falling back to the stated arguments, please come forward.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. This argument is not logically valid.
First is the claim that "I do not believe in category (a)."
Then the claim that "element (a') is a member of category (a)."

The only valid conclusion is "Therefore, I do not believe in element (a')."
The conclusion "I believe (a') does not exist." Does not follow.

Ed