Charles Darwin

Good points, but this doesn't detract from my suspicion that atheism entials religious/metaphysical beliefs. First, you point out that not believing in God allows for not believing in no God. IOW, the weak atheist position has not ruled out God. OK, fine, but that doesn't imply the weak atheist position does not entail metaphysics. Just because he is wavering, even to the point of not rejecting God, does not mean he has escaped metaphysics.

The world exists, and what you are saying is that the weak atheist has the rull range of metaphysical devices at his disposal to explain existence, not just a limited set. When you say you don't believe in God, but you also aren't committed to the belief that there is no God, that belief, as vague as it is, leaves only metaphysical explanations for existence.

Second, you point out that strong atheism generally is limited to defined Gods, such as Yahweh. Regarding undefined gods, your position softens. Again, so what? These other, undefined gods, which you may be willing to accept, don't save you from metaphysics.

Charles Darwin

If I say I do not believe it will rain today, then this belief is not an isolated belief that is unconnected to all my other beliefs. Something is going to happen today weather-wise. If I believe rain is out of the picture, then at the very least my belief necessarily entails the belief that the weather today will be in the complementary set of weather; for example, I must believe that it will be sunny, or cloudy but with no rain (if those are the only other possibilities).

Likewise, if I don't believe God created the world, since the world exists, my belief forces me to opt for some other explanation.

Yes the Christian God. And yes, there are a large number of creation myths / explanations / theories. Is there one that is free of metaphysics?

Charles Darwin

How's this:

1. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God.
2. The belief that there is no God is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
3. Strong atheism is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
4. A belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation is a belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation.
5. A belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.
6. Strong atheism is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.

The issue at hand is: What is a religious or metaphysical belief? If you show me a picture of the earth taken from the moon, and as a result I believe the earth is round, then this is hardly a religious belief. Likewise, if you want to argue that strong atheism entails no metaphysical or religious belief, then having some empirical evidence for the creation of existence would come in handy. Since you don't have that, it makes it more difficult to demonstrate that strong atheism is not entailing metaphysics.

How does this show that strong atheism does not entail metaphysics?

JCS

And what might they be?

Why? Because you say so?

No. I'm commiting myself to the fact that no evidence for any god has been demonstrated.

Well let's see, gee I just don't know and oh by the way, I don't believe there is a god, since no god has been demonstrated.

Ok, I'm not believing what you're believing, what are the implications? I don't attend weekly services reaffirming the lack of proof for any god claims. No bowing or praying to the lack of proof. No handbook needed for disbelieving unsubstantiated claims. There must be other implications that I'm missing, I guess that is one of the draw backs to disbelief, since no tenet is involved I keep forgetting what it is I'm suppose to adhere to.

It does? Wow what a bummer. My lack of belief in your belief doesn't force me to do anything, must be part of that laidback feeling you get from being in CA.

DMB

CD: once again, if I say, "I do not believe it will rain today", that is not equivalent to saying, "I believe it will not rain today", nor does it imply that I must believe in some other weather for today.

It might very well mean, "I don't think there's enough evidence to conclude that it definitely will rain today, nor is there sufficient evidence to conclude that we shall have any other particular weather."

You keep on posing these false dichotomies.

I come from the UK, where the weather is very changeable and difficult to predict, so I often have an agnostic position on today's weather. (This is not such a trivial point as you might think; people's view of what makes sense is often coloured by their environment, whether physical or intellectual.)

I see that you have conceded the point that your OP could not apply to atheists in general and could at best apply only to strong atheists. Since strong atheists are a small proportion of the total, does this really have any serious relevance to your CSS struggles?

Charles Darwin

I don't think this is a false dichotomy, for you are changing the premise on me. The premise is: "I do not believe it will rain today," NOT: "I'm not sure." But in any case, I accept the fact that there are weak atheists who are in the "I'm not sure" category, unwilling to believe, but unwilling to deny. For that, please see below:

Actually, on second thought, I don't concede the point. I wrote in an earlier post:

Good points, but this doesn't detract from my suspicion that atheism entials religious/metaphysical beliefs. First, you point out that not believing in God allows for not believing in no God. IOW, the weak atheist position has not ruled out God. OK, fine, but that doesn't imply the weak atheist position does not entail metaphysics. Just because he is wavering, even to the point of not rejecting God, does not mean he has escaped metaphysics.

The world exists, and what you are saying is that the weak atheist has the rull range of metaphysical devices at his disposal to explain existence, not just a limited set. When you say you don't believe in God, but you also aren't committed to the belief that there is no God, that belief, as vague as it is, leaves only metaphysical explanations for existence.

DMB

No, CD. If E={set of existing explanations for existence} and I do not accept one member of this set, I am not obliged to suppose that one of the other members must be the true explanation. It may be that in the future other explanations will come to light.

E is not constant over time. If we can in imagination go back to a time before xianity and judaism, E would presumably have consisted of a limited number of creation myths. I maintain that both you and I at that time could well have rejected all the then members of E without having any alternative explanation.

Such a position is not vague at all. There is great strength in admitting what you don't know. IMO it's much better than committing oneself to a belief on very shaky evidence.

JCS

I believe there are no gods.

Self evident

Redundant.

Why? The "god done it" explanation I reject because it hasn't been demonstrated only claimed. I see the answer as un-known/speculative at this time so I do not appeal to any other explanations.

Are you suggesting that in order to reject one claim you must first replace it with another? Who made up that stupid rule?

Well if you want to call disbelief in unsubstantiated postulations a metaphysical claim, then knock yourself out.

Gawdawful

At the risk of repeating myself, I still contend that my position, "I lack belief in any gods", is not the same thing as believing there are no gods. If that makes me a weak atheist or agnostic, then so be it. I also will stick to my argument that belief in theories or religious explanations for existence are not necessary to atheism, one need not speculate about that to not believe in gods.

Tttttttthat's all folks.

Warren in Oklahoma

Shadowy Man

First you have to prove there was a creation.

Strong atheism has no obligation to believe the universe was created at all.