Jamie_L

I do the same thing a lot of folks around here seem to do. When challenged to "prove" the truth of my atheistic view, I fall back on the weak atheist defense. It's worded a lot of ways, but it essentially boils down to claiming "I don't believe that no God exists."

But really, that's exactly what I believe. I believe God does not exist, as I believe all supernatural phenomena don't exist. I don't go so far as saying it's impossible for them to exist. And I accept that I may be wrong - I'm not so arrogant as to think I know everything. But based on all the usual things, I find no compelling reason to believe in God. And that basically boils down to a disbelief in God. This is not a "faith" belief, but a reasoned conclusion. Like I believe my wife is not cheating on me. It's not faith. It's based on my knowledge of her, my experience with her, and my observation of available evidence.

Now, there's still a distinction between this and saying "God X cannot possibly exist", but I think it's a stronger statement than simply saying "I lack a belief in god(s)."

Any thoughts?

Typically the weak atheist arguement is used to reinforce the idea that the burden of proof is on the theist and not the atheist in these "proof" debates. Do you think the stance of "disbelieving gods" carry any more burden of proof than the "lack of belief in gods"?

Jamie

Indifference

As I only have experience with the Christian God, He is the only one I firmly DIS-believe. As for all other gods, there hasn't been any convincing evidence presented in favor as of yet. Nor has there been OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. Granted, the balance is leaning in toward no gods, but I cannot be sure. Therefore, i suspend my final judgement. So I guess you could call me a strong atheist when it comes to the Christian God, but a weak atheist otherwise.

I believe that God does not exist.
I do not have a belief in any god.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Indifference ]</p>

Philosoft

I am a noncognitivist WRT the Judeo-Christian God. That is, I find that the word "God" is devoid of meaning. It has simply been repeated enough that those who discuss its various attributes just assume it has meaning.

Since it is conceivable that there are god concepts which have presumed material or abstract referents, I guess I'd have to be weak atheist toward other gods.

daemon

It depends on the God, really. The deist God, for example, I can't say I have adequate reason to disbelieve in, so I don't. This is where I derive my claim of being a weak atheist--there exist some definitions of God which I think possible. Other Gods have different special conditions that prevent me from merely lacking belief, however. For example, from what I have gathered from presuppositionalist arguments, they believe in a God that compels belief in it. As I have no such belief, I am forced, by default, to state that I believe such a God does not exist. I consider this easily proven, though as we've seen from both Jim Mitchell and Dave Gadbois, they consider such proof to be genuine deceit; my evidence is a lie.

Given this, I think that genuine disbelief does indeed require more proof. In essence, I consider a lack of belief to be equivalent to "I do not have enough evidence to accept this diety," while disbelief is equivalent to "I have evidence that this diety's existence would entail a contradiction."

Synaesthesia

For a long time I relied on the weak atheist defense. The comparison between God and Santa Clause (as ineffective as it is for rhetoric) convinced me that this was an unecessary position.

Obviously it's meanignful to talk of Santa Clause, obviously there's no way of strictly proving his nonexistence. Yet most of us believe that there is no Santa Clause, we feel no need to be agnostic about this issue. Why?

The primary reason is the a priori improbability of any theory. If we seek to support it, we have to show that the details of it's predictions corresponds to a large degree to observation. The more detail that is explained with fewer assumptions, the better the theory is supported.

This indicates the general explanatory undesirability of supernatural mechanisms. Given that God is of infinite complexity, there will always be more assumptions than explanations. We get very limited and unclear gains for a total abandonment of parsiomony and explanatory surplus.

Another point is that we can trace the plausibility and history of ideas about God. I can explain where the idea of God (or santa) comes from in a manner superior to actually invoking a God. I can determine that the reasons that people believe in God have nothing to do with whether or not he exists. In short, although it is not possible to 'disprove' all possible gods, it is very much with in our capacity to show that God theories fail.

We don't feel the need to be agnostic about failed theories even if the cartesian demon might have in fact convinced us of a lie.

himynameisPwn

Why not use the God is the eqivalent of Santa Claus argument? Essentially both rely on all the same factors. If there is a Santa Claus, then proof lies on the believer. Just as I would doubt a scientific hypothesis not made by me, I doubt God. God is essentially the ulitmate hypothesis because it attempts to explain everything. However, without reasonable evidence, I don't just naturally believe a hypothesis on faith because it sounds nice and my brother died so I need comforting. I need proof. The God hypothesis literally has none and keeps getting disproven more and more till eventaully either humans are no more and there will be no God because there is no one to believe, or everyone realizes that he doesn't exist. I consider believing in God to be on par with believing in Santa Claus for just those reasons, but I cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn't exist. To say so would weaken my argument, because the beauty of science is that its subject to change. So this God theory can radically change if the sky happened to open up one day.

Jayhawker Soule

"Are we REALLY weak atheists?"

I don't know about 'we', but I'm not.

I typically use the term "atheist" in response to questions of the form: "Do you believe in God?" The person asking the question is not trying to be deep or clever. S/he wants to know if I think there's a God -- usually a Judeo-Christian God. In these "real world" conversations, both the question and the response are adequately understood, i.e., the communication is successful.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

tergiversant

Every conception of "God" I have yet seen is one of the following:

1) Meaningless
2) Unfalsifiable
3) Falsified

Thus, claims that God exists are either nonsensical, irrelevant (i.e. indistinguishable from naturalism), or else (most probably) false.

IOW, I am a strong atheist. Weak atheism is, well, weak.

tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org

<a href="http://www.OklahomaAtheists.org" target="_blank">ATHEISTS of OKLAHOMA</a>

"Atheists are OK."

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: tergiversant ]</p>

Typhon

Atheism for me is a scaled philosophy when put into daily practice...

For purposes of demonstration, I'm going to suggest you view my belief along a relatively fixed scale running vertically from low to high.

High can be said to be my most general, theoretical, philosophical, etc., take on atheism. Low is my day to day, specific to the nitty gritty of individual gods and faiths.

To demonstrate, I've chosen four examples, and ranked them accordingly.

High - The existence of a god or gods is possible, but the truth is either currently unknown, or perhaps even unknowable.

Atheism means that I do not believe in the existence of ANY god or gods. So again, I don't claim at this level to have any positive belief regarding such entities.

Note I'm not saying that it is impossible, or even entirely unlikely, that some hypothetical god, which is not defined here, and hence could be a great number of things, but ISN'T, could exist. I just don't have any particular beliefs in such things myself, nor do I see a need for them.

People who claim this, that it is possible for some sort of unknowable or unknown god or gods to potentially exist, I have little problem with. They are not overly worrisome to me, nor do I view them as dangerous. I would not feel right saying that their ideas are necessarily incorrect, only that I don't believe in them myself.

High-Medium - The concept that some (unknown, uninvolved, and perhaps even uncaring or unknowable) sentient force (god) is the Prime Cause of the Universe (or Universes) and may well have done so, deliberately, as part of some unknowable cosmic plan.

I still don't believe such a being exists, but like my above definition, I'm not saying that such a thing is impossible, but considering the lack of evidence, and lack of need (a naturalistic explanation for the "cause" of the universe works just as well IMO), I don't think it likely.

Folks who think of god this way, which is getting close to Deism and some of the sentiments expressed by for example, Jefferson, still seem to favor rational thinking and intelligent, open minded discourse. Hard to argue against, but not much evidence for IMO, so again, I would not mind talking about such topics, and certainly I'd respect, their point of view, even though, I don't think they are correct.

Medium-Low - Zen Buddhism.

I don't think Zen Buddhism is correct. I don't believe (while admitting there are valuable teachings contained within, regarding humans and how we can choose to live and think) in the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, karma, or zazen practice. Souls are not reincarnated until reaching Nirvana. In fact, I don't believe in the soul at all. There are problems with much of the dogma for me, and I don't think that there is good proof for any of its claims, and that it is very unlikely that the world works this way. Buddhism is purely a philosophy created by man, without links to some underlying spiritual/supernatural/metaphysical reality.

I also think however, that Zen Buddhism has some value, and that there are far, far worse ways to order one's life and morality then along these lines. Not that followers of all sorts, including those with no religious or theistic views, can not be harmful to their fellow man, but I've rarely found myself persecuted for logical thinking by Zen Buddhists.

I can tell them that the odds and the natural world appear to be against this being the underlying truth of the Universe, but beyond that, it is a noble and life-affirming way to spend your energies.

Low - Literal, canonical Biblical Christianity.

I not only think that the burden of evidence is clearly against Christianity, but that the many sects are no more valid than say the worship of Odin or Zeus or the IPU. They are demonstratively incorrect in their interpretation of the world, and are purely the creation of man. This is so glaring obvious, and it can be in fact proven, to a high degree of certainty IMO.

Those who cling to such illogical and rather obviously irrational thinking can potentially be very dangerous and are not always open to dissenting views. Not all values prompted by Christianity are negative, but taken as a whole, it is a destructive, if powerful force, which should be kept out of all secular fields and portions of society.

So, while I hold to the base definition of atheism, no positive belief in a god or gods, I do not consider myself to be a weak atheist. The more specific the claim to godhood, the more defined the god, the more there is IMO, to refute based upon both logic and observation. At most, I am a weak atheist at the highest, theoretical levels of such a discussion, but turn towards strong atheism as you move towards particular examples.

.T.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Daydreamer

There was a quote from Richard Dawkins that described me perfectly, if I could only find it...

It was something along the lines saying that you cannot say definitively that no gods exist, but study of the natural world gives one a haunting suspicion that that is indeed the truth. Sort of like being intellectually a weak Atheist but emotionally being a strong Atheist.