Goliath

Title: "Are we REALLY weak atheists?"

I don't know about the rest of us, but I definitely am a weak atheist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Anunnaki

Bingo!

I agree 100% although I have a sinking feeling that some sort of rebuttal is imminent.

Autonemesis

Because they aren't real, they are computer models manipulated by the player, and have no senses or consciousness with which to investigate or even concieve of the question. Is that really your view of god's relationship to humans?

beausoleil

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.

(I'm deliberately not aiming this at the person who posted the quote - it was just a handy source and a prompting)

I've got into trouble for being critical of Richard Dawkins elsewhere on this forum. However, I think this illustrates nicely what I dislike about his public statements. He doesn't seem to know much about other scientific disciplines, disciplines his area relies on at a fundamental level, so problems within them fall completely outside his world view. Evolutionary biology/ genetics is not the only discipline relevant to the search for an element of 'intervention' in the universe. None of this dents his confidence in assertions about 'the natural world'. In short, he lacks much needed humility (in his writings).

Cosmologists look at 'the natural world' and see some odd things that are far from having clear explanations, and might even be suggestive of some design - not a great explanation but none of those in view seem to be very satisfactory.

I don't have personal belief in any God, but I don't think overstatement of our understanding of the world are helpful in the debate, since the alienate more people than they convert.

Turning to religion, 'evolution' (since I started talking about Dawkins I'll stick this with this example) is a well established scientific theory that accounts for many observations. Like all scientific theories, it is subject to revision or replacement in the light of new evidence of re-interpretation of old evidence. That said, in the mental processes of some people it seems to fill the role of a religion - something that cannot be questioned without invoking a reponse reminiscent of fight of flight. Their 'belief' in evolution is of the same kind as others 'belief in God'. I think this is entirely inappropriate. I speculate it is a side effect of too many disputes with religious fundamentalists. But they at least think my agnosticism will result in hell fire!

Answerer

Some of us think of themselves as strong(atheist), while others think of themselves as weak. But the problem is there no actual ways or methods to determine how good or bad an atheist is. This problem goes the same when it comes to determine a christian's or muslim's faith, there is no actual methods or ways to show that how strong their faith are.
Different people have their own and different methods of how to determine a person's faith or atheist's argumentive power. Therefore, I feel that there is no need to bother myself with the question of whether I'm strong or not as an atheist and I don't care how others think.

Jamie_L

My OP was targeted less at the titles we choose for ourselves, and more at the underlying conclusions: "Gods do not exist" vs. "I lack a belief in gods." We like to toss around the second as a means to dodge attacks of "where's your proof that there's no god." My point is that, really, my conclusion is the former "Gods do not exist." The question that then follows is, do I carry a heavier argumentative burden for holding this position, or is the "weak atheist" defense an unnecessary one?

Jamie

daemon

Argh, this analogy is so broken, I couldn't just leave it:
Because there is no one in the game.

Philosoft

I am like-minded, Jamie. Doesn't "Gods do not exist" necessarily imply that the gods in question are conceptually coherent? In other words, "Gods do not exist" expands to "Gods, as defined by human concepts, do not exist." My speculation, but I'd bet a good number of atheists would have no problem with the latter statement because the god concepts that exist are demonstrably self-refuting.

Koyaanisqatsi

Since "gods" are fictional creatures from ancient mythology, what you are affirming is little more than the obvious: fictional creatures do not factually exist.

Should anyone have any compelling evidence to prove that such creatures are not fictional, then by all means bring it on, but until "they" do, the fact remains: fictional creatures do not factually exist.

End of discussion.

[ June 04, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Arrowman

Jamie, I have faced the same question myself quite recently. Until the last few years I have never really thought deeply on this subject, although I was never a Believer at any stage in my life. Absence of fundy Christian pressure on my life allowed me to ignore the issue

When I first thought to "label" myself, many years ago, I settled on "Agnostic" because I didn't know the difference between weak and strong atheism. Then I realised I was actually a weak atheist, although I would often use "agnostic" to an audience which didn't know the different forms of atheism.

Then, like Synaesthesia, I was confronted (by a strong atheist) with the "Santa" argument. I realised I was applying a different (looser) standard of proof to the Judaeo-Christian God, than to any other supernatural phenomenon. Because I was so ingrained with the concept of that God.

So, now I'm settled on "strong atheist". Yes, it does require a stronger supporting argument, but perhaps not as strong as you might think.

I like to think of it this way - and starting from the weak atheist position, I won't repeat any argument for "disbelief" -

There is an infinite number of possible supernatural entities or phenomena in which one could believe. To take the position "I cannot deny the possibility..." may be logically reasonable but it is practically infeasible (in the sense that you must then be prepared to believe in anything)

It is logically inconsistent to use the "you never know" argument to support belief in one entity, while denying the existence of all others. For example, a person who believes in the effectiveness of some "alternative medicine" treatment may use the "there are more things in heaven and earth..." argument, but at the same time they may be quite happy to deny the validity, of, say, astrology. This is in my view inconsistent.

So - balance of probabilities and in the absence of any even remotely convincing evidence, gods have been invented by humans. The entire concept of gods has been invented by humans. To remain truly open, on an everyday basis, to the possibility of gods existing, I would have to open my mind so far my brain would fall out, to coin a phrase.

So the strong atheist position is in my view logical, consistent and pragmatic. As far as the human mind can reach, there are no gods. I do not wish to clutter up my intellect by continually allowing for "yes, but...".