Goliath

Luvluv,

No, I am a weak atheist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

1) Can you define weak atheism and how it differs from agnosticism?

2) Would you agree to be a strong atheist requires a belief in naturalism?

Goliath

Luvluv,

A weak atheist is one who does not believe that any god exists.

An agnostic is one who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not any god exists. Thus, there are theistic agnostics (those who believe that a god exists, but also assert that it is impossible to know whether or not said god exists) and atheistic agnostics (who do not believe that any god exists, and also assert that it is impossible to know whether or not any god exists).

A strong atheist is one who believes that no gods whatsoever exist.

Note that there is a UNIVERSE of difference between not believing that any gods exist and believing that no gods exist. The former stance makes no positive assertions, whereas the latter stance does.

Strong atheists merely believe that no gods exist. Strong atheism need not imply naturalism.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

I believe that is a subtle dodge, and I am going to dig around in there until I find out exactly how.

How does one who "holds no belief in gods" explain the origin of the universe?

Can someone be a weak atheist and believe in supernatural occurances?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Goliath

Luvluv,

It's about as subtle as a 400lb. Gorilla running around with a sledgehammer. And I fail to see how weak atheism can be seen as a "dodge." It is nothing more than a lack of belief.

Who says that I have to explain the origin of the universe?

Not only is my answer to "What is the origin of the universe?" a simple "I don't know," but the question itself is one that I find quite uninteresting.

Demanding that all atheists have an answer to the question of the origin of the universe is just as silly as demanding that all theists come up with a proof of (or counterexample to) Gauss' conjecture.

What do you mean by "believing in" supernatural occurrences? Believing that the supernatural exists? If that is the case, then the answer to your question is no, weak atheists have the potential to believe in some supernatural things (as long as said things had nothing to do with gods).

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS I'm going to bed, so if you reply to this, you won't get an answer until tomorrow morning.

luvluv

What could be the origin of a supernatural occurances other than "something outside the system" which had power over the system? What, other than a god, could create an occurance which did not just have the appearance of being supernatural, but which actually violated one of the laws of the universe in a manner completely unrreconcilable with any natural explanation?

I think at some point in his explanation of the universe a strong atheist would have to account for the creation of the universe if the universe had an origin (which we now believe it did). Just in considering the logical consequences of his position, a weak atheist and a strong atheist would have to ask himself questions like "Why is there something instead of nothing", and his answer would have to exclude gods. I guess weak atheists aren't under any obligation to consider anything, but that would just mean that they left most of the larger implications of their position unexplored. It seems like a dodge to me because, functionally, there is no difference in the statement "I hold no beliefs in gods" and "gods do not exist" in how you would conduct any argument about God's existence. When gods are taken out of the equation, by default you would therefore have to resort to some explanation for matter and life by natural processes that did not involve gods. That is naturalism is it not?

Maybe you could explain the practical differences between weak and strong atheism? Do weak atheists simply never consider things like the origin of the universe and therefore avoid the necessity of providing a counter position to both Theism and Naturalism?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Automaton

luvluv is debating some imaginary opponent. All we are saying, is that there is nothing that by definition excludes atheism and supernaturalism. Supernatural is by definition something "outside the system" of the natural, but nothing in its definition includes "power over the system."
Something that is non-natural. We are talking about the actual definitions of words here, not just the definitions you give them off in fairy land.
A strong atheist does not have to say anything about the origin of the universe. A strong atheist simply believes there are no gods. A strong atheist can be a solipsist, a strong atheist can believe that there was no origin of the universe, but a strong atheist, by definition, does not have to be a naturalist. And even a naturalist does not have to "account" for the origin of the universe, because without good evidence, they'd just be pulling it out of their asses like theists.
No they would not, by definition, have to ask themselves such stupid questions. Why can't you understand this?
Weak atheism is not a position, it is the lack of a position. Baldness is not a hair colour.
There is no difference to you because you have been conditioned to ignore the difference. A person that was never introduced to the concept of God is a weak atheist, they simply lack a concept of God, they do not say to themselves "Hey, I believe no gods exist!" A child never introduced to Santa similarly can't say "I don't believe in Santa", because "Santa" to them would just be an arbitrary string of letters. You do not have to hold positive beliefs about the nonexistence of every arbitrary string of letters or concept ever imagined (or not imagined), you simply lack belief.
Only if you take into account other viewpoints as well as atheism! Solipsists are atheists.
What "practical differences"? Weak atheists may or may not say anything about the universe. Strong atheists may or may not say anything about the universe. What about the definitions of these words don't you understand?

WJ

Luv!

Is it safe to say that both you and Writer@large agree to the notion, that say, air, we can perceive but cannot see?

Also, would the short answer to your original question be considered an absolute truth if I say *no* (assuming experience is the basis for the existence of a some thing)?

Perhaps the word *proven* and perhaps *exist*(from your original question) still needs a bit of qualification as I think the answer is simply no...

For instance, in an absolute sense, what does it mean for consciousness to exist(?). The essence of man cannot be proven.

Walrus

Goliath

Luvluv,

Here are a few theoretical possibilities that took me no longer than ten seconds to imagine:

1. Leprechauns.

2. Immortal aliens.

3. Demons.

4. A race of intelligent ameobas (sp?) that are able to leave space-time whenever they wish.

Get the idea?

See examples above (especially 4.)


No one needs to "account" for anything. My answer to the question of the origin of the universe is--and probably will be until the day I die--"I don't know."

Again, the day that every theist is able to not only settle Gauss' conjecture, but understand what Gauss' conjecture says, as well as understand every detail of the proof (or counterexample) is the day that I will demand that every atheist needs to "account" for the origin of the universe.

So, what do you think about Gauss' conjecture, luvluv? Do you think that there are infinitely many real quadratic UFD's?

Wrong, an atheist need do no such thing. An atheist need not have any answer other than "I don't know."

Again, the day that every theist is able to settle Gauss' conjecture is the day that every atheist must answer said question with something other than "I don't know."

Correct (for once).

Weak atheism is not a position. It is a lack of belief.

Let me repeat that, since you seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding such a simple concept: weak atheism is not a position. It is a lack of belief.

Weak atheism is no more a position that it is a sack of moldy tangerines. Got it?

Again, you are absolutely wrong. Weak atheists do not believe that any god exists, and thusly need not make any arguments about any god's existence.

Strong atheists, on the other hand, do make a claim about the existence of gods. They *do* have an argument about a god's existence.

Processes without gods are not necessarily natural processes (see above four examples).

Absolutely not (see above).

Basically, see above. Weak atheists merely lack belief in the existence of a god--they make no claims about whether or not any god exists.

Strong atheists, on the other hand, make the positive assertion that no gods exist.

I really don't know how to make the extremely large and important distinction between weak and strong atheism any more clear.

Weak atheists may consider what the beginning of the universe may or may not have been like. However, once again, weak atheism is not a position--it is a LACK OF BELIEF.

Sincerely,

Goliath

luvluv

1) Isn't the fact that the universe had an origin pretty much the opinion of modern science? So how can you say you have no opinion on something that appears to be a scientific fact (that there, at some point in "time" was no universe, and that the universe subsequently came into existence). Certainly an atheist need not consider this but that does seem to me a weak argument. What would you say to me if I said I was a creationist and I lack a belief in evolution? You might say what about the fossil record, and I would reply "I need have no position about the fossil record". Wouldn't you say that was a dodge? I don't mean to be insulting because I don't know the process by which you came to weak atheism (if it's not a position then why is there a name for it?) but can't you see how it would seem like a dodge from someone from the outside?

At any rate, since the fact that the universe had an origin is, at present, a scientific fact, how can you simply say "I need have no opinion on it"?

2) I still don't get it. Please don't be hostile with me because I am realy trying to understand the position (or lack thereof). I can't seem to understand one thing:

What is the difference between a lack of belief and disbelief?