"Atheism of the Second Kind" is "soft atheism"...

[Lord Kenneth]

That's the standard term use to describe atheists of that belief... seems to be that most atheists subscribe to that philosophy, at least the intelligent ones. The differing degrees are also called "weak" and "strong" atheism, respectively.

The way Randi worded things, it indicates he didn't realize that... I haven't met very many "hard atheists", although some think "God" is a logical contradiction (I don't think that's true).

[Lord Kenneth]

Damn it, wrong board. :(

[K-W]

I think the destinctioin is mostly imagined. Most hard atheists believe the same thing as soft atheists, they just feel safe in taking a stronger stance due to the highly improbable nature of a deity.

The sun will rise tommarow isnt neccessarily a true statement, but the probability of that event occurring are high, so you dont criticise someone who says it for violating logic. In the same sense, saying that no deity exists isnt logically provable, yet if it is super-improbable thats not neccessarily incorrect from a standpoint of how we describe events.

[DrMatt]

Most of the people I've met who identify as hard atheists also identify as hard believers in the laws of gravity as propounded by Newton, revised by Einstein, and demonstrated by experiment. Their argument is that there is nothing religious or taken on faith in such a belief.

[DrMatt]

"...Of the second kind" sounds like a phrase from a 19th-century scientific treatise---or a late-20th-century science ficition novel. Many of the things Randi does, he does the WAY he does them for an effect.
:D

'Soft atheist' myself. Can't commit my opinion to something unknowable. I don't believe a god exists, but I could be wrong... it's just that all the available evidence supports me on this.

[c4ts]

Do hard atheists even exist? I've never met one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

There is no atheism of any kind. You're all God-Haters who love being monkeys. How can you transend your higher self? How can John Edward speak to the dead if they don't exist? How can Psi Tech connect to the Matrix? Stop hating God, God Haters and learn about love and peace and tantrism.

Would you like to know more?

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
There is no atheism of any kind. You're all God-Haters who love being monkeys. How can you transend your higher self? How can John Edward speak to the dead if they don't exist? How can Psi Tech connect to the Matrix? Stop hating God, God Haters and learn about love and peace and tantrism.

Would you like to know more?

If god existed, which he probably doesn't, but supposing he did (and also supposing that god is a man... has a penis and balls, that's what makes a man a man, after all)(by cracky) I wish he would crush your skull with a giant corned beef on rye, with thinly sliced tomatos and mustard...

you make me ill.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


If god existed, which he probably doesn't, but supposing he did (and also supposing that god is a man... has a penis and balls, that's what makes a man a man, after all)(by cracky) I wish he would crush your skull with a giant corned beef on rye, with thinly sliced tomatos and mustard...

you make me ill.

That's just your God-Hating talking...

[c4ts]

UnrepentantSinner has demonstrated that even though we cannot know for sure if God exists, we can be certain that morons do.

[BillyJoe]

You can't go past the Theist/Non-theist/A-theist classification.

Theist: believes that God exists.
A-thesit: believes that God does not exist.
Non-theist: is not a theist.

The Theists and Atheist positions are untenable because the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. A Nontheist is merely not a theist and is therefore the only tenable position to have.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
You can't go past the Theist/Non-theist/A-theist classification.

Theist: believes that God exists.
A-thesit: believes that God does not exist.
Non-theist: is not a theist.


Hmmm

A-political: not political
A-moral: without morals

why not

A-theist: not theist?

The prefix a- in english typically indicates "the absence of..."

Why have you redefined it here?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Why have you redefined it here? Because I'd rather be called a Nontheist than a WEAK Atheist. ;)

But seriously.....

How do those who distinguish weak from strong atheist define their respective terms.

theist: believes that God exists.
weak atheist: does not hold the belief that God exists.
strong atheist: believes the God does not exist.

The definition of "atheist" as "not a theist" is lost here as well.
If you want to insist that "atheist" = "not a theist", you have to invent a word for those who "believe that God does not exist". :(

[K-W]

Strong Athiest is a hypothetical creature. He doesnt exist. Hes simply used to contrast with the actual position of atheism. People often say "God doesnt exist," but that means the same thing as "The Sun will rise tommarow" or That old car will never make it on that trip. We make statements of certainty all the time. Its a statement about percieved odds.

Ive never met an actual strong athiest. Someone who, even if they needed the destinction explained to them, didnt aknowledge that the non-existance of God cannot be proven.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by K-W
Strong Athiest is a hypothetical creature. He doesnt exist. So I don't have to be concerned about being referred to as a Weak Atheist?
I can go right ahead and call myself an Atheist (= Nontheist)?
Well, I've come full circle then.

The problem is people's perception/preconceived ideas about the word "atheist" often said with disgust and loathing and with spit flying out. :(

[CurtC]

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why people avoid the "hard" atheist label so much. I know that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but if it were determined that tomorrow, it could be tested definitively beyond any question, I would give quite good odds on "no." In other words, I'm pretty confident that God doesn't exist. I feel this way for the same reason that I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, and that psychic phenomena don't exist.

Now almost everyone on this board would say that he actively disbelieves that psychic phenomena don't exist. However, it can't be proved that they don't. What's the difference with God? I don't see lots of backpedalling saying "the only logically tenable position is to *not* know whether psi exists" - everyone just says "I don't believe it." Why can't you just say that with God?

[BillyJoe]

CurtC,

I guess you're looking at it from a very practical point of view: If there is no evidence for something, you assume that it doesn't exist, be it faeries, pink unicorns or God.
I think that's fair enough.

BillyJoe.

[Peskanov]

If "strong atheism" or "hard atheism" is defined as denying the existence of god, I think I classify there.
I don't know why is everybody so wary with this position. After all, the problem resides in the definition of god.
The usual definitions of god can be resumed in "an entity with volition who created the universe".
My arguments against the existence of such entity involve the lack of design of what we know, amongst other ones...
In spain the usual terms for what "weak atheism" is agnostic. The word "atheist" is avoided and is used more like "strong atheist"...

[c4ts]

"God" in the sense that most theists understand it, as a recognizably intelligent being which is omniscient and omnipotent, which is able to care about and interfere with human affairs, which provides mankind with some sort of afterlife, does not exist. But before we say there is no God of any kind, there is one thing to consider...

>cough< Prime Mover! >cough<

Excuse me.

I assume a "hard" atheist would ignore this, and conclude that the only possible God is a God in the traditional sense, which there is no valid evidence for.

[Peskanov]

----
quote:
"God" in the sense that most theists understand it, as a recognizably intelligent being which is omniscient and omnipotent, which is able to care about and interfere with human affairs, which provides mankind with some sort of afterlife, does not exist.
----

Yes, but I did not use that definition. I used the widest definition I can. Read it again.

----
quote:
But before we say there is no God of any kind, there is one thing to consider...

>cough< Prime Mover! >cough<

Excuse me.
I assume a "hard" atheist would ignore this, and conclude that the only possible God is a God in the traditional sense, which there is no valid evidence for.
---

I am not ignoring this, and I still deny god.
Look at my definition. It only adds "volition" to "prime mover". Why?
If you imagine a god without volition, "god" can be a synonim of "universe". A blind, non-intelligent universe. We don't need the word "god" then, it's confusing.
There a lots of god concepts, but nearly all I know have some kind of intelligence. I reject them by Occam's razor.
Can you present a concept of god without volition?

[BillyJoe]

peskanov,

int i, j = 0xdeadbeef;
for (i=0;i<4000; i++)
((j = (j ^ ((j << 13) | ( j >> (32-13))))) & 1) ? printf ("\\") : printf ("/");

This looks like old C code.
But I am puzzled by the first bit of the conditional statement.
What does the printout look like?
Also, can you really assign a word to a variable declared as an int?

BJ

[Peskanov]

BillyJoe;

Well, totally of topic...But, as there is not much movement in this thread:
:)

----
quote:
But I am puzzled by the first bit of the conditional statement.
----

Just an improvised pseudo-random generator. Just think of it like rand().

----
quote:
What does the printout look like?
----

Look at my avatar. BTW, Vorticity guessed it right away...

----
quote:
Also, can you really assign a word to a variable declared as an int?
----

Is not a word, is an hexadecimal number. 0xdeadbeef and 0x0badcafe are usual deafult values used by old coders...For example, you initialize all memory with 0x0badcafe; if your program crash you can see what memory/variables got trashed looking if there is still "dead beef" there...

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Peskanov
I am not ignoring this, and I still deny god.
Look at my definition. It only adds "volition" to "prime mover". Why?
Uh, your definition adds "entity," not "volition." Aristotle says the Prime Mover can't be an entity, because it isn't capable of thought as we understand it. It has the bare minimum of cognition, which is volition, in order to make the transition from no movement whatsoever to movement. It is not a god in any sense, except when you want to take parts of the argument out of context (which you should never do, since Aristotle's arguments are always long and dependent on one another). The Prime Mover has omniscience, and it has the barest minimum of volition (but it can't change its decision, or make another one, since it exists independantly from time) but that's it. The idea of a single thing being omnipresent, eternal, and posessing the first will in the universe drove the Christians nuts so they pulled the argument out of context in order to make arguments for the same qualities in their god, which is why they assumed it was an entity of some kind. I don't know why you did it.

If you imagine a god without volition, "god" can be a synonim of "universe". A blind, non-intelligent universe. We don't need the word "god" then, it's confusing.
What is this, semantics? Call it what you like, it's the idea of an understandible god despite a universe which is not understandible that's confusing. Sure it's comforting to think you're special and significant for understanding your god, but it's wrong. When you let the god, which you think you understand, comprise the universe, which you don't understand, you have a big fat contradiction on your hands, so you come up with a lot of excuses. Throw in some morality and some other things that seem to be true for no immediate reason, maybe promise an afterlife of some kind, and you've got a religion. Religion isn't about posessing knowedge that nobody else does, it's about playing make-believe until you're convinced that you're special.

There a lots of god concepts, but nearly all I know have some kind of intelligence. I reject them by Occam's razor.
Can you present a concept of god without volition?
I had to think for a while about this one since you made volition a requirement in your definion of "god" but- Prometheus.

[Peskanov]

c4ts;

----
quote:
Uh, your definition adds "entity," not "volition."
----

It adds both; you just said 'Prime mover'. Volition is not implicit in 'Prime mover'.

----
quote:
Aristotle says the Prime Mover can't be an entity, because it isn't capable of thought as we understand it. It has the bare minimum of cognition, which is volition, in order to make the transition from no movement whatsoever to movement.
[...]
The Prime Mover has omniscience, and it has the barest minimum of volition (but it can't change its decision, or make another one, since it exists independantly from time) but that's it.
----

Interesting; still, I don't know the definition of entity used by Aristotle. In current uses of "entity", any kind of intelligence apply. A thing which posseses volition and omniscience is quite intelligent for me.

----
quote:
The idea of a single thing being omnipresent, eternal, and posessing the first will in the universe drove the Christians nuts so they pulled the argument out of context in order to make arguments for the same qualities in their god, which is why they assumed it was an entity of some kind. I don't know why you did it.
----

Well, there are 2 common definitions of entity; here is one from dictionary.cambridge.org:
"something which exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence"
I was not using this version; some concept of god embodies all reality in god.

Another definition, from www.wikipedia.org:
"The general connotation of the word 'entity' is often of a being /creature/ organism /lifeform with some kind of intelligence but not necessarily a concrete material existence. eg. God is often referred to as an 'Entity' with no corporeal form."

The term entity is quite general, but maybe I should use 'being' instead...

----
quote:
What is this, semantics?
----

Of course it is, what did you expect talking about highly especulative concepts like god? :)

----
quote:
Call it what you like, it's the idea of an understandible god despite a universe which is not understandible that's confusing.
[...]
----

Well, as I said I reject the most general (but still reasonable) concept of god. Believe me, I am not confusing the old bearded Yahve with the concept of "creator of the universe". I reject both, but for different reasons. I don't need to build a closed and complete idea of god; it has properties that causes me to deny it.

----
I said:
Can you present a concept of god without volition?
quote:
I had to think for a while about this one since you made volition a requirement in your definion of "god" but- Prometheus.
----

Prometheus, the titan?
No, I was asking about concepts of god which does not fit in my definition.
My point is that nearly all concepts god have these properties: responsible of universe creation, volition.
And just acknowelding these two, there are enough reasons to deny the existence of such entity.

[BillyJoe]

Okay, but I can't make head or tail out of.....

((j = (j ^ ((j << 13) | ( j >> (32-13))))) & 1)

Nevermind though.

[lyghtningbyrd]

It sounds to me like a "soft athiest" is one of those people who's afraid to plunge fully into athiesm, (i.e. - Someone who says "I don't believe in God, but just in case there is a hell, I'm flexible...)

I am a nihilist. This is because I believe that there is no meaning behind the universe; and certainly no meaning to life. That's the beauty of it. It's all just chaos. It's the only thing that makes sense, and I would bet my life on it.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
It sounds to me like a "soft athiest" is one of those people who's afraid to plunge fully into athiesm, (i.e. - Someone who says "I don't believe in God, but just in case there is a hell, I'm flexible...)Yes.
So what do you think of "Agnostic Atheist"?

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
I am a nihilist. No, you're not. :)

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
This is because I believe that there is no meaning behind the universe; and certainly no meaning to life. That's the beauty of it. Yes, no inherent meaning.
But does this mean there is no meaning at all?

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
It's all just chaos. It's the only thing that makes sense, and I would bet my life on it. I'm a bit confused ( ;) ), what exactly are you meaning ( ;) ) to say here?

[allanb]

I missed the original definitions suggested for "hard" and "soft" atheism. But I think you can be the hardest possible kind of atheist without being able to prove the non-existence of a god (or gods).

Here is my belief: the existence of God is exactly as probable as the existence of Father Christmas. I can't prove that Father Christmas doesn't exist, either, but I have no difficulty in managing my life without him, and I don't think he will solve any problems for me.

Similarly, I can't prove that there isn't a hamburger stand on the dark side of the moon. You may say that's ridiculous, to which I would reply: yes, and so is God.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by allanb
I missed the original definitions suggested for "hard" and "soft" atheism. But I think you can be the hardest possible kind of atheist without being able to prove the non-existence of a god (or gods).

Here is my belief: the existence of God is exactly as probable as the existence of Father Christmas. I can't prove that Father Christmas doesn't exist, either, but I have no difficulty in managing my life without him, and I don't think he will solve any problems for me.

Similarly, I can't prove that there isn't a hamburger stand on the dark side of the moon. You may say that's ridiculous, to which I would reply: yes, and so is God. My thoughs exactly... :cool:

BTW, welcome to the forum allanb

[BillyJoe]

You took the ..... right out of my mouth.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Here is my belief: the existence of God is exactly as probable as the existence of Father Christmas.


Yeah haha.. it's funny you mention that. I wrote an argumentative paper in school in which I argued against the existence of god, using the same comparison of Santa Claus to God. They both punish you when you're bad, reward you when you're good, and both are creations of man. Needless to say, I recieved a "60 F - This is OFFENSIVE! See me after class!"

So I guess the moral of the story is: Don't ever express your opinions at school. It'll only get you in trouble.

[K-W]

What santa clause does prove is that humans can buy wholesale into a crazy concept despite massive evidence that he cant exist, just because their parents told them to.

[lyghtningbyrd]

EXACTLY. Because children believe the Santa Claus lie until theiy're about 5 - 7 yrs old, but for some reason, many don't want to let go of God. I guess because their parents never did either.

[Dymanic]

So what do you think of "Agnostic Atheist"?
How about "Meta-agnostic"?:
If you believe there is a God, you're a believer.
If you don't believe there is a God, you're an atheist.
If you aren't sure whether you are a believer or not, you're an agnostic.
If you aren't sure whether you are an agnostic or not, you're a meta-agnostic.

originally posted by c4ts

Religion isn't about posessing knowedge that nobody else does...
Ah, but it is. It's about exactly that. It's just that the 'knowledge' can be utterly lacking in any factual basis--as long as you can sell it.
...it's about playing make-believe until you're convinced that you're special.
If you can convince enough people that playing makes you special, then in a sense, it does.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Religion is weird as hell if you think about it. It's this thing that most humans have to do to stay sane. It doesn't necisarily have to be a formal, popular religion. Even alot of athiests have this tendency to worship something else, because for some reason they can't just except what reality is.

For example, many people will adoptan ego of attepted altruism, or a super humanitarian outlook, because they still want to believe there's meaning to their lives, even without god. There's of course nothing wrong with this in my opinion, but it is done many times as a replacement, I think.

Some will decide that aliens from some distant galaxy are the answer. They think the "aliens" will swoop down and reveal the mysteries of the universe.

There's a movement called Straight Edge that developed around the late 80s, and has become huge. It's basic doctrine is Anti-Drug and abstinence, but it cannot be denied that it is a growing cult.

I guess the people who feel the need to create meaning in a meaningless universe just can't cope with reality.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Theist: believes that God exists.
A-thesit: believes that God does not exist.
Non-theist: is not a theist.

The Theists and Atheist positions are untenable because the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved. A Nontheist is merely not a theist and is therefore the only tenable position to have.

I must say I disagree. Please read my posts on this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19110

For a defense of hard atheism, what you consider mere atheism.

I say that theism can be disproven just as surely as creationism, phrenology and ESP. It merely cannot be proven to an absolute degree(but then again requesting proof be absolute is unreasonable.)

[Martin]

Originally posted by allanb
Here is my belief: the existence of God is exactly as probable as the existence of Father Christmas. I can't prove that Father Christmas doesn't exist, either, but I have no difficulty in managing my life without him, and I don't think he will solve any problems for me.

Similarly, I can't prove that there isn't a hamburger stand on the dark side of the moon. You may say that's ridiculous, to which I would reply: yes, and so is God. But both Father Christmas and the hamburger stand go against what we know. Some concepts of God do that too, others simply are not supported by what we know. It's a crucial distinction. A hamburger stand on the dark side of the Moon is absurd, and can safely be ruled out. Something analogous to a hamburger stand on some distant planet with intelligent life is not absurd. While I don't believe in such a thing, I don't rule it out either.

The important question is this - is your atheism an assumption or a conclusion?

Personally, my position is that there is insufficient evidence to confirm or reject God, therefore it is rational to take the default position that there is none. Hence 'agnostic atheist'.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I must say I disagree. Please read my posts on this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19110 [f]or a defense of hard atheism.....


Some, I think, representative quotes (with some clarifications).....

"And I don't merely "not believe" [in God], I think they are improbable, VERY improbable, so in a sense I disbelieve. My disblief is of course provisional, but then again so are most of my beliefs."

".....every event that fits parsimoniously with a naturalistic viewpoint lowers the probability of supernaturalism....."

"......theism requires more serious treatment and examination. That doesn't make theism any more credible.....and cannot be used to argue for weak atheism over strong atheism....."

".....when the soft atheist is saying "I don't believe in God", [he is not necessarily saying "theism is false" (ie there is no God)]. [He] can simply be suspending judgement due to lack of evidence on either side. That's really no different then agnosticism as a conclusion.
Or maybe the person has never even heard of God, so the idea of God has no epistemic status as far as he/she's concerned.
The strong atheist though is basically saying "Theism is false"(ie there is no God)......"

".....But lets take even the deist God. Here we can simply dismiss him because a natural/material or self-contained universe is very plausible, so there is no need for such a God. Thus given the standard of parsimony such a theist world view must be deemed improbable. Of course the above depends on how probable it is that the universe is material/natural."On the basis of the above quotes, I would say that my view gels pretty much with yours (especially taking into account your qualifications - which I have emphasized in bold in your first quote.)
Therefore, I think our differences must be merely definitional.

[Kilted_Canuck]

How I heard it:

Gnostic Theist: Absolutely no chance in hell that there is no god.
Agnostic Theist: Pretty sure there is a god, but does not doubt enough to be an atheist.

me: Agnostic(soft) Atheist: Pretty sure that there is no god. This belief system usually has to do with the scientific method, and since that god cannot be proved, it therefore cannot be disproved.

Gnostic(hard): Almost fanatically believes in no god. This takes as much disbelief as Gnostic Theist takes belief.

[allanb]

Originally posted by Martinm
But both Father Christmas and the hamburger stand go against what we know. Some concepts of God do that too, others simply are not supported by what we know. It's a crucial distinction. A hamburger stand on the dark side of the Moon is absurd, and can safely be ruled out. Something analogous to a hamburger stand on some distant planet with intelligent life is not absurd. While I don't believe in such a thing, I don't rule it out either.

The important question is this - is your atheism an assumption or a conclusion?

Personally, my position is that there is insufficient evidence to confirm or reject God, therefore it is rational to take the default position that there is none. Hence 'agnostic atheist'.

I’m not so sure about the “crucial distinction”.

You say that some things “go against what we know”, but what do you mean by “know”? I know that Father Christmas and my lunar hamburger stand don’t exist because they would be completely inconsistent with what common sense and experience tell me. (I agree with what you say about a distant planet, but my example specifically referred to the moon.) “Knowing”, in that sense, doesn’t imply the ability to prove it, just a conviction that the opposite view, as I think we agree, is absurd.

Being certain about the non-existence of something is a bit like being certain about a future event. I “know” that there will be two high tides tomorrow. That’s about as near to absolute certainty as you can get. With a slightly lower degree of certainty, I know that snow will fall somewhere in New York State during the next 12 months, and that Manchester United will score at least one goal in next season’s league games. I can’t prove any of these things in a logical sense, but in each case the alternative is inconceivable, so I believe them.

In all of these we are talking about a level of probability that is mathematically not quite 100% but so close that it makes no difference. That’s where I would put the existence of God.

By the way, I think we’ve been talking about God in a fairly general sense. If you want to shift the subject to the specifically Christian version of God, I would go further and say that it can be
positively disproved. But that’s another topic.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Kilted_Canuck

Gnostic(hard): Almost fanatically believes in no god. This takes as much disbelief as Gnostic Theist takes belief.

Yah thats how ive heard it too. I doubt the existance of this group.