"weak atheism" vs. Agnosticism

[Checkmite]

I'm sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on this thing. What is the difference between "Agnosticism" and "weak Atheism"?

As I understand it, Agnosticism is the failure to declare a position regarding the existence of God due to lack of any sort of evidence. As I've heard it defined, "weak Atheism" means the exact same thing, except that the person "leans more toward Atheism".

Excuse my frankness, but what the hell does it matter which direction someone "leans"? It's like debating a bill in Congress - you vote "Yea", "No", or you Abstain (no vote). If you Abstain, does it make a difference whether you sorta agreed or disagreed? Doesn't creating a new "region" simply complicate the issue? What has a "weak Atheist" really voted - "No", or "Abstain"?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Weak atheism basically means you don't believe in God, for whatever reason.

Agnosticism though seems to think you believe theism/atheism are equally plausible or the evidence for both sides as equal. That's how I see it anyways, this is hardly a definitions et in stone. As there really there is no "true" definition for agnosticism.

[GrapeJ713]

I think agnostic athiest is the best term I have heard to describe me. I don't believe in the existence of god, but I know I could be wrong. If there is a god he would be such a complex and powerful being that I probably couldn't comprehend it all. Just like a worm couldn't comprehend a human. I'm damn sure that if there was a god he would have made perfectly clear how he wanted us to act and not let anything as messed up as the bible represent his word.

[K-W]

Agnostic basically means skeptical of God, but not willing to say you dont believe in him for whatever reason.

Athiests do not believe in god.

The weak/strong destinction is based around the concept that you cant prove god doesnt exist. Strong Athiests are few and far between and simply dont understand the logic around the subject well, so they say that no God could possibly exist.

Almost all atheists are weak atheists.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
I think agnostic athiest is the best term I have heard to describe me. I don't believe in the existence of god, but I know I could be wrong. If there is a god he would be such a complex and powerful being that I probably couldn't comprehend it all. Just like a worm couldn't comprehend a human. I'm damn sure that if there was a god he would have made perfectly clear how he wanted us to act and not let anything as messed up as the bible represent his word.

What makes you believe such nonsense? Couldn't it be that some god made the earth by accident and he's a complete fool? Why does this god have to be so complex as well? I think you are placing qualities on this god of yours so that you can simply make the statement that no person can know what it is. In effect, you are making unfalsifiable claims about your particular god-concept.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by K-W
Strong Athiests are few and far between and simply dont understand the logic around the subject well, so they say that no God could possibly exist.


I consider myself a "strong atheist". Yes, it's possible that a god could exist, but it's also possible that monkeys could fly out of my ass as well. The concepts are so absurd that I feel perfectly confortable saying there is no god.

[wraith]

hi Josh :cool:

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

What makes you believe such nonsense? Couldn't it be that some god made the earth by accident and he's a complete fool? Why does this god have to be so complex as well? I think you are placing qualities on this god of yours so that you can simply make the statement that no person can know what it is. In effect, you are making unfalsifiable claims about your particular god-concept.

I said IF, I don't think he exists, it's just my concept of a supreme being powerful enough to create a huge complex world.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


I said IF, I don't think he exists, it's just my concept of a supreme being powerful enough to create a huge complex world.

You've basically just made your "god" undefineable. By doing this, you make yourself perfectly confortable with your agnostic position.

[K-W]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I consider myself a "strong atheist". Yes, it's possible that a god could exist, but it's also possible that monkeys could fly out of my ass as well. The concepts are so absurd that I feel perfectly confortable saying there is no god.

Then you arent a strong athiest.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by K-W


Then you arent a strong athiest.

There is no god. I'm a strong atheist. I can bench-press over 350 lbs.

[K-W]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


There is no god. I'm a strong atheist. I can bench-press over 350 lbs.

Then explain to me how a weak athiest differs from you?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by K-W

Then explain to me how a weak athiest differs from you?

A weak atheist can't bench-press over 350 lbs. They won't say "there is no god" as well.

[Yahzi]

A weak atheist (or agnostic, they really are the same thing) says, "I lack belief in god."

A strong atheist (or just atheist as opposed to agnostic) says, "I lack belief in god, and so should you, assuming you want to continue being reasonable."

I used to argue that agnostics were really athiests (because of course they are) and that the term agnostic shouldn't be used. But it isn't used to describe your belief: it is used to describe your attitude towards others.

An agnostic doesn't believe, but he isn't strong enough in his views to assert that you should also not believe. An athiest doesn't believe, for rational reasons, and therefore expects you to either agree with his conclusion or point out where he is wrong.

This makes agnosticism periously close to the new-age idea that all truth is relative, which probably explains why I dislike it so much.

[thaiboxerken]

This makes agnosticism periously close to the new-age idea that all truth is relative, which probably explains why I dislike it so much.

I find agnostics people that are just unwilling to state what they really believe. They are useless in a conversation/ debate about gods and religion.

[Samus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
There is no god. I'm a strong atheist. I can bench-press over 350 lbs. Wow, you're like muscleman, only you're an atheist! And you have a brain! :)

As I define it, the "hardness" of an atheist refers more to how sure they are in the evidence (or lack thereof) of god's existence. I'm still not fully convinced, but lean that way, so I'm a softie. :) Others on the forum can say with a better degree of certainty "look at the lack of evidence, you dummy."

Agnostic, well, that just kinda fits in there somewhere. I'm willing to believe god can exist, and that sets me apart from the harder atheists. I'm also content to believe he doesn't, and I've got my problems with organized religions, which sets me apart from hard theists. Somewhere in between, that's an agnostic.

Clear as mud?

[Darwin]

I did not know there was such a documented position as weak atheism,but there are various variations of agnosticism.

[K-W]

I must say, the missionary destinction is one ive not encountered before. Its always been described to me and where ive read it as relating to a belief in no god, vs lack of belief in god.

In which case I still think there is no difference. Its just how you phrase it. Even reading on this thread, people who say there is no god qualfiy it by explainging they just mean that lack of evidence makes it seem very imporoble, which is exactly the weak atheists idea when they say they dont believe. It seems to be more about expressing things in a certain way, and some peoples not wanting to express things in vague terms, than any fundemental difference in views.

If Strong/Weak is based on whether you think others should also be atheist, i dont think thats a particularly useful destinction. I dont really see this as two camps. I think the opinions relating to this would fill the whole spectrum.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Excuse my frankness, but what the hell does it matter which direction someone "leans"? It's like debating a bill in Congress - you vote "Yea", "No", or you Abstain (no vote). If you Abstain, does it make a difference whether you sorta agreed or disagreed? Doesn't creating a new "region" simply complicate the issue? What has a "weak Atheist" really voted - "No", or "Abstain"?

I personally doubt the existence of God (see no reason to believe) in the absence of evidence. Therefore I do not believe- i.e. the vote is "no". I suppose this makes me a "weak" or "soft" atheist.

I reckon an agnostic would simply say "I don't know" - i.e. "abstain" and a "hardcore atheist" would state without any reservation that "there is no God". IMO both "soft" and "hard" atheist would vote "no", but for different reasons.

[Yahzi]

If Strong/Weak is based on whether you think others should also be atheist, i dont think thats a particularly useful destinction.
It's a useful distinction to other people, who want to know how you are likely to behave.

I agree it's not so usefull for categorizing you own beliefs - if you don't believe in god, you are an atheist, regardless of why you don't believe - but labels are really for other people, and people want to know if you are going stand there quietly or argue with them when they decide to spout off about their stupid believes.

[Fade]

This makes agnosticism periously close to the new-age idea that all truth is relative, which probably explains why I dislike it so much.

Tend to agree with this. Agnosticism was coined as a term meant as wishy-washy, and it continues to be wishy-washy.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Yahzi

It's a useful distinction to other people, who want to know how you are likely to behave.

I agree it's not so usefull for categorizing you own beliefs - if you don't believe in god, you are an atheist, regardless of why you don't believe - but labels are really for other people, and people want to know if you are going stand there quietly or argue with them when they decide to spout off about their stupid believes.

That wasnt my point. My point is that there arent two destinct camps of atheists on this issue. Nor is there anything resembling two distinct camps. Whether others should be atheists, and what if anything you should do about it is a complex issue with many possible stances. I dont see there being a destinction that can be made.

[TylerD]

Agnosticism, as I understand it, is the belief that knowledge of God is impossible to attain. Weak atheism is the belief that there is insufficient evidence for God, and therefore, not to warrent a belief in him/it. I don't think the two terms are mutually exclusive, one can be an agnostic weak atheist. I am not an agnostic, I do not believe that knowledge of whether God exists is beyond the realm of science. And, for the most part, science has eliminated the need for God. Or at least the need for a creator, perpetuator, or maintainer of the universe.

[Cain]

A few posts express my thoughts on the subject...

For example, Yahzi is right when he says:

A weak atheist (or agnostic, they really are the same thing) says, "I lack belief in god."

Though I disagree with his opinion of strong atheism.

We need to state the beliefs rather than load terms with "rational" and motive (e.g. I think agnostics are just cowardly atheists.)

Tyler wrote:
[quote]Agnosticism, as I understand it, is the belief that knowledge of God is impossible to attain.

The problem is that many self-proclaimed "agnostics" do not really understand the original meaning of the term (perhaps for the motives others have already speculated, but, again, that's beside the point.

Oxford English Dictionary:

A. n. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
[Suggested by Prof. Huxley at a party held previous to the formation of the now defunct Metaphysical Society, at Mr. James Knowles's house on Clapham Common, one evening in 1869, in my hearing. He took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to ‘the Unknown God.’ R. H. HUTTON in letter 13 Mar. 1881.]

Huxley took the word from the gnostics (who claimed knowledge). A few scholars have speculated the Huxley coined the word to appease both atheists and theists in his bid for leadership of the Metaphyscial Society.

We need only ask but one simple question: do agnostics lack a belief in god? We must certainly answer yes and, in accordance with the other views expressed, conclude that agnosticism is a subgrouping under atheism. (" I don't think the two terms are mutually exclusive, one can be an agnostic weak atheist.")

I wish we could abolish the silly word once and for all.

[fidiot]

I consider "weak atheists" to be people who don't believe in god but haven't done a lot of studying on the topic, and thus are not strong in ther stance. A teenager rebelling against his/her religious parents would be a good example of weak atheism. I don't like the position of weak atheism as I define it, because it is usually people like that who turn back to religion at some point and give the atheists a bad name.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


What makes you believe such nonsense? Couldn't it be that some god made the earth by accident and he's a complete fool? Why does this god have to be so complex as well? I think you are placing qualities on this god of yours so that you can simply make the statement that no person can know what it is. In effect, you are making unfalsifiable claims about your particular god-concept.

Try creating your own universe and see how long it holds together. Surely if an idiot God could do it, so can you.

Actually, if there were some kind of intelligence in the sense that it would set the universe into being and motion, then it could be so smart it would seem as dumb as a rock becasue you would not recognize intelligence at that level.

[thaiboxerken]

Try creating your own universe and see how long it holds together. Surely if an idiot God could do it, so can you.

Assuming that the power was available. I create fesces everyday by accident, why wouldn't a universe be created the same way?


Actually, if there were some kind of intelligence in the sense that it would set the universe into being and motion, then it could be so smart it would seem as dumb as a rock becasue you would not recognize intelligence at that level.

Pure speculation on your part. It seems to be a common premise, based on nothing, that a creator-god would have to be smart.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Try creating your own universe and see how long it holds together. Surely if an idiot God could do it, so can you.

Assuming that the power was available. I create fesces everyday by accident, why wouldn't a universe be created the same way?


Actually, if there were some kind of intelligence in the sense that it would set the universe into being and motion, then it could be so smart it would seem as dumb as a rock becasue you would not recognize intelligence at that level.

Pure speculation on your part. It seems to be a common premise, based on nothing, that a creator-god would have to be smart.

Well, there is this whole Prime Mover concept of an unintelligent creator, but as long as I'm speculating, I want to keep things a bit more interesting.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Cain
We need only ask but one simple question: do agnostics lack a belief in god? We must certainly answer yes ... And, were we to do so, we would certainly be wrong. It is perfectly possible to insist that the existence of God is unknowable and, nevertheless, believe in God(s) solely on the basis of faith alone. Though strange bedfellows, agnosticism and theism are not irreconcilable.

Agnosticism is an epistemic stance. For Huxley, it was likewise a methodological stance not dissimilar to methodological naturalism. That you find it to be "a silly word" perhaps says far more about your understanding than Huxley's.

[thaiboxerken]

Agnosticism is just a position of appealing to ignorance.

[CWL]

Originally posted by fidiot
I consider "weak atheists" to be people who don't believe in god but haven't done a lot of studying on the topic, and thus are not strong in ther stance. A teenager rebelling against his/her religious parents would be a good example of weak atheism. I don't like the position of weak atheism as I define it, because it is usually people like that who turn back to religion at some point and give the atheists a bad name.

I don't agree with your definition. I would say it is the other way around.

People who take a firm stance and positively state "there is no God" haven't been doing a lot of thinking.

A soft/weak atheist takes the stance that it is not reasonable to believe in God when there is no evidence (very much like it is not reasonable to believe in unicorns or gnomes).

Which position would you say is the educated one? Which position is more in alignment with a scientific method?

[fidiot]

Originally posted by CWL
I don't agree with your definition. I would say it is the other way around.

People who take a firm stance and positively state "there is no God" haven't been doing a lot of thinking.

A soft/weak atheist takes the stance that it is not reasonable to believe in God when there is no evidence (very much like it is not reasonable to believe in unicorns or gnomes).

Which position would you say is the educated one? Which position is more in alignment with a scientific method?

I can see what you're arguing, and I will try to address your points, but you misunderstood my post. I didn't say that your definition of "weak atheists" haven't been doing a lot of thinking. I just defined "weak atheists" as people who haven't done much thinking about the issue (I wonder how would you define those people). You simply dismissed my definition and started arguing about yours. I think in this case it's very subjective - I'd personally call your definition of a soft/weak atheist an agnostic position. As for which position is more in alignment with a scientific method, I say both are, the only difference is semantics. Because in order to come to a conclusion that there is no god, one has to first conclude that, like you said, it is not reasonable to believe in god when there is no evidence. My problem with agnostics is that they somehow see god as some sort of a special case where you have to point out that we can't know for sure if he exists or not, even if there's no evidence that it does. Because in reality, we can't be really sure of anything (how do you know that this world exists? Maybe it's all an illusion? There's no evidence for my claim but it's possible, do I have to point that out everytime I talk about the way I perceive things?), so why not take an agnostic stance about everything? Because it would interfere with your daily life. Just imagine having to point out in every conversation about anything that such and such might be an illusion, but because there's no evidence, it is reasonable to think that it isn't. Now that would be a pain in the a**, wouldn't it? So why is talking about god different?

Anyway, I don't mean to argue about definitions, this is all subjective and there's no point arguing over semantics.

[CWL]

Originally posted by fidiot
I can see what you're arguing, and I will try to address your points, but you misunderstood my post. I didn't say that your definition of "weak atheists" haven't been doing a lot of thinking. I just defined "weak atheists" as people who haven't done much thinking about the issue (I wonder how would you define those people). You simply dismissed my definition and started arguing about yours.

Touché. An unintentional strawman. I apologize. The intention of my post was really to point out what I think one generally means when one talks about weak/soft atheism - that is what I meant when I said I do not agree with your definition of "weak atheism".

I think in this case it's very subjective - I'd personally call your definition of a soft/weak atheist an agnostic position.
I disagree. An agnostic position is saying "I don't know". The soft atheist says "I do not believe", albeit because of lack of evidence. A significant difference IMO.

I personally view myself as a soft atheist. I do not believe in God for the same reasons I do not believe in unicorns. The problem is as you know that it is very difficult to prove a negative assertion - i.e. "God does not exist" or "there are no unicorns". The fundamental epistemological snag is that just because there is no evidence for something does not exclude the possibility that it may in fact exist (no matter how unlikely).

Notwithstanding, my position towards unicorns can hardly be categorized as "agnostic".

As for which position is more in alignment with a scientific method, I say both are, the only difference is semantics. Because in order to come to a conclusion that there is no god, one has to first conclude that, like you said, it is not reasonable to believe in god when there is no evidence. My problem with agnostics is that they somehow see god as some sort of a special case where you have to point out that we can't know for sure if he exists or not, even if there's no evidence that it does. Because in reality, we can't be really sure of anything (how do you know that this world exists? Maybe it's all an illusion? There's no evidence for my claim but it's possible, do I have to point that out everytime I talk about the way I perceive things?), so why not take an agnostic stance about everything? Because it would interfere with your daily life. Just imagine having to point out in every conversation about anything that such and such might be an illusion, but because there's no evidence, it is reasonable to think that it isn't. Now that would be a pain in the a**, wouldn't it? So why is talking about god different?

Anyway, I don't mean to argue about definitions, this is all subjective and there's no point arguing over semantics.

Well, if we are going to discuss "weak/soft atheism" as opposed to "agnosticism" I think we are forced to begin with agreeing on definitions (as is often the case in any debate).

[fidiot]

Originally posted by CWL
I disagree. An agnostic position is saying "I don't know". The soft atheist says "I do not believe", albeit because of lack of evidence. A significant difference IMO.
Hmm. Then what is the "strong" atheist saying? Would you define a "strong" atheist to be someone who will not believe in god no matter what? It's starting to make sense now. I'd define it the other way around, because I see strength not in the will to believe, but in the soundness of the arguments. But maybe I've got it all backwards :D

I personally view myself as a soft atheist. I do not believe in God for the same reasons I do not believe in unicorns. The problem is as you know that it is very difficult to prove a negative assertion - i.e. "God does not exist" or "there are no unicorns". The fundamental epistemological snag is that just because there is no evidence for something does not exclude the possibility that it may in fact exist (no matter how unlikely).

Notwithstanding, my position towards unicorns can hardly be categorized as "agnostic".

Well, technically, since you can't exclude the possibility that it may exist, you "don't know" the truth, so to speak. It's just a matter of defining one's stance on the issue, and you see yourself as a weak atheist, which is fine. I'd probably fall under that definition too, the way you defined it above.

[CWL]

Originally posted by fidiot
[B]Hmm. Then what is the "strong" atheist saying? Would you define a "strong" atheist to be someone who will not believe in god no matter what? It's starting to make sense now. I'd define it the other way around, because I see strength not in the will to believe, but in the soundness of the arguments. But maybe I've got it all backwards :D
:D Not only do I see your point, I agree completely. Notwithstanding, generally when one refers to a "soft atheist" one means someone who does not believe in a God due to lack of evidence but is not willing to exclude the possibility of a God.

A "hard atheist" would - at least in my book - be someone who simply asserts that God does not exist, without any thought behind it.

Perhaps the terminology should be, as you suggest, the other way around. :)

Well, technically, since you can't exclude the possibility that it may exist, you "don't know" the truth, so to speak. It's just a matter of defining one's stance on the issue, and you see yourself as a weak atheist, which is fine. I'd probably fall under that definition too, the way you defined it above.
I think we understand each other perfectly.

[thaiboxerken]

Many people will agree that unicorns do not exist because there is no evidence of such and many stories have been shown that unicorn sightings have no validity.

Why do agnostics/weak atheists make a huge jump that "god" is such a special mythical creature that it holds to a different standard?

I think consistency should be introduced here. If someone wants to say that "it cannot be known if a god exists or doesn't" then they should say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not."

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

You equate god(s) with monkeys flying, Santa Claus, green cheese on the moon, (etc.) The problem with that line of argument, is that we already know for certain that those things listed do not exist. We do not know if god(s) exist or not.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

You equate god(s) with monkeys flying, Santa Claus, green cheese on the moon, (etc.) The problem with that line of argument, is that we already know for certain that those things listed do not exist. We do not know if god(s) exist or not.

Sincerely,

S. H.

His point is that every specific concept of god has been disproven as much as any of those things can be disproven.

The only reports of santa clause we get are people lying for a reason and people who dont know better because the people around them believe in him. How is this different from god. No one has proven any effect that he has had on this world. The only reports of him come from people in a community that also believes. If we can safely conclude that santa doesnt exist, why cant we safely conclude god doesnt exist?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by K-W


His point is that every specific concept of god has been disproven as much as any of those things can be disproven.


I disagree.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I disagree.

Care to elaborate?

I think santa clause is actually the only one that fits. THe other things he mentioned have been disproven more. But there is no more proof of a god than there is of santa clause.

[UnrepentantSinner]

To add one more veggie to the Stone Soup of dis/non-belief. Some folks think a deity or deities might or might not exist, but don't think they're interested enough in humans to warrent much consideration if they do. Such a person would be empirically agnostic deist.

Technically. ;)

For some good essays on the subject you might want to consult this page on the Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/index.shtml)

[Cain]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
[B]And, were we to do so, we would certainly be wrong. It is perfectly possible to insist that the existence of God is unknowable and, nevertheless, believe in God(s) solely on the basis of faith alone. Though strange bedfellows, agnosticism and theism are not irreconcilable.

In which case you're redefining agnosticism, which holds that God is both *unknown* and unknowable. Most theists already believe that God is unknowable (Smith in _A:tCaG_, if I remember correctly, quotes some Catholic dictionary describing God as "incomprehensible"). Your definition does nothing to distinguish agnosticism from theism in a remotely meaningful sense.

Agnosticism is an epistemic stance. For Huxley, it was likewise a methodological stance not dissimilar to methodological naturalism. That you find it to be "a silly word" perhaps says far more about your understanding than Huxley's.

And as an epistemic stance it is an incredibly silly word -- Huxley knows (on what grounds?)that God is unknowable.

[CWL]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Many people will agree that unicorns do not exist because there is no evidence of such and many stories have been shown that unicorn sightings have no validity.

Why do agnostics/weak atheists make a huge jump that "god" is such a special mythical creature that it holds to a different standard?

I think consistency should be introduced here. If someone wants to say that "it cannot be known if a god exists or doesn't" then they should say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not."

I will gladly say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not". Proving a negative may indeed be virtually impossible. However, I will also gladly say "notwitstanding, I do not believe in the existence of unicorns in the absence of convincing evidence". That is the very same thing I say about the existence of God.

See, no different standards at all. One simple epistemological point of departure: "doubt in the absence of evidence".

I believe the above would in principle make me a "soft atheist".

It should be noted however that my attitude towards the existence of "God" varies, depending on which definition of "God" we are talking about. Certain mythical creatures are logically impossible or unlikely and it is therefore rather safe to assert that they do not exist.

If we talking about the concept of "God" as an "omnipotent and benevolent being" I am willing to say that such a God cannot exist as the existence of such a God cannot be reasonably reconciled with the existence of suffering in the world. In relation to such a "God" I suppose I am a "hard atheist".

I am under no circumstances an agnostic. Simply saying "I don't know" merely indicates in my book that one hasn't given much thought to epistemological issues.

[thaiboxerken]

I will gladly say "it cannot be known if unicorns exist or do not". Proving a negative may indeed be virtually impossible. However, I will also gladly say "notwitstanding, I do not believe in the existence of unicorns in the absence of convincing evidence". That is the very same thing I say about the existence of God.

At least some people are consistent. Others happen to place the god-myth on a totally different standard than the other myths.

To the ones that insists Santa and Unicorns have been disproven, please show me that they have. The only difference between "god" and the rest of the mythical creatures is that more people believe in the "god" thing.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by K-W


Care to elaborate?

I think santa clause is actually the only one that fits. THe other things he mentioned have been disproven more. But there is no more proof of a god than there is of santa clause.

I'm saying I don't agree that every single specific concept of God has been disproven.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by CWL
People who take a firm stance and positively state "there is no God" haven't been doing a lot of thinking.
...
Which position would you say is the educated one? Which position is more in alignment with a scientific method?

As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no God and all current scientific thinking supports the idea of rejecting *any* being of arbitrary complexity and arbitrary flexibility.

I have done a lot of thinking on this topic, I believe that God is a fiction. You conditional is therefore false because the antecedent is true and the consequent false.

[jj]

Well, I've always had some trouble with the "strong", "weak", etc definitions, I think you believe what you do, and don't believe what you don't. :D

I'm one of those people that conclude, based on the (lack of any) evidence that there is no god.

It is not a belief, per-se, because I arrive at the decision based on the lack of evidence and laco of need for an explaination of the universe.

It is not strongly held, a great face ripping the firmrament (sic) and looking down at all of us (and being seen by more than me) would convince me otherwise, as would actual evidence that could be tested, etc.

It is, however, not weakly held, either, because I am asserting the statement "I conclude there is no god".

I call the idea "scientific atheism" for lack of a better title. That choice is not for quite a few obvious reasons the best title, though, either.

[CWL]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no God and all current scientific thinking supports the idea of rejecting *any* being of arbitrary complexity and arbitrary flexibility.

I have done a lot of thinking on this topic, I believe that God is a fiction. You conditional is therefore false because the antecedent is true and the consequent false.
I believe that God is fiction too - but I cannot conclusively prove it (depending on which definition of God that we use). That was my point. Can you prove it?

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by CWL

I believe that God is fiction too - but I cannot conclusively prove it (depending on which definition of God that we use). That was my point. Can you prove it?

Can it be proved that when people talk about God, the origin of that God element in their words is historical and social evolution? Yes, of course, there is abundant indirect and direct evidence that God is a fiction.

Can it be proved that elements of God theory are totally unacceptable for all human epistemology? Yes, beings of arbitrarya complexity have no place in any coherent philosophy. There is no way that I can possibly imagine by which I could be convinced of such a thing.

And no, the inconclusivity of knowledge does not depend upon which definition of God you use, any one could be 'true', even self-contradictory ones. Of course Helium will sooner freeze solid, pigs will sooner rule the universe and Santa Clause will sooner use lottery winnings to build a nuclear bomb.

Get it?

[metacristi]

Joshua Korosi

I am often puzzled by the fact that almost all english speakers I've met on the net put the equal sign between belief and 'mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something'-www.dictionary.com-implying certainty for them.Or,as I've seen,the english meaning of belief is also 'an opinion, especially a firm and considered one'-Encarta dictionary-this definition does not imply certitudes.Exactly this is the meaning of belief in my acceptance and,as I will point out further,has important consequences relating with the classification of different positions regarding objective knowledge and belief including my position regarding the whole of the so called 'lack of belief' position.

Under the former definition of 'belief' strong atheism has two different varieties based on the statements:

1.'God does not exist' and as a consequence 'I do not believe in God [defined,for the moment,merely as the creator of the universe]'.I label this type of strong atheism as being 'extremist strong atheism' for,of course,it does not stand the logical scutiny:we do not have sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist from all available objective evidence.

2.Simply 'I do not believe in God','I disbelieve based on observed evidence'.This type of strong atheism does not sustain having objective certitudes but only that from known objective knowledge there is no sufficient reason to believe,moreover it is sufficient to not believe.Clearly enough to be backed by logic.

The problem with both types of strong atheism is that they can be easily labeled as being simple beliefs too,simple opinions.That's why many atheists,who 'felt' that their position must necessarilly have the edge over that of believers,decided that the 'simple (dis)believer' label should be avoided with all cost.The solution found was the 'invention' of 'lack of belief' 'weak atheism' and 'agnostic atheism',both based on the alleged 'lack of belief'.But,as anyone can easily observe,the 'lack of belief' position is characteristic for all types of agnosticism and atheism.Generically agnosticism refers entirely at knowledge but,as can be easily seen,the 'classical' definition of agnosticism 'God cannot be known (forever)'-'hard' agnosticism in my acception-is not the only possible respecting the basic characteristics of agnosticism 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.The claim of many self labeled 'weak' atheists that only the classical definition of agnosticism is the real agnosticism is one of their maneouvers in order to defend their 'artificial' position.

'Hard' agnosticism- 'God(s) cannot be known [forever]'.This type of agnosticism is often mistaken as the only type of agnosticism.Given that it is self-defeating logically (implying that we already know objectively that 'God can never be known' is TRUE) many concluded from here (wrongly) that agnosticism is not a valid position.


2.'Weak' agnosticism-'I suspend judgement regarding disbelief/belief until I will have sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve'.
Weak agnostics DO NOT sustain that God cannot be known [forever] but only that today we have no sufficient reason to believe/disbelieve.'Sufficient reason' to believe/disbelieve does not mean necessarilly 'objective' (scientific) knowledge but only enough evidence that can be interpreted (subjectively varying from person to person-there is no unique,rigid standard) as supporting belief/disbelief.Anyway,usually,scientific objective knowledge is required.

In the light of that is clear that 'lack of belief weak atheism' is a position that belongs entirely to the 'weak' agnosticism for its main characteristic 'I simply lack belief,I will believe when I will have sufficient reason (evidence) to believe' place it entirely within 'weak' agnosticism.
'The onus is on the believer to conclusively prove his assumptions'-taken from logic-is an interesting addition however there is no necessity for the believer to do that and anyway this does not strenghten at all the alleged 'independence' of the 'lack of belief weak atheism' stance.'Weak atheism' says nothing about its position about 'disbelief' but this cannot save it from being a subset of 'weak agnosticism' for (implicitly) it does not stand that the existing evidence is enough to disbelieve.If it were otherwise then we would be in the second case of strong atheism (as presented above).
The so called 'lack of belief agnostic atheism' explicitly accepts that there is no sufficient objective knowledge either way claiming also 'lack of belief' but as in the case of 'weak' atheism it is only a subset of 'weak' agnosticism.

As a conclusion the majority of self labeled atheists who claim only 'lack of belief' as the main characteristics of their position are 'weak' agnostics in fact but without even be aware of that!The rest,a minority of people,aware of that basic limitation,want to avoid with all cost the 'believer' status.It's as simple as that.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by metacristi
Joshua Korosi

As a conclusion the majority of self labeled atheists who claim only 'lack of belief' as the main characteristics of their position are 'weak' agnostics in fact but without even be aware of that!The rest,a minority of people,aware of that basic limitation,want to avoid with all cost the 'believer' status.It's as simple as that.

I think you are missing the fact that agnosticism is a position/opinion about what can and cannot be known.

Atheism is a position about what that person believes.

One can be atheist and agnostic, or theist and agnostic.

To me, agnosticism is simply an evasion to the question "Do you believe in god?", they evade the question by saying "It cannot be known if a god exists or not." The answer given is not one that actually addresses the yes or no question. But hey, if you agnostics feel unconfortable saying whether you believe or not, that's fine. Just quit trying to state that atheism is illogical, because atheism is a state of being, not an opinion.

I do not believe in god because 1. no clear definition of god and 2. no evidence for the undefined god. Gods have all the characteristics of fictional beings.

[CWL]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
And no, the inconclusivity of knowledge does not depend upon which definition of God you use, any one could be 'true', even self-contradictory ones. Of course Helium will sooner freeze solid, pigs will sooner rule the universe and Santa Clause will sooner use lottery winnings to build a nuclear bomb.

Get it?

Well, it does depend on the definition. What I meant was that some "Gods" are easier to disprove than others. For instance, an "omnipotent and benevolent God" clearly cannot exist given the amount of suffering in the world. IMO, the existence of such a "God" is therefore disproven. But there are other definitions which are not so easy to disprove. Proving negatives can be awfully tricky business...

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by metacristi
Under the former definition of 'belief' strong atheism has two different varieties based on the statements:

1.'God does not exist' and as a consequence 'I do not believe in God [defined,for the moment,merely as the creator of the universe]'.I label this type of strong atheism as being 'extremist strong atheism' for, of course, it does not stand the logical scutiny:we do not have sufficient reason to conclude that God does not exist from all available objective evidence.

2.Simply 'I do not believe in God','I disbelieve based on observed evidence'.This type of strong atheism does not sustain having objective certitudes but only that from known objective knowledge there is no sufficient reason to believe,moreover it is sufficient to not believe. Clearly enough to be backed by logic.


But the revelation that there is no serious possiblity of a God as we have concieved is a useful one. It permits more accurate, more skeptical evaluation of human history and social organization.

Accepting this item as continuous with what I know, accepting it's truth, owes to it's vastly eludicating simplification.

Anti-Realists such as Vaan Frassen would, however, cast doubt on the notion that the evident utility of information justifies any sort of acceptence of truth.

The problem is that he is missing the real question: Is our best information not that knowledge of ourselves feeds upon our interaction with our universe, other people and memory encoded in books? If there is such essential continuity within knowedge, why does Vaan Frassen believe that knowledge about our internal state remain infallibly sealed from reality?

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by CWL


Well, it does depend on the definition. What I meant was that some "Gods" are easier to disprove than others. For instance, an "omnipotent and benevolent God" clearly cannot exist given the amount of suffering in the world. IMO, the existence of such a "God" is therefore disproven. But there are other definitions which are not so easy to disprove. Proving negatives can be awfully tricky business...

Gods I object to in particular are those that play a historical role in the universe. (Either setting the cosmological constants, creating humans, starting the big bang, whatever) Intelligence is a very dubious form of explanation for that sort of thing, particularly when we can' t put any limits on this intelligence!

So we are left with gods that not only don't do anything, never have done anything. These sorts of things simply constitute a potential pitfall in our epistemology, waste thought in the meantime and encourage us to ignore the problems with invoking ghosts.

[metacristi]

thaiboxerken



I think you are missing the fact that agnosticism is a position/opinion about what can and cannot be known.

Atheism is a position about what that person believes.

One can be atheist and agnostic, or theist and agnostic.


Agnosticism is a position about knowledge (supporting/falsifying soundly the God hypothesis) in general.The majority of agnostics understand by 'knowledge' objective knowledge,reliable,scientific knowledge.Unfortunately science cannot settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence soundly.That's why,finally,all types of agnostics arrive at the conclusion that we do not have sufficient knowledge to settle the problem of God either way (at least today) therefore they prefer to 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.

I've never denied that one can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.In fact I define myself as an agnostic theist though my definition of God has the minimum of attributes assigned-God being the creator or at least the formator of the actual order in the universe.Even an agnostic atheist position is conceivable.Only that simple 'lack of belief' is not allowed.A viable 'agnostic atheism' should contain the word 'disbelief' also.
The problem is that 'I don't believe that God does exist' (or simple 'I don't believe in God') is equivalent with 'I believe that God does not exist'.A simple opinion because the current objective knowledge cannot settle the problem;it cannot even prove soundly that God is unlikely to exist...


'Lack of belief' does not equal 'disbelief'.

To disbelieve something one must have sufficient reason (indeed only if they want to be rational till the end;the majority of rational people want that) to disbelieve,must justify the decision at least for themselves,whilst to simply 'lack belief' one does not need that...they will believe when they will have sufficient reason for that.Also since today's 'objective knowledge' is not enough,not providing definitive answers in the case of 'hypothesis God',the 'lack of belief' 'weak' atheists try to avoid the 'believer' status implied by simple 'disbelief'.The difference is subtle but essential from a logical standpoint.
Unfortunately for them by doing so they neither believe nor disbelieve,a characteristic of 'weak' agnosticism.
As you see the problem is much more complex but there are enough many atheists working hard to fix this problem...

[thaiboxerken]

Unfortunately science cannot settle the problem of God's existence/nonexistence soundly.

Yes, because science doesn't waste it's time trying to disprove fiction. Science has yet to disprove Santa Clause.


therefore they prefer to 'neither believe nor disbelieve'.

It's a yes or no question, one either believes or they don't believe. It's a matter of conviction, some people believe but will be easily swayed to the other side and vice-versa, but there is no middle area of belief. Agnostics tend to just evade the question.


Only that simple 'lack of belief' is not allowed.A viable 'agnostic atheism' should contain the word 'disbelief' also.The problem is that 'I don't believe that God does exist' (or simple 'I don't believe in God') is equivalent with 'I believe that God does not exist'.

This is false, newborn babies lack a belief in any gods. They do not believe "no gods exists". People ignorant of gods will also fall into this category. I, however, will state that there are no gods and it's perfectly reasonable, as there is NO evidence of such a being. There is no reasonable definition of "god" and there is no reasonable reason to believe in a god. However, some people just don't believe the god stories and are waiting for someone to convince them. I will be swayed to believe in god as well, just as soon as someone provides the evidence.

The way you state it, it seems as if you are trying to make atheism a positive assertion that must justify itself with evidence. This is wrong, though, because the position "i don't believe in god" or "there are no gods" is entirely dependant on the positive assertion "there is a god". It seems like you are trying to set up an appeal to ignorance, the classical and fallicious "prove there is no god".


A simple opinion because the current objective knowledge cannot settle the problem;it cannot even prove soundly that God is unlikely to exist...

There is no intelligent reason to believe in a god. There is no clear definition of what "god" is. There is no evidence to support this undefined god. These are the traits of a paranormal claim. Gods are just more paranormal claims.


To disbelieve something one must have sufficient reason (indeed only if they want to be rational till the end;the majority of rational people want that) to disbelieve,must justify the decision at least for themselves,whilst to simply 'lack belief' one does not need that...they will believe when they will have sufficient reason for that.

I don't totally agree. I think to disbelieve, one must have sufficient reason to believe but just will not. Creationists, for example, disbelieve evolution despite all of the evidence and facts that support evolution.


Also since today's 'objective knowledge' is not enough,not providing definitive answers in the case of 'hypothesis God',the 'lack of belief' 'weak' atheists try to avoid the 'believer' status implied by simple 'disbelief'.The difference is subtle but essential from a logical standpoint.

I don't know what logic you are using, but my logic doesn't appeal to ignorance. It is totally illogical to believe in undefined creatures that have no evidence associated with it. It is perfectly reasonable to say that an undefined being just doesn't exist.


Unfortunately for them by doing so they neither believe nor disbelieve,a characteristic of 'weak' agnosticism.
As you see the problem is much more complex but there are enough many atheists working hard to fix this problem...

One either believes or they do not believe. Many agnostics just avoid telling people if they believe in a god or not.

[metacristi]

synaesthesia

But the revelation that there is no serious possiblity of a God as we have concieved is a useful one. It permits more accurate, more skeptical evaluation of human history and social organization.


There is no logical reason and/or experimental data which to make 'God hypothesis' less probable.Besides I'm not at all sure it is really useful,even from an epistemological standpoint,to not consider this hypothesis at least as being reasonable.That does not mean at all that we should use God in our scientific hypotheses only because we cannot explain some observed phenomena.All I suggest is that in spite of its non scientific status (it is non falsifiable-at least now) nothing forbids the possibility to obtain experimental evidence of God in the future.An axiomatic sytem having God as an extra axiom beyond those of science is equally valid in spite of being more complex.A belief in God is perfectly rational in this light (as much as a rational justification does exist for this belief).

The real problem I see is dogma and the tendency of religious aspects to interfere with the scientific quest.But this is not at all restricted at what we name 'religion'.Seen from this perspective (the existence of dogmas) all social movements that interfere with the free development of science according with the scientific method are harmful.The soviet type of communism is a good example,even if we were to look at lysenkoism vs mendelianism problem or the 'decree' that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is 'idealistic'.Nazism is another and so on.

But as far as there is no organized strive to 'seize' science for some cause I see no problem (of course I am refering only at the problem we discuss here-for I do not agree with nazi ideology,for example,even if it would have not interfered destructively in science's problems).There is no contradiction to believe in God (having a rational reason) and be a great scientist.As much as science is free nothing impedes such a scientist to make later the constatation that God is unlikely to exist if some new evidence,not necessarilly counting as a proof,persuade him.Unfortunately a proposal like yours can be easily interpreted as 'seizing' science for the cause of atheism.I don't think atheism needs that 'boost' in order to be (still) a viable alternative (from a logical standpoint)...




Accepting this item as continuous with what I know, accepting it's truth, owes to it's vastly eludicating simplification.

Even if I accepted naturalism as being 'scientific truth' due to its simplicity we must never forget that it is only fallible truth since science itself is fallible.Personally I prefer to name naturalism a conjecture.




Anti-Realists such as Vaan Frassen would, however, cast doubt on the notion that the evident utility of information justifies any sort of acceptence of truth.

I think Van Fraasen has a very good point because,indeed,there is no need to believe that all theoretical constructs (but unobserved yet),posited by a very succesfull otherwise scientific theory,are necessarilly real.Moreover even for proved (indirectly) to exist entities,for which we have succesfull theoretical descriptions,there is enough room for skepticism.For example we know very well that an entity named electron does exist but we cannot be sure that the fundamental attributes we assign to it (spin for example) are real.

But I do not believe that we can be pure realists or pure anti-realists,everything is dependent by specific situations.For example I am a realist with respect to the quantum level-I am a supporter,as an opinion,of 'hidden' variables (in spite of the subdetermination problem)-but I am antirealist in many other cases.I am not at all sure for example that space is exactly depicted by the currently accepted non-euclidian geometries.Indeed,generally,there is no reason to consider scientific theories and many of its constructs as being something more than simple models,useful tools 'working' for all our practical purposes.Exactly as Van Fraasen I think this is the real goal of science though science can attain even certitudes.

Anyway what counts is that from science and from currently observed facts we do not have the right to infere that 'God does not exist' is a TRUE statement.Not even that 'God hypothesis' is less probable.In spite of 'confirming' naturalism everyday there is no need to believe that it is true.Finally naturalism is best defined by the term 'conjecture'.