Weak Atheism, A Mild Rant

[Storm]

OK, seriously. What is the functional difference, aside from the misguided notion that agnostics should "pick a side?"

I've been pondering this for the last few days, and it really seems to me that the whole "I merely lack belief" thing is just a semantic game. In my more uncharitable moments, I lean towards the theory that it's an attempt to dodge the burden of proof without admitting that a) it can't be met, or b) it's a legitimate burden at all.

Of course, it's an unnecessary tactic. There's nothing wrong with admitting that your opinion is just that, unless you hypocritically refuse to allow the 'opposition' to do the same. We all draw conclusions without proof, that's what opinion IS.

Then there are the "weak atheists" who, once you get into a debate with them, are indistinguishable from agnostics. Why they feel the need to label themselves atheists truly baffles me - just as there's nothing wrong with admitting your opinions are opinions, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that we don't know, or being able to see the merits of various arguments.

None of this should be taken as a blanket condemnation, or even criticism of the individuals who claim the label. As with any other demographic, they differ wildly in personality, motive, and quality of reasoning. It's the label itself I take issue with. As far as I can tell it brings nothing to the table, and indeed, serves only to muddy the waters.

In short, I really don't care whether you're atheist, agnostic, or clergy - but own your position.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am both a weak atheist & an agnostic.
Proof & disproof of gods are impossible. So I am an agnostic.
The notion of a god seems ludicrous, so I venture the opinion that there are no gods. So I am an atheist by speculation.
Judge it how you will.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I used to be a weak atheist, and then I lost an armwrestling contest with God. And also took an arrow to the knee.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do the labels have to be mutually exclusive?

 

[sandandfoam]

I would have imagined that a weak atheist could enjoy religion, perhaps even practice a little, while not believing in God.

I imagine a strong atheist wouldn't darken the door of any religious community because such communities are populated by imbeciles and there is nothing of value there.

 

[Storm]

I am both a weak atheist & an agnostic.
Proof & disproof of gods are impossible. So I am an agnostic.
The notion of a god seems ludicrous, so I venture the opinion that there are no gods. So I am an atheist by speculation.
Judge it how you will.

My understanding is that holding the opinion that there are no Gods is strong atheism, just not taken to unreasonable extreme.

As many, MANY weak atheists have told me, weak atheism is simply being unconvinced by "God exists" arguments.

Why do the labels have to be mutually exclusive?

I don't know, but the vast majority of the time, they seem to be treated as such.

Besides, my annoyance isn't based so much on "you can't be both" as the fact that, as stated in the op, I don't see what weak atheism brings to the table. At its best, its another term for agnosticism, making it redundant. At worst, it's just a dishonest attempt to avoid admitting that atheism is in fact a belief, regardless of being a negative statement.

 

[Storm]

I would have imagined that a weak atheist could enjoy religion, perhaps even practice a little, while not believing in God.

I imagine a strong atheist wouldn't darken the door of any religious community because such communities are populated by imbeciles and there is nothing of value there.

I disagree. I think you're conflating "strong atheism" with anti-theism, which is less a theological stance than a socio-political one.

 

[sandandfoam]

I disagree. I think you're conflating "strong atheism" with anti-theism, which is less a theological stance than a socio-political one.

Good point. I agree.

 

[Koldo]

OK, seriously. What is the functional difference, aside from the misguided notion that agnostics should "pick a side?"

'Agnostic' has multiple usages. It doesn't mean a single thing, so why should 'agnostic' be favoured over 'weak atheist'?

 

[Storm]

'Agnostic' has multiple usages. It doesn't mean a single thing, so why should 'agnostic' be favoured over 'weak atheist'?

It may have different connotations in different contexts, but the unifying theme is essentially "I don't know/ undecided."

Meanwhile, 'weak atheism' does not, to my knowledge say ANYTHING of its own, and serves only to muddy the theological waters.

It's like the non-believing equivalent of 'scientific pantheism,' aka sexed up atheism.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Meanwhile, 'weak atheism' does not, to my knowledge say ANYTHING of its own, and serves only to muddy the theological waters.

It's like the non-believing equivalent of 'scientific pantheism,' aka sexed up atheism.

Weak atheism is good to use when it comes to describing atheists. I'm a weak atheist since I don't believe there are any Gods, but I also don't claim to know that this is the case. I like the term better than agnosticism, because agnosticism seems to tell even less about what a person actually believes in.

I'm also one of those scientific pantheists

 

[outhouse]

I would have imagined that a weak atheist could enjoy religion, perhaps even practice a little, while not believing in God.

strong atheist can do the same thing.


it has nothing to do with theism other then strongly knowing gods have been created by man

 

[outhouse]

I know atheist that claim agnostic just because they dont want the atheist label

 

[Storm]

Weak atheism is good to use when it comes to describing atheists. I'm a weak atheist since I don't believe there are any Gods, but I also don't claim to know that this is the case. I like the term better than agnosticism, because agnosticism seems to tell even less about what a person actually believes in.

I'm also one of those scientific pantheists

Hmmmmm. We may well be getting bogged down in semantics, so lets define our terms.

Weak athiesm: Unconvinced by theistic arguments without putting forth the statement that there are no Gods.

Strong atheist: rejects belief in God.

Agnostic (position): Undecided on the matter, usually due to the stance that the question is unanswerable.

Agnostic (qualifier): One who dis/believes while freely acknowledging there is no proof. IOW, every reasonable person EVER. The fact that we that we need a word for this is a sad commentary on the state of theological discourse.

 

[Storm]

I know atheist that claim agnostic just because they dont want the atheist label

Relevance?

Every group of people ever has its share of liars and cowards. The topic of the thread is whether the label "weak atheism" actually means anything.

 

[Tristesse]

OK, seriously. What is the functional difference, aside from the misguided notion that agnostics should "pick a side?"

I've been pondering this for the last few days, and it really seems to me that the whole "I merely lack belief" thing is just a semantic game. In my more uncharitable moments, I lean towards the theory that it's an attempt to dodge the burden of proof without admitting that a) it can't be met, or b) it's a legitimate burden at all.

Well, first of all there isn't a burden of proof that an atheist has to meet, the burden always falls on the shoulders of the claimant. Secondly, atheism is not the assertion of a position, but merely a response to a position.

Of course, it's an unnecessary tactic. There's nothing wrong with admitting that your opinion is just that, unless you hypocritically refuse to allow the 'opposition' to do the same. We all draw conclusions without proof, that's what opinion IS.

Then there are the "weak atheists" who, once you get into a debate with them, are indistinguishable from agnostics. Why they feel the need to label themselves atheists truly baffles me - just as there's nothing wrong with admitting your opinions are opinions, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that we don't know, or being able to see the merits of various arguments.

I think you're misunderstanding the definitions of atheist and agnosticism. Most atheists I've encountered are agnostics, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure someone has explained this to you before, but here it goes again. Atheism addresses beliefs while agnosticism addresses knowledge. So, if someone were to ask you, "do you believe in god?" and your response is "I don't know" well, you didn't really answer the question, because the question was about what you believe and not what you know. The only requirement for atheism is to not except theism as valid, you are not required to have an alternate view, although you could, but it's not a requirement.

None of this should be taken as a blanket condemnation, or even criticism of the individuals who claim the label. As with any other demographic, they differ wildly in personality, motive, and quality of reasoning. It's the label itself I take issue with. As far as I can tell it brings nothing to the table, and indeed, serves only to muddy the waters.

In short, I really don't care whether you're atheist, agnostic, or clergy - but own your position.

Most agnostics I've heard of are actually atheists. Because beliefs are a binary position, you either believe or you don't, and if you don't know whether or not you believe, then you don't believe.

 

[Koldo]

It may have different connotations in different contexts, but the unifying theme is essentially "I don't know/ undecided."

Indeed there is an unifying theme as you said, but the same can be said about 'atheism'.

Meanwhile, 'weak atheism' does not, to my knowledge say ANYTHING of its own, and serves only to muddy the theological waters.

It's like the non-believing equivalent of 'scientific pantheism,' aka sexed up atheism.

'Strong atheists' are the ones who have the conviction that a god doesn't exist.
'Weak atheists' are all the other people who simply don't believe that a god exists.

Why do you think it only serves to muddy the theological waters?

 

[Storm]

Well, first of all there isn't a burden of proof that an atheist has to meet, the burden always falls on the shoulders of the claimant.

True, but misunderstood. Believers are not automatically claimants, and claims can be negative. Burden of Proof is based not on negative or positive assertion, but statements of fact as opposed to opinion.

Secondly, atheism is not the assertion of a position, but merely a response to a position.

Overgeneralization. "There is no God" is indeed an asserted position (not to mention positive claim wrt BoP).

(BTW, no, I'm not attributing that statement to all atheists, but to pretend none make it is dishonest and stupid.)

I think you're misunderstanding the definitions of atheist and agnosticism. Most atheists I've encountered are agnostics, because the two terms are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure someone has explained this to you before, but here it goes again. Atheism addresses beliefs while agnosticism addresses knowledge. So, if someone were to ask you, "do you believe in god?" and your response is "I don't know" well, you didn't really answer the question, because the question was about what you believe and not what you know. The only requirement for atheism is to not except theism as valid, you are not required to have an alternate view, although you could, but it's not a requirement.

No, I don't misunderstand, nor are you telling me anything I haven't heard several hundred times. The problem with this rebuttal is that it willfully ignores the existence of simple agnostics, who have been around at least as long as atheists.

Furthermore, it attempts (perhaps unwittingly) to deny the validity of their position with overly legalistic etymology.

Basically, while what you say is a perfectly valid usage of the word, your attempt to force agnostics into atheism is contemptible.

Most agnostics I've heard of are actually atheists. Because beliefs are a binary position, you either believe or you don't, and if you don't know whether or not you believe, then you don't believe.

I hate to break it to you, but it's not that simple. Belief is not binary, do or don't, black and white. I realize that if it were, things would be much easier, but people just aren't that tidy.

 

[Sunstone]

Knowledge is not the same as belief. The OP is conflating the two.

 

[Storm]

Indeed there is an unifying theme as you said, but the same can be said about 'atheism'.



'Strong atheists' are the ones who have the conviction that a god doesn't exist.
'Weak atheists' are all the other people who simply don't believe that a god exists.

Why do you think it only serves to muddy the theological waters?

Mostly because that's not at all how the distinction has been explained to me by the many atheists (weak and strong) with whom I've discussed it.

The way you describe it, it's about a given individual's certainty (as opposed to proof) - sort of like the depth of no-faith. The way I understand it, it's about the actual beliefs or lack thereof in question, with the strong atheist actively disbelieving and the weak passively unconvinced.