Atheism refutes itself by definition. (Y)=/=( ), ( )=/=(?)

[Ponder This]

I don't think so. I think that faith based thought of any kind is self-deception.

It would be... if you professed to believe in gods but didn't actually live your life as if you believed in them.

Maybe "self-deception" is the wrong word. You might actually know your real beliefs and just pretend to have other beliefs. Either way it's dishonest. If you say you believe in gods, but live your life as if you don't, it's the same thing. Just because you say that you are something, doesn't mean that's what you really are.

If you tell me that you are a weak atheist (or some equivalent) but live your life as if you were a strong atheist, then I think you are lying. Either you are lying to me or you are lying to yourself. If there is no difference, then weak atheism vs strong atheism is sophistry to hide the truth: a clever way for strong atheists to pretend they are something else.

I wouldn't have thought that it was controversial that a thing (e.g. a god) only starts to affect your behaviour if:

- it actually intervenes in your life or affects your life in some way, or
- you decide that its existence is likely enough to make an allowance for it.

A weak atheist isn't "living as if gods don't exist;" they're living as if gods are irrelevant. Any concept is irrelevant to us until we have reason to consider it relevant.

If you are saying that what you believe or not believe doesn't affect how you live, then I think you are lying - either to yourself or to me. I don't think it matters that you can't see how it affects your life or that you didn't think it was "controversial". Maybe you simply aren't aware of how your thoughts and beliefs shape who you are. You might think that "lying" is a strong term to use. I suppose I could just say you are unconscious of how it affects you.

I think this creates an impasse for any further rational inquiry into the concepts of weak and strong atheism.
It's like proponents of Intelligent Design pretending that they aren't Creationists. The "differences" are "irrelevant".

IMO

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you tell me that you are a weak atheist (or some equivalent) but live your life as if you were a strong atheist, then I think you are lying. Either you are lying to me or you are lying to yourself. If there is no difference, then weak atheism vs strong atheism is sophistry to hide the truth: a clever way for strong atheists to pretend they are something else.

I'm an agnostic atheist, what you call a weak atheist. I live exactly the way I would were I to claim that I believe that god cannot or do not exist. You seem to think that that is being dishonest. I have no idea why.

Let's consider the strong and weak aleprechaunist. One says leprechauns have been ruled out for him, the other says that that can't be done, but has no reason to believe that they exist. Should they live their lives differently on that basis? If they don't, will you accuse the weak aleprechaunist of either lying to you or himself, and accuse them of "sophistry to hide the truth," a clever way for strong aleprechaunists "to pretend that they are something else"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be... if you professed to believe in gods but didn't actually live your life as if you believed in them.

Maybe "self-deception" is the wrong word. You might actually know your real beliefs and just pretend to have other beliefs. Either way it's dishonest. If you say you believe in gods, but live your life as if you don't, it's the same thing. Just because you say that you are something, doesn't mean that's what you really are.

How is a person supposed to live their lives "as if they believe in God"? What's the difference between a life lived as if God exists and one lived as if he doesn't? All the theists I know still wear seat belts instead of praying that God will protect them from a crash; most of them save for retirement instead of trusting that God will provide.

IMO, religious beliefs are generally made to be unfalsifiable. This allows the theist to maintain their belief regardless of what evidence they encounter, but it also means that their beliefs never have any relevance to everyday, measurable facts about the world... or to decisions that have to do with those facts.

If you tell me that you are a weak atheist (or some equivalent) but live your life as if you were a strong atheist, then I think you are lying. Either you are lying to me or you are lying to yourself. If there is no difference, then weak atheism vs strong atheism is sophistry to hide the truth: a clever way for strong atheists to pretend they are something else.

Exactly what do you think should be the difference in behaviour between someone who is open to the idea that God exists but has never found any reason to suggest that he does versus someone who is convinced that God doesn't exist?

If you are saying that what you believe or not believe doesn't affect how you live, then I think you are lying - either to yourself or to me.

Not in general; just in this case. A god that has no discernible impact on us is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist, as far as we're concerned. Our opinions about the existence or non-existence of an irrelevant being have no bearing on our behaviour.

OTOH, a person who thinks that their god(s) have a discernible impact on the world is a theist.

I don't think it matters that you can't see how it affects your life or that you didn't think it was "controversial". Maybe you simply aren't aware of how your thoughts and beliefs shape who you are.

On the contrary; I'm very aware. I think you're just missing my point.

You might think that "lying" is a strong term to use. I suppose I could just say you are unconscious of how it affects you.

I wasn't talking about how beliefs affect our behaviour; I'm talking about the effects of a god: a god that has no discernible effect on the world is irrelevant for our decision-making... and unfalsifiable beings have no discernible effect on the world.

If there is no proposition where I can say "if God exists, then X will be true, so if I see that X is false, I'll know that God doesn't exist," then I'll never think to myself "if God exists, then X will be true, so in order to stay open to the possibility that God exists, I should guard myself against the possibility that X is true."

I think this creates an impasse for any further rational inquiry into the concepts of weak and strong atheism.
It's like proponents of Intelligent Design pretending that they aren't Creationists. The "differences" are "irrelevant".

Personally, I try to avoid the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" when describing people. I don't find them useful as overall descriptors of a person's beliefs. I also think that trying to shoehorn a person's entire belief system into one of those two labels can lead to misrepresentations of what they believe.

In reality:

- pretty much anyone - theist or atheist - who's put some thought into the issue of gods has come across at least a few gods that they outright reject. IOW, we're all strong atheists with regard to certain gods.

- nobody has rejected any of the gods they've never even heard of - i.e. the vast majority of the gods humanity has believed in. IOW, everyone is a weak atheist with regard to most gods.

- nobody has rejected "the concept of 'god'," because "god" isn't a coherent concept. IOW, nobody's a strong atheist with respect to all gods.

If you want to talk about the issue rationally, don't get hung up on the "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" labels. Instead, explore the particular god-claims that are of interest to you and whether the evidence and reasoning for or against them ought to be convincing.

 

[Ponder This]

I'm an agnostic atheist, what you call a weak atheist. I live exactly the way I would were I to claim that I believe that god cannot or do not exist. You seem to think that that is being dishonest. I have no idea why.

I don't believe someone can live in a way different from his actual beliefs without deception.

Let's consider the strong and weak aleprechaunist. One says leprechauns have been ruled out for him, the other says that that can't be done, but has no reason to believe that they exist. Should they live their lives differently on that basis? If they don't, will you accuse the weak aleprechaunist of either lying to you or himself, and accuse them of "sophistry to hide the truth," a clever way for strong aleprechaunists "to pretend that they are something else"?

If the one who has claimed to be a weak aleprechaunist also claims to live his life as if he were a strong aleprechaunist, then yes, I claim deception has occurred. As an agnostic he claims it can't be known whether leprechauns exist or not, but claims it can be known how someone who believes "leprechauns don't exist" lives his life.
How does he justify his claim?

IMO, religious beliefs are generally made to be unfalsifiable. This allows the theist to maintain their belief regardless of what evidence they encounter, but it also means that their beliefs never have any relevance to everyday, measurable facts about the world... or to decisions that have to do with those facts.

The day may be approaching when beliefs can be falsified by science.
Science is already decoding what people are seeing by looking at their brains.
Mind Reading Computer Instantly Decodes People's Thoughts
But, for now, your thoughts are probably "safe".

Exactly what do you think should be the difference in behaviour between someone who is open to the idea that God exists but has never found any reason to suggest that he does versus someone who is convinced that God doesn't exist?

The existence or non-existence of deities is a secondary issue. This is entirely about how a person's beliefs affects him. This isn't about non-existent entities intervening in people's lives. This is about how people live their lives. Beliefs affect people's lives. For one person, beliefs end up taking him to church every Sunday. For another person, it starts an argument with someone. For another person, it can mean refusing to wear a seat belt.

OTOH, a person who thinks that their god(s) have a discernible impact on the world is a theist.

Just because you believe a god has "a discernible impact on the world" doesn't mean that particular god actually does, but your belief that that particular god "has an impact on the world" has an impact on you.

I wasn't talking about how beliefs affect our behaviour; I'm talking about the effects of a god

I wasn't talking about the effect of a god; I was talking about the effect of belief. So... perhaps we agree.

Personally, I try to avoid the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" when describing people. I don't find them useful as overall descriptors of a person's beliefs. I also think that trying to shoehorn a person's entire belief system into one of those two labels can lead to misrepresentations of what they believe.

I agree that there are many beliefs that can affect a person besides those associated with gods.

If you want to talk about the issue rationally, don't get hung up on the "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" labels. Instead, explore the particular god-claims that are of interest to you and whether the evidence and reasoning for or against them ought to be convincing.

In this case, we are talking about a specific claim. That this claim can affect how we view weak vs strong atheism generally makes it more interesting. Is this what most weak atheists think: that they are actually living their lives as if they were strong atheists? I don't know, but now I wonder: are they fronting?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the one who has claimed to be a weak aleprechaunist also claims to live his life as if he were a strong aleprechaunist, then yes, I claim deception has occurred. As an agnostic he claims it can't be known whether leprechauns exist or not, but claims it can be known how someone who believes "leprechauns don't exist" lives his life.
How does he justify his claim?

It sounds like you're asking how we justify methodological positivism: the time to accept something as true is when it has been demonstrated to be true (or at least as most likely true). I can go through the justification of that if you want. Is that what you're looking for?

The existence or non-existence of deities is a secondary issue. This is entirely about how a person's beliefs affects him. This isn't about non-existent entities intervening in people's lives. This is about how people live their lives. Beliefs affect people's lives. For one person, beliefs end up taking him to church every Sunday. For another person, it starts an argument with someone. For another person, it can mean refusing to wear a seat belt.

But how is being open to the existence of gods supposed to affect a person's behaviour? Merely allowing for the possibility of some god or gods doesn't imply anything about what these gods might do or want.

And if we start considering all the possible permutations of gods, what should the weak atheist do? If someone's open to the possibilities that:

- God exists and wants him to go to church A on Sundays
- God exists and wants him to go to church B on Sundays (and REALLY doesn't want him to go to church A)
- God exists and wants him to go to a mosque on Fridays, not any church on Sundays
- God wants him to eat beef, but not pork
- God wants him to not eat beef
- God wants him to eat whatever he wants
- God doesn't want him to rat any meat at all
- God is going to literally come to Earth any time now
- God is going to figuratively come to Earth any time now
- God literally came back to Earth in 1844
- he has to go on the Hajj
- he must not go on the Hajj, because this would be idolatry
- etc., etc.

... how should he distill that into one particular course of action? How do you expect a weak atheist to behave?

(And all this is just considering the more popular forms of monotheism. When you the entire spectrum of god-beliefs, there's no real way to fill the blank in "some sort of god or gods might exist, therefore I should ________.")

Just because you believe a god has "a discernible impact on the world" doesn't mean that particular god actually does, but your belief that that particular god "has an impact on the world" has an impact on you.

Yes, but being open to the possibility of an irrelevant god's existence has no real-world implications for your behaviour.

I wasn't talking about the effect of a god; I was talking about the effect of belief. So... perhaps we agree.

Possibly, though if you expect strong atheists and weak atheists to behave differently, I suspect we do disagree.

In this case, we are talking about a specific claim.

No, we're talking about uncountably many claims. Don't fall into the trap of framing the question of the existence of gods in the context of only one belief system, or only one family of belief systems.

That this claim can affect how we view weak vs strong atheism generally makes it more interesting. Is this what most weak atheists think: that they are actually living their lives as if they were strong atheists? I don't know, but now I wonder: are they fronting?

I can't figure out what you're asking, since pretty much the only people who are "weak atheists" across the board are small children.

But keep in mind that there's a difference between an opinion about a god and an opinion about an argument for that god. Someone who thinks "this guy's god-beliefs are irrational rubbish and he's an idiot for believing them" hasn't necessarily taken any position on the god being believed in.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the one who has claimed to be a weak aleprechaunist also claims to live his life as if he were a strong aleprechaunist, then yes, I claim deception has occurred.

There are three positions and two lifestyles.

(1) Leprechaunist
(2) Weak aleprechaunist
(3) Strong aleprechaunist

(a) Living as if leprechauns exist (trying to capture one for its pot of gold)
(b) Living as if leprechauns don't exist (assuming that the above is pointless)

How would you expect (1), (2), and (3) to live? I expect (1) to choose (a) and (2) and (3) to choose (b).

By your reckoning, (2) is being dishonest for living like (3).

Incidentally, I could have said that there were four positions by breaking leprechaunists into strong leprechaunists - people who say that leprechauns most assuredly exist - and a weaker variety, people that admit that they really doesn't know, but thinks that there is a good chance that leprechauns do exist, and is also in search of their pots of gold.

Those two also live alike - lifestyle (a). Now you have two pairs of positions occupying one pair of lifestyle choices, two in each. None of these people is being deceptive as you suggest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

pretty much the only people who are "weak atheists" across the board are small children.

I think that you might be using the term weak atheist differently than I've seen it used. You seem to be describing a person that has no god concept, perhaps because he or she is too young and just hasn't gotten there yet.

When I use the term, I mean agnostic atheist, which is the term I prefer since it is actually the logically more sound position. I mean somebody that has no god belief but has not declared gods impossible or nonexistent whether they have heard of gods or not.

That's what I meant by a weak aleprechaunist in the post above - an agnostic about leprechauns that lives life somebody that positively asserts that leprechauns do not exist. It's not that there is any serious doubt here, just that I understand the limits of knowledge. You mentioned methodological positivism, so I suspect that you would probably agree that lacking an observation, test, measurement, or any other method of ruling out leprechauns including argument or algorithm, we should resist taking the tiny leap of faith needed to make the unsupportable positive claim of nonexistence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think that you might be using the term weak atheist differently than I've seen it used. You seem to be describing a person that has no god concept, perhaps because he or she is too young and just hasn't gotten there yet.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that it doesn't take very many years in the average person's life before they encounter some sort of god-concept that makes them say "well that doesn't exist!" ... whether it's the rejection of a god that seems too ridiculous to be real or the rejection of a god-concept that has an acknowledged internal contradiction and therefore can't be true.

...or whether it's because they've accepted some other mutually exclusive god-concept as true.

When I use the term, I mean agnostic atheist, which is the term I prefer since it is actually the logically more sound position. I mean somebody that has no god belief but has not declared gods impossible or nonexistent whether they have heard of gods or not.

That's a bit of a departure from the original definition of "agnostic".

That's what I meant by a weak aleprechaunist in the post above - an agnostic about leprechauns that lives life somebody that positively asserts that leprechauns do not exist. It's not that there is any serious doubt here, just that I understand the limits of knowledge. You mentioned methodological positivism, so I suspect that you would probably agree that lacking an observation, test, measurement, or any other method of ruling out leprechauns including argument or algorithm, we should resist taking the tiny leap of faith needed to make the unsupportable positive claim of nonexistence.

IMO, the claim of non-existence is supportable enough of the time that most people have found at least a few gods they can reject.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When I use the term, I mean agnostic atheist, which is the term I prefer since it is actually the logically more sound position. I mean somebody that has no god belief but has not declared gods impossible or nonexistent whether they have heard of gods or not.

That's a bit of a departure from the original definition of "agnostic".

It still means unknowing as its roots imply.

You're undoubtedly aware that atheists are moving away from the linear scale of theist to agnostic to atheist, each category of which was considered exclusive of both others - that is, everybody belongs to one and nobody to two or three - to a 2D formulation (2x2 grid) like this:

The problem with the first formulation is that it fails to acknowledge that all agnostics are also either theists or atheists like everybody else.I'm you've seen that before. This latter geometry can be depicted as linear as well, which might look like this:

What this shows is that all agnostics are also either theists (the minority of theists and the minority of agnostics) or atheists (most agnostics are atheists and most atheists agnostics).

Where we get the most blow-back in this area is from Christians, many of whom insist on us using the old formulation. If you ask them why they care, they generally can't tell you. They just object.

I think that they are serving as passive vectors of a meme absorbed from some Christian source which, if asked, could tell you why it is advantageous to try to constrain atheists to conform to their preferred schema. Look at the bottom line of the second graphic. If you can limit atheists to the small light green square just outside of the red rectangle and to its right, there are a lot less atheists. I've seen estimates that only about 1-3% of Americans fit that category. By this modern reckoning, it's closer to 25-30% of Americans who say that they reject god claims, but don't claim to know that gods cannot or do not exist.

It helps the church to continue to depict us as marginalized outsiders - a fringe minority rather that a large, socially acceptable, and rapidly growing demographic.

 

[Ponder This]

It sounds like you're asking how we justify methodological positivism: the time to accept something as true is when it has been demonstrated to be true (or at least as most likely true). I can go through the justification of that if you want. Is that what you're looking for?

I don't think so... but if you want to explain it's relevance here, go ahead.

how should he distill that into one particular course of action? How do you expect a weak atheist to behave?

It's not about how I expect the weak atheist to behave. It's about how a person's behavior is influenced by his beliefs (or lack thereof).

Yes, but being open to the possibility of an irrelevant god's existence has no real-world implications for your behaviour.

Why would you think that? Being open to a possibility can mean the difference between rejecting a book by it's cover vs reading that book. Being open to a possibility is simply not the same as being closed to one... and it affects behavior.

Possibly, though if you expect strong atheists and weak atheists to behave differently, I suspect we do disagree.

I expect their beliefs to influence their behavior. I don't expect someone who believes a certain way to act as if he believes some other way unless he's pretending.

But keep in mind that there's a difference between an opinion about a god and an opinion about an argument for that god.

So... what you are saying is that weak atheists and strong atheists have the same opinion about a god or gods and only actually differ in the arguments about their commonly held position?

There are three positions and two lifestyles.

(1) Leprechaunist
(2) Weak aleprechaunist
(3) Strong aleprechaunist

(a) Living as if leprechauns exist (trying to capture one for its pot of gold)
(b) Living as if leprechauns don't exist (assuming that the above is pointless)

How would you expect (1), (2), and (3) to live? I expect (1) to choose (a) and (2) and (3) to choose (b).

By your reckoning, (2) is being dishonest for living like (3).

You think that (a) and (b) are choices.
But I think that (1), (2), and (3) are choices.
Because you think you are choosing between (a) and (b) you think that there are only two ways to live.
Because I think you are choosing between (1), (2), and (3), I think there there are three ways to live. So when you claim to live like (3), you think you are claiming to live like (2), because you think that (2) and (3) live the same way, but I don't think that (2) and (3) live the same way. That's why I object.

This model you've created is too simple. To me, it's sort of like pretending that there's no such thing as elevation - only the North-South and East-West directions - and then claiming that a bird lives like a dog.

I don't think is as simple as saying there are two choices and then shuffling the various belief systems into one of those two choices (we wouldn't need to create the complexity of strong and weak atheism).

Why wouldn't (2) choose (a) in your model?

Incidentally, I could have said that there were four positions by breaking leprechaunists into strong leprechaunists - people who say that leprechauns most assuredly exist - and a weaker variety, people that admit that they really doesn't know, but thinks that there is a good chance that leprechauns do exist, and is also in search of their pots of gold.

Those two also live alike - lifestyle (a). Now you have two pairs of positions occupying one pair of lifestyle choices, two in each. None of these people is being deceptive as you suggest.

So instead of thinking that (2) could choose (a), you create (4) to choose (a).
In your mind there are two choices. Can we create (5) that sometimes chooses (a) and sometimes chooses (b)? How would you would describe the position of (5), if it exists? Would you say that (5) behaves like (3)? I would say (5) does not live like (3) even though (5) sometimes "chooses" (b).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It still means unknowing as its roots imply.

Not quite. Agnosticism is the posititve claim that the existence of gods is unknowable. It isn't just "I don't know;" it's "I can't know."

You're undoubtedly aware that atheists are moving away from the linear scale of theist to agnostic to atheist, each category of which was considered exclusive of both others

I wasn't using such a scale.

You seem to be operating under some serious misunderstandings of what I believe.

- that is, everybody belongs to one and nobody to two or three - to a 2D formulation (2x2 grid) like this:

Yeah - that doesn't work for me either.

- "Gnostic" already has a meaning: it's a specific religious movement. It doesn't apply to any and every theist who claims to know that their god(s) exist. Using the term this way is as ridiculous as referring to Catholics as "Baptists" because they practice baptism.

- "Agnostic" also already has a meaning, as I touched on above.

- it has similar problems as "weak atheist"/"strong atheist": different people can have different positions with regard to different gods. It's starting from a monotheism-normative mindset that I reject.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with any position I actually hold.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not about how I expect the weak atheist to behave. It's about how a person's behavior is influenced by his beliefs (or lack thereof).

I don't see how you're not just rephrasing what I said. You keep on insinuating that weak atheism and strong atheism should influence behaviour differently. How? What should the difference be?

Why would you think that? Being open to a possibility can mean the difference between rejecting a book by it's cover vs reading that book. Being open to a possibility is simply not the same as being closed to one... and it affects behavior.

Again: how? What should this difference in behaviour be?

I expect their beliefs to influence their behavior. I don't expect someone who believes a certain way to act as if he believes some other way unless he's pretending.

Again: what does "acting as if he believes a certain way" look like for weak atheism and for strong atheism? How are they different?

So... what you are saying is that weak atheists and strong atheists have the same opinion about a god or gods and only actually differ in the arguments about their commonly held position?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that someone who fiercely believes that some theistic argument is irrational and that the person giving it is an idiot for accepting it can still be a weak atheist.

"Your argument doesn't establish your conclusion" <> "your conclusion is false."

 

[Ponder This]

It still means unknowing as its roots imply.

You're undoubtedly aware that atheists are moving away from the linear scale of theist to agnostic to atheist, each category of which was considered exclusive of both others - that is, everybody belongs to one and nobody to two or three - to a 2D formulation (2x2 grid) like this:

The problem with the first formulation is that it fails to acknowledge that all agnostics are also either theists or atheists like everybody else.I'm you've seen that before. This latter geometry can be depicted as linear as well, which might look like this:

What this shows is that all agnostics are also either theists (the minority of theists and the minority of agnostics) or atheists (most agnostics are atheists and most atheists agnostics).

Where we get the most blow-back in this area is from Christians, many of whom insist on us using the old formulation. If you ask them why they care, they generally can't tell you. They just object.

I think that they are serving as passive vectors of a meme absorbed from some Christian source which, if asked, could tell you why it is advantageous to try to constrain atheists to conform to their preferred schema. Look at the bottom line of the second graphic. If you can limit atheists to the small light green square just outside of the red rectangle and to its right, there are a lot less atheists. I've seen estimates that only about 1-3% of Americans fit that category. By this modern reckoning, it's closer to 25-30% of Americans who say that they reject god claims, but don't claim to know that gods cannot or do not exist.

It helps the church to continue to depict us as marginalized outsiders - a fringe minority rather that a large, socially acceptable, and rapidly growing demographic.

I see. You are not a weak atheist, as in someone who "lacks a belief in a god or gods".
You are a strong atheist, as in someone who "believes a god or gods does not exist".

So when you said you live as if you are a strong atheist... you meant that because you are a strong atheist. You aren't pretending to be one. You are one.

And what you meant when you said you were agnostic was that your belief wasn't a conviction, but rather that it is what you surmise to be the case.

Do you agree?

I want to make sure our definitions match up. As I understand the diagrams, there is no room there for lack of belief. You either believe or you disbelieve. I know the first diagram say "lack belief in a god or gods" under the word atheism, but I think this is simply incorrect. The first diagram describes Gnostic Atheist is described as "certain there is no god or gods" ("100%" is redundant or misleading depending on your understanding of probability). It also describes Agnostic Atheist as "lacks a belief in a god or gods but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty". Is that supposed to mean "lacks belief and no absolute proof either way" or does it mean "disbelieves but no absolute proof either way". The absence of absolute proof does not rule out suggestive evidence (or lack of evidence) to support your belief or disbelief. And certainty does not imply absolute knowledge (even if you believe that the question is knowable - gnostic - you don't necessarily have to have that knowledge to have conviction - which is just a way of saying your belief is firm, you are convinced).

TBH, sometimes this stuff makes my head spin.

 

[Ponder This]

I don't see how you're not just rephrasing what I said. You keep on insinuating that weak atheism and strong atheism should influence behaviour differently. How? What should the difference be?

Again: how? What should this difference in behaviour be?

Again: what does "acting as if he believes a certain way" look like for weak atheism and for strong atheism? How are they different?

Let's say a weak atheist (as in someone who lack belief in a god or gods) reads about prayer to gods in a book. He might think: well, I don't really believe in these gods but I also don't disbelieve in them either: how about I try this prayer thing out.
Let's compare that to a strong atheist (as in someone who believes a god or gods does not exist). He reads the same book and thinks what's the point of this prayer thing: these gods don't exist.
And then maybe a theist might come along and say, "if you don't believe, then the prayer thing doesn't work. So you should believe first, and then pray. Otherwise, you aren't really praying".

But, of course, just because he's a theist, doesn't mean he's right.

So in this example, different beliefs lead to different behaviors. I've avoided giving examples only because the important thing isn't how different people behave. The important thing is that a person cannot live his own life the same way once his beliefs change. It cannot be true that you believe or not believe in a certain way but actually behave as if you believe or not believe in a certain other different way unless you are pretending. And I don't mean specific actions as they compare to other people. I mean actions as they compare to yourself.

Some people believe that how you live your life is entirely a matter of external reality. For example, if you go to Church, then you must believe in a God. If you don't go to a Church, then you must not believe in a God. But the decision to go to Church or not isn't simply a function of external realities. It's function of internal realities as well. And although the resulting behavior appears binary (either you go to Church or you don't), this isn't necessarily a reflection of a binary internal reality (either you believe or you don't).

It is possible that an atheist goes to Church, but it is not possible that an atheist lives like a theist unless he's pretending and it's not necessary that others tell that he's pretending for him to be pretending. Well, the same basic reasoning applies to weak atheists vs strong atheists. Even if they appear to be doing the same things at face value, they aren't actually living the same way. Their behavior is different (unless one is pretending). The pretense need not be detected by the other party.

You might argue that if the difference isn't detected by others, then the difference doesn't exist. But the difference doesn't always need to be detected by others every time it occurs. It need only be detected sometimes for us to know that it occurs. Moreover, the difference can be known by the person's self. A person can know himself without others knowing him.

What do you think of this:
A theist says, "I believe a god or gods exist."
A strong atheist says, "I believe a god or gods do not exist."
A weak atheist says, "I don't believe a god or gods exist."
Statements are also actions.
So... you say that you are something besides what you are, for example
A weak atheist says, "I believe a god or gods does not exist."
Then, he's pretending.
A weak atheist cannot say he is something besides what he actually is unless he is pretending.
If a weak atheist says, "I don't believe a god or gods exists. I am not a strong atheist. I live my life like a strong atheist." Then, he is lying. A strong atheist wouldn't say he's a weak atheist and not a strong atheist unless he was lying, so he isn't living his life like a strong atheist.

"Who'd have thought this frank talk about religion would result in heated debate?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's say a weak atheist (as in someone who lack belief in a god or gods) reads about prayer to gods in a book. He might think: well, I don't really believe in these gods but I also don't disbelieve in them either: how about I try this prayer thing out.
Let's compare that to a strong atheist (as in someone who believes a god or gods does not exist). He reads the same book and thinks what's the point of this prayer thing: these gods don't exist.
And then maybe a theist might come along and say, "if you don't believe, then the prayer thing doesn't work. So you should believe first, and then pray. Otherwise, you aren't really praying".

There are a lot of steps to get from "maybe a god exists" to "maybe I should pray."

For one thing, being open to the possibility of gods doesn't mean that the weak atheist will consider praying to be a good use of his time... especially if he would pray in the tradition of every religion whose gods he's open to.

It also doesn't necessarily mean being open to the idea that a particular religion's prayers are likely to be an effective of communicating with gods.

It seems like you haven't thought through the full implications of weak atheism when it's held by someone who has given the issue some thought. A weak atheist who thinks "there's no evidence either way for the existence or non-existence of gods" would also nececessarily think that there's no evidence that could serve as the foundational justification for a religion and dismiss the religion as false on that basis.

There are plenty of ways to be a weak atheist (BTW: did I mention that I hate the strong/weak atheist terminology?). Most weak atheists haven't formed an opinion about religious claims because they haven't been exposed to them (e.g. babies, all of us with respect to gods we haven't heard of, etc.); however, you're talking about a specific case: one where an atheist encounters a specific god-claim, considers it, and neither accepts it nor rejects it. Part of this is that they see no basis to accept the claim.

If there's no justification to conclude one way or the other whether a god exists, then every other conclusion that takes the existence of this god as a given is necessarily baseless: whatever justification you could give for, say, "God founded this religion and wants us to pray in a particular way" would also serve as justification for "God exists." If the weak atheist has looked at all the available evidence for the god-claim and found it uncompelling (unfalsified, but still uncompelling), then he can reject all of the claims of the religion that depend on that god's existence as baseless and unfounded.

Okay - so your example was bad. Do you have any reasonable examples of how the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism should necessarily result in different behaviour?

 

[Valjean]

Let's say a weak atheist (as in someone who lack belief in a god or gods) reads about prayer to gods in a book. He might think: well, I don't really believe in these gods but I also don't disbelieve in them either: how about I try this prayer thing out.

Hopefully by "try this thing out" he means organize a double blind study with a large sample size, since any result of a single, personal prayer would be statistically meaningless.

And then maybe a theist might come along and say, "if you don't believe, then the prayer thing doesn't work. So you should believe first, and then pray. Otherwise, you aren't really praying".

See above. The study, then, should include faithful theists praying.

The important thing is that a person cannot live his own life the same way once his beliefs change. It cannot be true that you believe or not believe in a certain way but actually behave as if you believe or not believe in a certain other different way unless you are pretending.

I don't see why changing beliefs necessitates a lifestyle or behavioral change, unless, of course, the new belief directly mandates some behavioral change. What behavioral changes would you expect of someone who changed his beliefs about the trinity, evolution or wearing white after labor day?

I mean actions as they compare to yourself.

I don't follow. What does this mean?

It is possible that an atheist goes to Church, but it is not possible that an atheist lives like a theist unless he's pretending...

See, I don't follow this at all. Why would an atheist necessarily live any differently from a theist? Save faith in God, they could be identical in every respect, it seems to me.

Statements are also actions.

No, they're just statements

 

[Ponder This]

A weak atheist who thinks "there's no evidence either way for the existence or non-existence of gods" would also nececessarily think that there's no evidence that could serve as the foundational justification for a religion and dismiss the religion as false on that basis

If a weak atheist hasn't dismissed the notion that a god or gods exist on the basis of lack of evidence, then why would he dismiss a religion as false on the basis of lack of evidence?

There are plenty of ways to be a weak atheist (BTW: did I mention that I hate the strong/weak atheist terminology?).

Every time I talk about weak atheism terminology, I find it very annoying to deal with. It always seems like the argument go around and round and then comes back to nothing. It's very annoying. I'm inclined to stop using the terms altogether and start writing out definitions every time I want to talk about something.

you're talking about a specific case: one where an atheist encounters a specific god-claim, considers it, and neither accepts it nor rejects it. Part of this is that they see no basis to accept the claim.

An insufficient basis, I would agree.

If there's no justification to conclude one way or the other whether a god exists, then every other conclusion that takes the existence of this god as a given is necessarily baseless: whatever justification you could give for, say, "God founded this religion and wants us to pray in a particular way" would also serve as justification for "God exists."

If the existence of a god is necessary to reach the conclusion, then yes.

If the weak atheist has looked at all the available evidence for the god-claim and found it uncompelling (unfalsified, but still uncompelling), then he can reject all of the claims of the religion that depend on that god's existence as baseless and unfounded.

Claims requiring that god's existence would be unsubstantiated. Rejection of those claims still requires rejection of the god's existence, not merely lack of acceptance.

Okay - so your example was bad. Do you have any reasonable examples of how the difference between weak atheism and strong atheism should necessarily result in different behaviour?

Assertion that the god claim is false is strong atheism. I don't understand your arguments that take "maybe a god exists" and turn it into "definitely that god doesn't exist". It seems that you are arguing that weak atheism is not really different from strong atheism - that anyone who accepts weak atheism must accept strong atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a weak atheist hasn't dismissed the notion that a god or gods exist on the basis of lack of evidence, then why would he dismiss a religion as false on the basis of lack of evidence?

Because religions generally include claims of knowledge and justification.

If the existence or non-existence of a god is an open question, then any claims about that god are baseless. It would make no sense to preach "I can't be sure whether my god exists, but I KNOW he dictated my religion's holy book." If the existence of the god of a religion is questionable, then the claims of that religion about that god are necessarily unjustified.

Now... "unjustified" doesn't necessarily mean "incorrect"; it's possible to serendipitously stumble into a correct answer. Still, it makes the reasoning unreliable. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you still don't use a stopped clock to tell time.

... but meanwhile, some religious claims can be actually rejected as false. If someone claims to KNOW that their god did some specific thing but you've established that they don't even know that their god exists, you can safely respond with "no, you don't know your god did that."

Every time I talk about weak atheism terminology, I find it very annoying to deal with. It always seems like the argument go around and round and then comes back to nothing. It's very annoying. I'm inclined to stop using the terms altogether and start writing out definitions every time I want to talk about something.

It might work better.

An insufficient basis, I would agree.

Right.

If the existence of a god is necessary to reach the conclusion, then yes.

Claims requiring that god's existence would be unsubstantiated. Rejection of those claims still requires rejection of the god's existence, not merely lack of acceptance.

Well, no. In fact, you can even accept the existence of a god and reject claims that take that god as a given. We see this in all sorts of sectarian disputes.

Remember that a weak atheist doesn't necessarily have no opinions at all about religion. For instance, a weak atheist could think "Joseph Smith is a fraud and he didn't receive the golden plates from the angel Moroni... in fact, the golden plates were completely made up!" and still be a weak atheist, because nothing in that opinion is anything about the existence or non-existence of God.

Assertion that the god claim is false is strong atheism.

There's no such thing as "the god claim". There are uncountably many different god claims. A person's position - or lack thereof - on any one of them doesn't necessarily imply anything about his position on any other.

I don't understand your arguments that take "maybe a god exists" and turn it into "definitely that god doesn't exist".

I don't think any of my arguments have done that, so you're going to have to expand on this if you want me to understand what you're saying.

It seems that you are arguing that weak atheism is not really different from strong atheism - that anyone who accepts weak atheism must accept strong atheism.

No, I'm really not. I'm arguing that there's a long logical chain from the premise "god exists" to any real-world implication, and along the way, the chain requires many other premises to work.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm arguing that there's a long logical chain from the premise "god exists" to any real-world implication, and along the way, the chain requires many other premises to work.

As a pantheist, the logic is simple, the real-world implication of God is existence itself, all is God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As a pantheist, the logic is simple, the real-world implication of God is existence itself, all is God.

Now fill in the blank with something that someone wouldn't do unless they believed this:

All is God, therefore, I will ______.