Do you believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism?

[Sovereign Dream]

Since strong atheism states a universal negative, I'll stick with the logical stance of weak atheism.

One can only wonder where this "you can't prove a negative" nonsense originates from...

If it is the case that you are ostensibly committing yourself to the supposition that you are a so-called "weak" atheist because so-called "strong" atheism involves something tantamount to proving a negative and that one cannot prove a negative, then consider the fact that one can, in fact, prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that a round square does not exist. I can prove to you that something that is at once all red-colored and at once all non-red colored does not exist. I can prove to you that a female president of the United States does not exist. And so on. Furthermore, supposing, for the sake of the argument, that it was, in fact, impossible to "prove a negative," then so-called "strong atheism" would be a rather philosophically futile position to hold to as its main claim, namely that God does not exist, would be an instance of seeking to "prove a negative" and thus would be impossible on this view (though as I stated above, it is not at all impossible to prove a negative). In order for the strong atheist to meet his burden of proof, he would have to show that the very concept of God entails a contradiction; in classical formal logic, this would amount to something like a conjunction of incoherent claims, e.g. A & -A.


This "you can't prove a negative" nonsense is just that and it only seems to be repeated on some obscure corners of the internet that provide a home to congeries of village atheists who, while they like to think themselves as knowledgeable on matter of philosophy, theology and so forth, don't know much about those subjects at all.

 

[psychoslice]

Just because there is no god, doesn't mean you are an atheist, why label yourself ?.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

One can only wonder where this "you can't prove a negative" nonsense originates from...

If it is the case that you are ostensibly committing yourself to the supposition that you are a so-called "weak" atheist because so-called "strong" atheism involves something tantamount to proving a negative and that one cannot prove a negative, then consider the fact that one can, in fact, prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that a round square does not exist. I can prove to you that something that is at once all red-colored and at once all non-red colored does not exist. I can prove to you that a female president of the United States does not exist. And so on. Furthermore, supposing, for the sake of the argument, that it was, in fact, impossible to "prove a negative," then so-called "strong atheism" would be a rather philosophically futile position to hold to as its main claim, namely that God does not exist, would be an instance of seeking to "prove a negative" and thus would be impossible on this view (though as I stated above, it is not at all impossible to prove a negative). In order for the strong atheist to meet his burden of proof, he would have to show that the very concept of God entails a contradiction; in classical formal logic, this would amount to something like a conjunction of incoherent claims, e.g. A & -A.


This "you can't prove a negative" nonsense is just that and it only seems to be repeated on some obscure corners of the internet that provide a home to congeries of village atheists who, while they like to think themselves as knowledgeable on matter of philosophy, theology and so forth, don't know much about those subjects at all.

How would you prove there is not a female President of the United States?

 

[Me Myself]

Discount one "other"

I simply wanted to see the read without having to click view each time,

 

[Gjallarhorn]

One can only wonder where this "you can't prove a negative" nonsense originates from...

If it is the case that you are ostensibly committing yourself to the supposition that you are a so-called "weak" atheist because so-called "strong" atheism involves something tantamount to proving a negative and that one cannot prove a negative, then consider the fact that one can, in fact, prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that a round square does not exist. I can prove to you that something that is at once all red-colored and at once all non-red colored does not exist. I can prove to you that a female president of the United States does not exist. And so on. Furthermore, supposing, for the sake of the argument, that it was, in fact, impossible to "prove a negative," then so-called "strong atheism" would be a rather philosophically futile position to hold to as its main claim, namely that God does not exist, would be an instance of seeking to "prove a negative" and thus would be impossible on this view (though as I stated above, it is not at all impossible to prove a negative). In order for the strong atheist to meet his burden of proof, he would have to show that the very concept of God entails a contradiction; in classical formal logic, this would amount to something like a conjunction of incoherent claims, e.g. A & -A.


This "you can't prove a negative" nonsense is just that and it only seems to be repeated on some obscure corners of the internet that provide a home to congeries of village atheists who, while they like to think themselves as knowledgeable on matter of philosophy, theology and so forth, don't know much about those subjects at all.

As we have seen over the millennia, contradiction really does nothing to affect a god's validity. Believers simply reinvent/"reinterpret" their view on their god(s).

Which leaves us with:

 

[Sovereign Dream]

How would you prove there is not a female President of the United States?

By simply "going out there" as it were and determining so by observation and/or experimentation. The claim "the president of the United States is a woman" is after all an empirical claim that can be falsified or confirmed by means of observation and/or experimentation. An analogous claim would be something like this: "there is a truck in my backyard." To see whether this claim is true or false I would just need to go to my backyard and see whether there is a truck there or not. If there isn't, then the claim is false. If there is a truck, then the claim is true.

 

[Revoltingest]

By simply "going out there" as it were and determining so by observation and/or experimentation. The claim "the president of the United States is a woman" is after all an empirical claim that can be falsified or confirmed by means of observation and/or experimentation. An analogous claim would be something like this: "there is a truck in my backyard." To see whether this claim is true or false I would just need to go to my backyard and see whether there is a truck there or not. If there isn't, then the claim is false. If there is a truck, then the claim is true.

Of course, unlike a truck in my back yard (a common occurrence), the prez being female is a matter where we must rely upon the opinions of others. To personally verify it is impossible. I'd be in prison before I made any progress with the exam. So as with many kinds of knowledge, we will have different confidence levels in our beliefs.

Btw, welcome aboard!

 

[Willamena]

One can only wonder where this "you can't prove a negative" nonsense originates from...

If it is the case that you are ostensibly committing yourself to the supposition that you are a so-called "weak" atheist because so-called "strong" atheism involves something tantamount to proving a negative and that one cannot prove a negative, then consider the fact that one can, in fact, prove a negative. I can prove, for example, that a round square does not exist. I can prove to you that something that is at once all red-colored and at once all non-red colored does not exist. I can prove to you that a female president of the United States does not exist. And so on. Furthermore, supposing, for the sake of the argument, that it was, in fact, impossible to "prove a negative," then so-called "strong atheism" would be a rather philosophically futile position to hold to as its main claim, namely that God does not exist, would be an instance of seeking to "prove a negative" and thus would be impossible on this view (though as I stated above, it is not at all impossible to prove a negative). In order for the strong atheist to meet his burden of proof, he would have to show that the very concept of God entails a contradiction; in classical formal logic, this would amount to something like a conjunction of incoherent claims, e.g. A & -A.


This "you can't prove a negative" nonsense is just that and it only seems to be repeated on some obscure corners of the internet that provide a home to congeries of village atheists who, while they like to think themselves as knowledgeable on matter of philosophy, theology and so forth, don't know much about those subjects at all.

A round-square is a contradiction, so contradictions do exist. That there is a female President of the United States is a falsehood, so falsehoods do exist.

But Gjallarhorn's comment referred to a misconception (misconceptions do exist). The strong atheist's claim is that, "I believe there is no god," and that isn't "a universal negative," if I understand that phrase correctly. It's quite positive.

 

[Willamena]

Of course, unlike a truck in my back yard (a common occurrence), the prez being female is a matter where we must rely upon the opinions of others. To personally verify it is impossible. I'd be in prison before I made any progress with the exam. So as with many kinds of knowledge, we will have different confidence levels in our beliefs.

Haha! Good point.

But then you could always ask him for evidence. He was willing to surrender his birth certificate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Haha! Good point.

But then you could always ask him for evidence. He was willing to surrender his birth certificate.

Ha! I doubt this would count as credible evidence of his malehood to many nutjobs, since they weren't even willing to concede that is was evidence of his birth in the U.S.

 

[Revoltingest]

Haha! Good point.
But then you could always ask him for evidence. He was willing to surrender his birth certificate.

Even if I saw the certificate, I'm no expert on such documents.
So I'll put the Obama-was-born-in-HI in the merely probable category.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By simply "going out there" as it were and determining so by observation and/or experimentation. The claim "the president of the United States is a woman" is after all an empirical claim that can be falsified or confirmed by means of observation and/or experimentation. An analogous claim would be something like this: "there is a truck in my backyard." To see whether this claim is true or false I would just need to go to my backyard and see whether there is a truck there or not. If there isn't, then the claim is false. If there is a truck, then the claim is true.

Yup...so how does this apply to the concept of God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since strong atheism states a universal negative, I'll stick with the logical stance of weak atheism.

I think both can be logical.

I voted "strong atheist", since I don't merely lack belief; I believe that gods don't exist. I hold this belief tentatively, and I'm open to having my mind changed in the face of new evidence, but I do hold it.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

As we have seen over the millennia, contradiction really does nothing to affect a god's validity. Believers simply reinvent/"reinterpret" their view on their god(s).

What do you mean by "a god's validity"? The term "validity" is used to describe syllogisms whose premises deductively guarantee their conclusion. If one where to show, for example, that God as the Christian (or Muslim or Jew, etc.) understands is logically incoherent -- that is to say that God's existence is metaphysically impossible -- then the strong atheist's burden of proof would be satisfied. If strong atheism just is the belief that the proposition "God does not exist" expresses a true proposition, then the strong atheist needs to satisfy his burden of proof by giving good reasons to think that God does not exist. The theist, who holds that the proposition "God exists" is true, must also provide good reasons to think that God exists if he is going to meet his burden of proof.

Which leaves us with:

Regarding the Harry Potter content (which I can't seem to quote), one must remember that this is not analogous insofar as God is not some contingent "thing" or other that is "out there," waiting to "be found" by means of empirical observation. A rock, for example, would just be an example of a material thing whose existence is not metaphysically necessary and whose existence can be falsified or verified by means of empirical endeavoring (in possible-world-speak, such rock, by virtue of its being contingent, would exist in some possible worlds but not others). Note that Hermoine could demonstrate that such a rock as described (namely, one which presumably grants the power of resurrection) could not exist by virtue of its being metaphysically impossible. Hermione could argue, for example, that resurrection is itself is metaphysically impossible, etc., and so demonsrtate that such a rock could not exist.

God, however, as understood by classical theism, is not at all a contingent thing or other that could have failed to exist. Rather, the God of classical theism exists necessarily (in possible-world-speak, this would amount to God either existing in all possible worlds if such a God does in fact exist or not in any).

 

[Gjallarhorn]

But Gjallarhorn's comment referred to a misconception (misconceptions do exist). The strong atheist's claim is that, "I believe there is no god," and that isn't "a universal negative," if I understand that phrase correctly. It's quite positive.

Typically, strong holders of a view don't include "I believe" in their statements.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Of course, unlike a truck in my back yard (a common occurrence), the prez being female is a matter where we must rely upon the opinions of others. To personally verify it is impossible. I'd be in prison before I made any progress with the exam.

Yes, thus we could amend our standards and ask ourselves if we have any good reasons for believing that x, in this case, that the president is male (or, alternatively, that the president is not a female). We obviously have such good reasons, e.g.: Barack Obama clearly looks male; his wife can attest to his being male, and so forth.

So as with many kinds of knowledge, we will have different confidence levels in our beliefs.

Right, that's expressing epistemological knowledge, i.e. the as-far-as-I-know's of knowledge.

Btw, welcome aboard!

Grazie!

 

[Sovereign Dream]

A round-square is a contradiction, so contradictions do exist. That there is a female President of the United States is a falsehood, so falsehoods do exist.

No, a proposition can have the property of, say, "being false," or "being true," or "being incoherent," but that doesn't thereby entail that "being false" itself or "being true" itself or "being incoherent" itself has any kind of ontological status.

But Gjallarhorn's comment referred to a misconception (misconceptions do exist). The strong atheist's claim is that, "I believe there is no god," and that isn't "a universal negative," if I understand that phrase correctly. It's quite positive.

 

[Willamena]

Typically, strong holders of a view don't include "I believe" in their statements.

Typically, they don't have to. The strength of belief supports statements that posit the way that the world is.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Yup...so how does this apply to the concept of God?

Good question. Since God is not some contingent, material thing or other with a given spatio-temporal location, God could not, even in principle, be "found out there" in the universe by means of empirical observation and/or experimentation for God is precisely not the kind of thing susceptible to empirical observation/experimentation in the first place. You won't "find" God "out there," so to speak, hanging out near a black hole or a far-away asteroid belt.

Indeed, the person that thinks that God is susceptible to empirical observation and/or experimentation either:

A.) Has an incorrect concept of God like that of a child's -- believing that God is literally some white-bearded super-human who inhabits a given spatio-temporal location and who is "out there" for man to find;

B.) Cannot adequately distinguish between an empirical question and a non-empirical question;

or

C.) Has a self-defeating and trivial commitment to scientism and so insists on the pain of irrationality that the question of God's existence "must" yield to empirical means.

 

[Willamena]

No, a proposition can have the property of, say, "being false," or "being true," or "being incoherent," but that doesn't thereby entail that "being false" itself or "being true" itself or "being incoherent" itself has any kind of ontological status.

Properties have ontological status, meaning we can refer to these abstracts as nouns. Red is a colour. Cherry is a flavour. False is a value. Not so much with existence. The word "being" adds nothing to the properties you've listed. That a thing is false and that a thing "is being false" basically mean the same, in English at least.