Do you believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism?

[Sovereign Dream]

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.

Are you a realist, then? Of a Platonic sort, or of an Aristotelian sort (or other)?

 

[Willamena]

Are you a realist, then? Of a Platonic sort, or of an Aristotelian sort (or other)?

Not a realist, just an amateur linguist.

 

[McBell]

Hey everyone. Do you, as an Atheist, believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism. For the purposes of this thread Strong Atheism is the denial of the existence of any and all deities while Weak Atheism is a lack of belief in any and all deities. So, which are you? Please vote in the poll.

Given the self serving definitions presented, I cannot vote.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Another thing that I forgot to add:

So-called "weak atheism," we are told, is simply "lacking belief" in god(s). If so, then how is "weak atheism" not just agnosticism by a different name, insofar as an agnostic also presumably "lacks belief" in god(s)?

 

[Revoltingest]

Another thing that I forgot to add:
So-called "weak atheism," we are told, is simply "lacking belief" in god(s). If so, then how is "weak atheism" not just agnosticism by a different name, insofar as an agnostic also presumably "lacks belief" in god(s)?

This weak atheist speculates that there are no gods.
My lack of certainty makes me an agnostic too.
We live in a big tent....dang near anyone can join.

 

[McBell]

Another thing that I forgot to add:

So-called "weak atheism," we are told, is simply "lacking belief" in god(s). If so, then how is "weak atheism" not just agnosticism by a different name, insofar as an agnostic also presumably "lacks belief" in god(s)?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

This weak atheist speculates that there are no gods.
My lack of certainty makes me an agnostic too.
We live in a big tent....dang near anyone can join.

I suppose the relevant question to ask, then, is "what leads you (that is, the weak atheist) to speculate that there are no gods?"

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose the relevant question to ask, then, is "what leads you (that is, the weak atheist) to speculate that there are no gods?"

Gods just don't seem to fit in anywhere...no evidence or explanatory power.
But of course, tis impossible to disprove their existence, so I'm "weak".

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Gods just don't seem to fit in anywhere...no evidence or explanatory power.

A couple points: (I) the theist will obviously disagree that there is no evidence for God's existence; (II) Even if there was "no evidence" for God's existence, it would be fallacious to then conclude that God does not exist. You seem to be aware of this, however, given your previous comments on the matter. To illustrate how such an inference would be fallacious, consider the following syllogism:

P1.) We have no evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

C: Therefore, no extra-terrestrial life exists.

This demonstrates how the inference:

P1.) We have no evidence of God's existence.

C: Therefore, God does not exist.

is fallacious.

(III) the theist does not argue that God exists because his existence offers explanatory power. That would just be tantamount to a "God of the gaps" defense which no academic theistic philosopher defends (indeed, you'll only find theists expounding some "God of the gaps" argument on some internet bastions of ingorance, e.g. YouTube). Theistic arguments rather typically involve some observation, be it a priori or a posteriori and then work from there, to put it simply, to the conclusion that God exists, e.g. Aquinas' "there is change" or Craig's "whatever begins to exist has a cause", etc.

But of course, tis impossible to disprove their existence, so I'm "weak".

Again, it is not impossible to prove that God does not exist. In order to do so, one would have to argue that the concept of God is itself incoherent, as the concept of a square-circle of a married bachelor is incoherent, for example. Many atheistic philosophers have some interesting arguments that purport to show, for example, that God's omniscience entails some contradiction or other and so that God cannot exist. Even if such argument ends up being unsound, such atheist is actually attempting to provide a good reason for his atheism, rather than simply sitting and uttering fallacious armchair nonsense to the effect of "there is no evidence for God, therefore he doesn't exist lol".

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Any chance you'll clarify?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thing that I forgot to add:

So-called "weak atheism," we are told, is simply "lacking belief" in god(s). If so, then how is "weak atheism" not just agnosticism by a different name, insofar as an agnostic also presumably "lacks belief" in god(s)?

Agnosticism isn't ambivalence about God; it's a positively asserted position: that the question of God's existence can't be answered. Not all weak atheists are agnostics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

P1.) We have no evidence of extra-terrestrial life.

C: Therefore, no extra-terrestrial life exists.

This demonstrates how the inference:

P1.) We have no evidence of God's existence.

C: Therefore, God does not exist.

is fallacious.

This would basically be why I'm a weak atheist.
I see no reason to believe in God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Moreover, I see absolutely no reason to believe any of the religions on the planet are true and correct, or that if a God(s) does exist s/he is likely to be terribly interested in us. That still doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But it means I can assign the same thought process to God that I would to three-headed aliens.

I have no reason to believe they exist, but they might, somewhere. If they do, the have not to this point made themselves known to me. I'll change my worldview if and when they do. In the meantime, my assumption would be that any aliens found are probably quite different to the three headed aliens of my imagination, so any time I spent thinking about said three headed aliens is probably not especially productive.

 

[McBell]

Any chance you'll clarify?

Mr. Penguin already has:

Agnosticism isn't ambivalence about God; it's a positively asserted position: that the question of God's existence can't be answered. Not all weak atheists are agnostics.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Agnosticism isn't ambivalence about God; it's a positively asserted position: that the question of God's existence can't be answered. Not all weak atheists are agnostics.

As far as I am aware, there are to "forms" of agnosticism (though do not inquire about their nomenclature for memory fails). One form of agnosticism is as you describe, namely, that such an agnostic holds that the proposition "it is impossible to know whether God exists" expresses a true proposition. The other type of agnostic I have in mind simply holds that he isn't sure whether God exists or not, but does not comment on whether it is possible to know that God exists or doesn't.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

This would basically be why I'm a weak atheist.
I see no reason to believe in God. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Moreover, I see absolutely no reason to believe any of the religions on the planet are true and correct, or that if a God(s) does exist s/he is likely to be terribly interested in us. That still doesn't mean God doesn't exist. But it means I can assign the same thought process to God that I would to three-headed aliens.

I have no reason to believe they exist, but they might, somewhere. If they do, the have not to this point made themselves known to me. I'll change my worldview if and when they do. In the meantime, my assumption would be that any aliens found are probably quite different to the three headed aliens of my imagination, so any time I spent thinking about said three headed aliens is probably not especially productive.

Do you believe, then, that God is metaphysically possible (that is, that God existing entails no kind of contradiction)?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you believe, then, that God is metaphysically possible (that is, that God existing entails no kind of contradiction)?

Honestly, it's a strange concept for me to consider. I am inherently suspicious of the supernatural, I suppose. The God described in the revealed religions appears all too human to me, but how could anyone completely disregard the possibility of a Deistic-style God?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Honestly, it's a strange concept for me to consider. I am inherently suspicious of the supernatural, I suppose. The God described in the revealed religions appears all too human to me, but how could anyone completely disregard the possibility of a Deistic-style God?

I ask because your previous comment seems to invite a theist such as myself to confront you with Alvin Plantinga's dreaded Modal Ontological Argument, whose soundness solely depends on the first premise, namely

P1. It is metaphysically possible that a maximally great being exists.


To make another comment, you mention that the God "revealed in religions appears all too human to me." Thomas Aquinas, for example, would share your sentiment. In his prolific writing, he argued, not surprisingly, that God must exist and that this God is not at all like the anthropomorphic portrayals you'll find in contemporary so-called "theistic personalism."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm a "weak" disbeliever in things like the existence of extraterrestrial life on a particular extrasolar planet.

I'm a "strong" disbeliever in things like the existence of Zeus, Thor, or the god of Abraham. In other words, I don't know for sure, but I would put money on it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I ask because your previous comment seems to invite a theist such as myself to confront you with Alvin Plantinga's dreaded Modal Ontological Argument, whose soundness solely depends on the first premise, namely

P1. It is metaphysically possible that a maximally great being exists.

Dreaded? Well, I find attempts to use pure logic to determine God's existence are less useful than empiricism, but perhaps that's personal taste. Regardless, I'd offer the following comment from Plantinga himself;

"Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion”

We could go round the bases on it, but no-one (or I should say, only a very small minority) believe that this establishes God. And it does nothing to establish that God is a being of infinite love and goodness regardless.

To make another comment, you mention that the God "revealed in religions appears all too human to me." Thomas Aquinas, for example, would share your sentiment. In his prolific writing, he argued, not surprisingly, that God must exist and that this God is not at all like the anthropomorphic portrayals you'll find in contemporary so-called "theistic personalism."

I'm familiar with some of Aquinas' work, although I'm a long way from an expert on it. He's interesting to read, but only really in the context of his own time, mostly. Would it surprise you if I said I prefer Voltaire?

 

[Willamena]

Another thing that I forgot to add:

So-called "weak atheism," we are told, is simply "lacking belief" in god(s). If so, then how is "weak atheism" not just agnosticism by a different name, insofar as an agnostic also presumably "lacks belief" in god(s)?

The difference is that the agnostic knows ... better than to use such a weak turn of phrase as "lacking belief."