I see no value in atheism

[ArtieE]

Other than semantics, I see no meaningful difference between 'not believing god exists' and 'believing god doesn't exist'. It is the same position just worded slightly differently.

No it isn't. That's why we have the terms weak and strong atheist and implicit and explicit atheism. That you don't see any meaningful difference between them that's your problem. Everybody else who talks about weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism do.

 

[Bunyip]

No it isn't. That's why we have the terms weak and strong atheist and implicit and explicit atheism. That you don't see any meaningful difference between them that's your problem. Everybody else who talks about weak and strong atheism and implicit and explicit atheism do.

Few atheists I know subscribe to the strawman notion of weak and strong atheism. Atheism is atheism. The position remains the same, the burden of proof the same and the rationale identical.

Sure, you can subdivide atheism into weak, strong, implicit and so on - but they remain subsets of a whole which is atheism.
Strong atheism is atheism, weak atheism is atheism, implicit atheism is atheism. There is no variance in the burden of proof or the rationale informing the position.

 

[ArtieE]

What difference?

The difference wikipedia talks about here and that you claim doesn't exist. Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bunyip]

The difference wikipedia talks about here and that you claim doesn't exist. Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know that there is a semantic differerence, but no practical difference. As I said, the burden of proof, the rationale and the position remains the same. Both remain subsets of atheism.

Yes, they are distinct subsets. But within atheism. And in practice it makes no difference whatsoever to the burden of proof, or any theistic argument being addressed.

In debate it is nothing more than a red herring.

 

[ArtieE]

No, but your beliefs are really unsound...and I am not going to keep responding to comments based on nuttiness...drop it!

If you divide the population of the world into theists and not theists and remove the theists, who do you have left?

 

[ArtieE]

I know that there is a semantic differerence, but no practical difference. As I said, the burden of proof, the rationale and the position remains the same.

The weak atheist doesn't claim anything, has no burden of proof, needs no rationale, and has no position. A strong atheist does claim something, has the burden of proof, needs a rationale and has a position. That is the practical difference.

 

[Bunyip]

The weak atheist doesn't claim anything, has no burden of proof, needs no rationale, and has no position. A strong atheist does claim something, has the burden of proof, needs a rationale and has a position. That is the practical difference.

What burden of proof is that?
Please, what burden of proof does the strong atheist bear?
Please be specific, give examples of the sort of evidence you imagine the strong atheist must present (other than the absence of evidence to the contrary). As far as I can see, the absence of evidence to the contrary justifies strong atheism just as adequately as it does weak atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

ArtieA

Just to simplify - my point is that both strong and weak atheism are equally informed and justified by the absence of evidence to the contrary alone. So whatever burden of proof strong atheism bears - is already satisfied by weak atheism. It is the same justification and remains unchallenged by evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

What burden of proof is that?
Please, what burden of proof does the strong atheist bear?

If a strong atheist says to you: "I believe god doesn't exist" then you can ask him back "Why do you believe God doesn't exist?" And he would tell you his reasons why he has taken this position. A weak atheist hasn't taken any position so he has no position to defend.

 

[Bunyip]

If a strong atheist says to you: "I believe god doesn't exist" then you can ask him back "Why do you believe God doesn't exist?" And he would tell you his reasons why he has taken this position. A weak atheist hasn't taken any position so he has no position to defend.

Sure, but the strong atheist and the weak atheist give the same answer - I see no reason to believe. The same same rationale applies.
Neither in any way evidences a deity. Until there is some evidence to consider - the default and the positive claim remain essentially equivalent. What I am saying is that the burden of proof is the same. It has nothing to react to.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure, but the strong atheist and the weak atheist give the same answer - I see no reason to believe. The same same rationale applies.

A weak implicit atheist may never have heard of this god of which you speak and that is why he has an absence of belief in him. A strong atheist must have heard of the god and have reasons to believe he doesn't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

A weak implicit atheist may never have heard of this god of which you speak and that is why he has an absence of belief in him. A strong atheist must have heard of the god and have reasons to believe he doesn't exist.

Sure, and we are all both. I am an implicit atheist towards all of the god concepts I am not aware of and a strong atheist towards the ones I do know of. They are not mutually exclusive categories.

Both implicit and strong atheism can be found within most atheists, it does not really draw a boundary between two groups of people. (especially given the obvious assumption that people unaware of god concepts are not participating here).

 

[ArtieE]

Sure, and we are all both. I am an implicit atheist towards all of the god concepts I am not aware of and a strong atheist towards the ones I do know of. They are not mutually exclusive categories.

Who said they were? Every atheist is "not theist" but only strong atheists are both "not theists" and believe gods don't exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Who said they were? Every atheist is "not theist" but only strong atheists are both "not theists" and believe gods don't exist.

Sure. And both positions meet all necessary burden of proof. In the same way.
They are positions held by most atheists, and drawn from the same rationale. Believing gods do not exist and not believing gods exist are both equally informed in that they are simple reactions to the absence of evidence.
The person not aware of a god claim is a weak atheist towards it. The same person when aware of a god claim is a strong atheist towards it - in both cases because there is no reason to see it otherwise.

 

[ArtieE]

Sure. And both positions meet all necessary burden of proof. In the same way.

Only strong atheists take a position. Weak atheists lack a position. That's the whole point of calling them weak and strong.

 

[Bunyip]

Only strong atheists take a position. Weak atheists lack a position. That's the whole point of calling them weak and strong.

Sure. I understand that. But the burden of evidence is met by both in the same way. And most atheists are both. All of them who engage in debates on theism.
Other than those unaware of any god concept, and therefore not discussing them all atheists are both weak and strong atheists.

So in the context of a discussion on atheism, the weak and the strong atheists are the same people. All of them hold both of those positions.

The strong atheists and the weak atheists are the same people, they are positions held in common - not two distinct groups of atheists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure. I understand that. But the burden of evidence is met by both in the same way. And most atheists are both. All of them who engage in debates on theism.
Other than those unaware of any god concept, and therefore not discussing them all atheists are both weak and strong atheists.

So in the context of a discussion on atheism, the weak and the strong atheists are the same people. All of them hold both of those positions.

The strong atheists and the weak atheists are the same people, they are positions held in common - not two distinct groups of atheists.

I'm not entirely certain how a person can both believe there is no God and not believe there is no God. Could you please elaborate as to what you mean?

 

[Curious George]

What do you call someone who is not a theist?

What is the problem with calling them "not a theist?"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It matters to me, because I don't believe in non-existent things. That we are all born with a blank slate defies that we are born full of non-existent things (like not-beliefs and not-cars).

That is... almost completely meaningless. It's quite simple: we are born without (or, at least, with very few) beliefs. The default position with regards to all claims is a lack of belief. "Non-existent things" have absolutely nothing to do with that.

We learn about things and we believe in them, and we learn about more things and we don't believe in them. And there's nothing controversial about that, either.

Which doesn't contradict what I said. You appear to be agree with me.

The reverse, that people can reject things being true without understanding them? I disagree.

Check the evolution vs. creation thread and you'll see for yourself.

Yes, it is.

So, we're in agreement? Any claim you don't accept is a claim that you reject, right?

What is the problem with calling them "not a theist?"

No problem whatsoever. They amount to the same thing.

 

[paarsurrey]

As you saw from the link I provided, A reason to believe, belief in the supernatural and gods simply evolved because the beliefs gave a survival advantage, not because Poseidon and Zeus actually exists. Here's the evolutionary tree of myth and religion. Here's an Awesome Map of the Evolution of Religions

The sources given in the map are not facts.

The title of the map is "Check out this excellent diagram that maps how world religions have changed and developed, from the beginning of history to now". The religions have existed from the inception, they existed in the pre-historic periods and have continued to date.

Regards