Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[Prometheus]

Heyas, just was curious as to what you meant by Strong-Atheism Vs. Weak Atheism. I've never seen the terms defined in any way. I am assuming Weak Atheism is the "I don't know" position and Strong Atheism is "There is no" position, but please let me know. After seeing the decay of my posts into interpretative anarchy I'd like to be clear what you mean before I post anything

A Weak-Atheist, by my definition, is someone who doesn't believe in any gods but is simultaneously an Agnostic regarding the existence of said gods. It's someone who claims that they don't know whether or not gods exist, but doesn't believe they do.

A Strong-Atheist, by my definition, is someone who doesn't believe in any gods but is not an Agnostic regarding their existence. It's someone who believes gods can be disproven and/or have been disproven. A Strong-Atheist would assert that the claim, "Gods do not exist." is be true.

So, basically, you're right.

 

[Tiberius]

Tiberius, what exactly is it you mean when you say that there is scientific data that we don't have. It appears to a self-contradicting expression.

An example...

Radioactivity. 500 years ago, we had no knowledge about radioactivity. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there. It was there, we just couldn't measure it.

Likewise, we have no scientific data about aliens that live on a planet hundreds of lightyears away, but that doesn't mean that they aren't able to be described by science.

 

[des]

That isn't exactly agnostic. Agnostism is a belief that you cannot know if there is a god or not. It is actually a theological or philosophical position (though admittedly there are many people who just go thru a period where they aren't sure if there is a god or not.

I think someone else is right about the distinction not being that important.
In fact, I think quite a lot of people are functionally atheist, in that they act as if there is no god. I am not sure if that includes people like myself who don't believe in things like intercessory prayer (praying for a person or oneself to get something-- peace, health, etc). Though I would guess that's a different discussion entirely.


--des

A Weak-Atheist, by my definition, is someone who doesn't believe in any gods but is simultaneously an Agnostic regarding the existence of said gods. It's someone who claims that they don't know whether or not gods exist, but doesn't believe they do.

 

[Prometheus]

An example...

Radioactivity. 500 years ago, we had no knowledge about radioactivity. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there. It was there, we just couldn't measure it.

So what's wrong about saying the following:

"God. At present, we have no knowledge of God. However, that doesn't mean that It isn't there. It is there, we just can't measure It."

 

[Tiberius]

But we do have knowledge of things that can't possibly be if the described versions of God are true.

Again, you're misquoting my argument. Please don't. I've already been through this with you, several times now.

 

[Prometheus]

But we do have knowledge of things that can't possibly be if the described versions of God are true.

There is a difference between described versions of God and a God itself.

 

[Tiberius]

There is no evidence for an undescribed God though, is there? So why should anyone believe in it?

In fact, do you have any evidence at all that an undescribed God exists? or even if an undescribed God can possibly exist? of course not. So it comes down to you saying, "Well, maybe..."

All you've got is an idea, and not a very convincing one.

 

[Prometheus]

There is no evidence for an undescribed God though, is there? So why should anyone believe in it?

There isn't. That's why I don't.

In fact, do you have any evidence at all that an undescribed God exists? or even if an undescribed God can possibly exist? of course not. So it comes down to you saying, "Well, maybe..."

All you've got is an idea, and not a very convincing one.

Even if all we can do is entertain the idea, that still doesn't disprove that it exists. To say that it doesn't exist is to make a claim and claims have truth values. You can't back up your claim for non-existence any more than anyone else can back up their claims for existence. So the answer isn't to deny the possibility. The answer is merely to realize we don't know and move on. It's not a question we should even concern ourselves with.

 

[Tiberius]

Even if all we can do is entertain the idea, that still doesn't disprove that it exists. To say that it doesn't exist is to make a claim and claims have truth values. You can't back up your claim for non-existence any more than anyone else can back up their claims for existence. So the answer isn't to deny the possibility. The answer is merely to realize we don't know and move on. It's not a question we should even concern ourselves with.

So it comes down to, "There is a thing which is undescribed, has no evidence to support it, and may not even exist, so you MUST accept the possibility of it."

Not going to convince many people with that, particularly not me.

besides, if we are going to say things like this, then it comes down to what we define God to be. If we define God to be a toaster, then the toaster is God. heck, let's define God to be me. I could use some worshippers.

But this argument about an undescribed God allows us to define God to be anything in order to maintain the claim that we can't prove that God doesn't exist. It's just an argument that provides its own way to weasel out of things.

it won't work on me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So it comes down to, ...

Tiberius, to claim with absolute certainty that there is nothing beyond the scope of scientific inquiry is a faith claim to which you cling with the same tenacity characteristic of all dogmatists. Yet the findings of Heisenberg and Gödel persist, as does the problem of induction. One might also point to speculative cosmologies which are mathematically coherent and may be 'true' yet remain in the realm of speculation solely because they are untestable, unfalsifiable.

Certainty is more comforting, but neither science nor philosophy are about supplying you with comfort food - hence Huxley and Pauling. Sorry about that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, heisenberg was talking about subatomic particules and Godel was talking about mathematics.

So there! :biglaugh:

Tiberius, anyone familiar with me knows that I'm not a big fan of the God-of-the-Gaps, but to respond by counting one's beads and chanting

"There are no Gaps! There are no Gaps!"​

impresses me as a bit silly. Nevertheless, you of course have every right to your articles of faith ... :yes:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem of suffering, for examples, Michel. Also the predestination/free will - we can't have both.

Your certainty is certainly charming. Do you know anything about process theology?

 

[doppelganger]

Your certainty is certainly charming. Do you know anything about process theology?

Is there any other kind?

 

[Tiberius]

So there! :biglaugh:

Tiberius, anyone familiar with me knows that I'm not a big fan of the God-of-the-Gaps, but to respond by counting one's beads and chanting

"There are no Gaps! There are no Gaps!"​

impresses me as a bit silly. Nevertheless, you of course have every right to your articles of faith ... :yes:

Well, there's no evidence at all that there are any gaps that science can never fill, are there? That alone isn't enough to make the argument, but when we also consider that there have been countless gaps that were once claimed that only God could fill but have now been filled by science, there's a strong precedence to say that God isn't a good filler of gaps, and science is.

So there is a lack of evidence on one side, and a very strong precedent to support the other side. The evidence is so strongly in favour of supporting science rather than God that it's almost certain that science is the better technique.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So there is a lack of evidence on one side, and a very strong precedent to support the other side. The evidence is so strongly in favour of supporting science rather than God that it's almost certain that science is the better technique.

Agreed. It's good to see you retreating to the defensible even if it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Tiberius]

So then, since it is logical that science can explain the universe without the need for a God, and also given that there is no direct evidence for a God, and also given that any described God involves contradictions that mean it can't exist in reality, the logic conclusion is that God does not exist, yes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So then, since it is logical that science can explain the universe without the need for a God, and also given that there is no direct evidence for a God, and also given that any described God involves contradictions that mean it can't exist in reality, the logic conclusion is that God does not exist, yes?

• it is logical that science can explain the universe without the need for a God
  You do not seem to understand what 'logic' is. Nor do you seem to understand what science is. Nor do you seem to be aware that describing observed regularities is a far cry from explaining the universe. Other than that, not bad.​
• given that there is no direct evidence for a God
  This is, of course, a judgment.​
• the logic conclusion is that God does not exist, yes?
  Actually, no.​

 

[Pah]

Have the rules changed? I thought this was a place where atheists can talk without outside discussion/debate but that questions were permitted.

 

[Pah]

Personally, I have been convinced by what I think is sound logic that the position of Strong-Atheism is a fallacy. I think the most reasonable position to hold is to be a Weak-Atheist/Agnostic.

If there are any Strong-Atheists here I'd be interested in changing your mind.

I never understood the distinction.

Not only is there so many inconsistencies religion but science has made great headway in evaluating aspects of religion that reduce religion to man-made myth.

If it's man-made there is no divine.

 

[Pah]

I think the point is that by definition "the supernatural" is not a part of this universe, but transcends it, so there could be no data about it.

When data exists, it is no longer supernatural.