Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[Michael Colton]

"Think" is synonymous with "believe," in this case. It just complicates matters to force a semantic distinction between them.

If there's no pink elephant in evidence in the room, it's okay to believe there's no pink elephant in the room.

I agree it is a semantic issue. But given the couple of posts leading up to the one I quoted, the semantics had already been invoked. So I thought it useful to distinguish them.

 

[Willamena]

I agree it is a semantic issue. But given the couple of posts leading up to the one I quoted, the semantics had already been invoked. So I thought it useful to distinguish them.

That's what I'm saying, though. It's not useful to distinguish them. They are synonymous.

 

[Michael Colton]

That's what I'm saying, though. It's not useful to distinguish them. They are synonymous.

Whether or not they are synonymous depends upon the context and usage. To say that one 'believes in god' has significantly different connotations and meanings as opposed to 'thinks there is a god.'

 

[Willamena]

Whether or not they are synonymous depends upon the context and usage. To say that one 'believes in god' has significantly different connotations and meanings as opposed to 'thinks there is a god.'

Perhaps... the point is that (far be it for me to agree with Artie) the hard atheist believes there is no god and, in saying so, thinks there is no god.

 

[Michael Colton]

Perhaps... the point is that (far be it for me to agree with Artie) the hard atheist believes there is no god and, in saying so, thinks there is no god.

Let me just provide my train of thought that led to my comment.

Previous poster comments that there is no 'belief' in atheism. The implied point of that comment is to distinguish between 'belief' in the religious sense of faith in something and 'thinking' something is true. I seconded this comment because I think it is an important distinction.

Then someone replies that strong atheists do in fact 'believe' in the lack of a god or gods. Given the previous comment, it is difficult to tell whether someone is using that in the sense of 'thinks there are god or gods," or if they are trying to insinuate that strong atheism somehow entails 'belief' akin to religious faith. Given the fuzziness of the intent of focusing on the word belief, I pointed out a semantic but important distinction.

 

[Willamena]

Let me just provide my train of thought that led to my comment.

Previous poster comments that there is no 'belief' in atheism. The implied point of that comment is to distinguish between 'belief' in the religious sense of faith in something and 'thinking' something is true. I seconded this comment because I think it is an important distinction.

Then someone replies that strong atheists do in fact 'believe' in the lack of a god or gods. Given the previous comment, it is difficult to tell whether someone is using that in the sense of 'thinks there are god or gods," or if they are trying to insinuate that strong atheism somehow entails 'belief' akin to religious faith. Given the fuzziness of the intent of focusing on the word belief, I pointed out a semantic but important distinction.

I believe it was implied in the reply that a set of atheism (hard atheism) is ignored by the conclusion, that's all. Some people do not distinguish 'belief in the religious sense of faith in something' from theists thinking god is true.

 

[Michael Colton]

I believe it was implied in the reply that a set of atheism (hard atheism) is ignored by the conclusion, that's all. Some people do not distinguish 'belief in the religious sense of faith in something' from theists thinking god is true.

It is because of all this confusion and differing assumptions of implications that I think it is one of those topics that semantic distinction is quite important - and so I made the distinction. Some people do make these distinctions when they use the terms, some people do not - some people may not be aware of the distinctions. All of these things can create confusion and disarray if clarification of terms and usage are not spelled out. That is why I made the comment I did.

 

[viole]

1) What is it in your beliefs that makes you a 'strong' atheist, rather than a 'weak' atheist.

The same belief that makes me a strong a-bluefairist. But in truth, it is not a belief. It is knowledge.

2) Do you refer to yourself as 'strong' atheist, or is there another term you use (Gnostic Atheist, positive atheist...I dunno...)

I refer to myself as a gnostic atheist. I claim to know that God does not exist.

3) Are there any authors/presenters/Kardashian sisters who present similar thoughts and beliefs to yours (so I can do some extra reading)

A good entry point is this: http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/is-atheism-just-another-belief-711.html

Ciao

- viole

 

[Alceste]

I feel I have more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude all deities are fabrications of human psychology. Here are some examples.

Lack of continuity. We've been around for about 200,000 years, operating with the same basic biological equipment, but none of our modern deities were believed in prior to the last few thousand years. Our distant ancestors had their own, many of whom are long forgotten.

Lack of cohesion. I often say there are more "gods" than believers. Many gods are no longer believed in and many believers lay claim to more than one. Also, among communities that claim to believe in only one, every believer gives a radically different description of him when pressed for details. This is not a pattern we would expect to see if the object of belief actually existed. Ask anyone on earth to describe an elephant and you basically get an elephant. Ask them to describe their god/s and it could quite literally be anything at all.

Geographic distribution. Like pockets of evolution, God concepts predictably cluster in "islands" and spread only along human migration routes. We have never seen the exact same god story crop up in two geographically isolated human populations who have no contact with one another. This is insurmountable evidence that belief is passed from human to human rather than by direct revelation from god/s.

Absence of positive evidence. Like everything we've dreamed up that doesn't exist - sea monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, big foot, alien lizard people, etc. - Not one scrap of evidence has ever been produced that could be interpreted to affirm the existence of God/s unless you count things like seeing a bearded face on your toast, which I don't.

Positive evidence that claims of God's accomplishments are untrue. Studies have found, for example, that intercessionary prayer has no effect on medical outcomes. I don't want to get too narrow here in my definition of gods, but that outcome persists no matter what religious or supernatural claim we attempt to investigate. We're not talking "inconclusive" here, we're talking "falsified". The only exception I'm aware of is that meditation truly does change your brain chemistry, so the Buddhists are onto something. But I digress, since that has nothing to do with gods.

Human stupidity. Despite our narcissism vis a vis our unusually large mammalian prefrontal lobe, humans throughout history have been wrong about nearly everything nearly all of the time. If our only evidence for the existence of gods is the testimony of other humans, I don't find it even the slightest bit persuasive. In fact, I'm inclined to assume it's nonsense, and am rarely disappointed.

I think that about covers my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Alceste]

I'm increasingly coming to the opinion that atheist, unqualified, is sufficient in itself as a name for the most hated subgroup in America. After all, if we start calling ourselves "strong atheists" and "weak atheists", "gnostic atheists" and "Agnostic atheists", we will be usurping the language of philosophers. Worse, we will be confusing the poor, drooling, bible pounding preachers who rely so heavily upon us when in need of an example of how heinous and depraved humanity has become in this dark age of the earth. Think about it! Have mercy on those preachers! Imagine how hard you yourself would be to both shout "Strong gnostic atheist" and drool at the same time without splattering the front pews!

I agree. There just aren't enough of us or enough disagreements among us for a good old fashioned schism.

 

[Alceste]

When I use the term 'god' I am not referring to a concept, but to a specific god. The term 'god' MUST be tied to a specific concept to have any meaning.

Therein lies the rub. I find the tendency of many atheists to invent or appropriate a specific god definition to not believe in intellectually lazy. Arguments stemming from that custom are the least persuasive of all possible arguments and the most easily rebutted.

atheist: "If God exists, why is there evil in the world?"

theist: "Because MY God tolerates evil!"

/debate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I agree. There just aren't enough of us or enough disagreements among us for a good old fashioned schism.

Well, we do have that whole debate about whether we think babies are atheists or not.

Maybe that will be the root of the atheist reformation.

 

[Alceste]

Well, we do have that whole debate about whether we think babies are atheists or not.

Maybe that will be the root of the atheist reformation.

Maybe it will! IMO, babies are theists and mummy is god.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Maybe it will! IMO, babies are theists and mummy is god.

Blasphemy! Burn her!

 

[Alceste]

Blasphemy! Burn her!

I know right? I'm such a heretic.

 

[Sapiens]

Lazy? No. Of the opinion that the discussion is hardly worth the trouble ... sure.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I feel I have more than enough evidence to reasonably conclude all deities are fabrications of human psychology. Here are some examples.

Lack of continuity. We've been around for about 200,000 years, operating with the same basic biological equipment, but none of our modern deities were believed in prior to the last few thousand years. Our distant ancestors had their own, many of whom are long forgotten.

Lack of cohesion. I often say there are more "gods" than believers. Many gods are no longer believed in and many believers lay claim to more than one. Also, among communities that claim to believe in only one, every believer gives a radically different description of him when pressed for details. This is not a pattern we would expect to see if the object of belief actually existed. Ask anyone on earth to describe an elephant and you basically get an elephant. Ask them to describe their god/s and it could quite literally be anything at all.

Geographic distribution. Like pockets of evolution, God concepts predictably cluster in "islands" and spread only along human migration routes. We have never seen the exact same god story crop up in two geographically isolated human populations who have no contact with one another. This is insurmountable evidence that belief is passed from human to human rather than by direct revelation from god/s.

Absence of positive evidence. Like everything we've dreamed up that doesn't exist - sea monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, big foot, alien lizard people, etc. - Not one scrap of evidence has ever been produced that could be interpreted to affirm the existence of God/s unless you count things like seeing a bearded face on your toast, which I don't.

Positive evidence that claims of God's accomplishments are untrue. Studies have found, for example, that intercessionary prayer has no effect on medical outcomes. I don't want to get too narrow here in my definition of gods, but that outcome persists no matter what religious or supernatural claim we attempt to investigate. We're not talking "inconclusive" here, we're talking "falsified". The only exception I'm aware of is that meditation truly does change your brain chemistry, so the Buddhists are onto something. But I digress, since that has nothing to do with gods.

Human stupidity. Despite our narcissism vis a vis our unusually large mammalian prefrontal lobe, humans throughout history have been wrong about nearly everything nearly all of the time. If our only evidence for the existence of gods is the testimony of other humans, I don't find it even the slightest bit persuasive. In fact, I'm inclined to assume it's nonsense, and am rarely disappointed.

I think that about covers my thoughts on the subject.

Doesn't a Deist God sit comfortably with these facts?

 

[Bunyip]

Therein lies the rub. I find the tendency of many atheists to invent or appropriate a specific god definition to not believe in intellectually lazy.

That is a truly ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Alceste]

Doesn't a Deist God sit comfortably with these facts?

Yup. I have few if any quibbles with deism, animism and pantheism. If you can't shake the sense that when you look at the universe, the universe looks back at you, these descriptions are among the most rational of our available options.

I personally still prefer a psychoanalytic approach to understanding that sensation, but I don't hold it against anyone to pick the vaguest possible conception of deity to believe in and wash their hands of the whole thing.

 

[Alceste]

That is a truly ridiculous thing to say.

How so?