Trying To Understand Atheism

[Dirty Penguin]

The quality of being omnipotent (all powerful) is an impossible property, either in reality or even in the imagination. Quite simply, can an omnipotent being make an object so big that even he can't lift it? Any answer leads to a being that is less than omnipotent. We know this as kids, but are quickly taught to not ask such questions.

Omniscient (all knowing) doesn't fair any better really. An omniscient being would know everything that has happened, is happening, and will happen. Which makes all human activity preordained, even me typing these words would be scripted and known by such a being from time immemorial.

The "effect, or a manifestation" of such a being and "control some part of nature" would indicate some observable and measurable effect. Yet there is nothing that points to such, unless you want to argue for the anthropic principle, which is like a puddle of water proclaiming how perfectly the hole in the ground fits his shape.

And this is where my atheism comes from. It's with these two characteristics of the supposed Abrahamic ("God") that has lead me to the conclusion that such a deity is illogical. And since other deities don't seem to measure up to these two characteristics I conclude they're illogical as well...along with the plethora of supernatural entities defined by humans. It is at that point I cease caring. I can't say that I'm "fence sitting" because...my position is..I don't believe the supernatural exist nor do I care. It makes for an interesting philosophical discussion/debate though.

 

[Nakosis]

Explicit weak atheists sit on the fence and know they are. Implicit atheists may be unaware that there's a fence or that there are different sides. If you don't care enough about whether there are gods or not to have any beliefs about them you are an apatheist.

Well as long as we gots the right label.

Course now I'm wondering what a patheist might be.

I came across either a pagan atheist or a deeply religious non-believer.

 

[Thumper]

Those who say they believe gods exist are called theists. Those who claim to know gods exist are called gnostic theists. Of course they may be as confused as you and don't know the proper terms. That's what I'm trying to alleviate.There is no such official terms.The breakdown is the official breakdown. You'll find it many places online. An agnostic doesn't know. A weak atheist doesn't believe. Not knowing and not believing is different.
And you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The simple categories are there so that people like you can at least have a chance to learn the basics.

Wait, you talk about "weak" and "strong" then present a chart with neither term in it.

Somebody might be confused.

I understand and agree with the 4 quadrants of the gnostic/agnostic theist/atheist breakdowns.

It's the vagueness of strong/weak I question.

 

[Thumper]

And this is where my atheism comes from. It's with these two characteristics of the supposed Abrahamic ("God") that has lead me to the conclusion that such a deity is illogical. And since other deities don't seem to measure up to these two characteristics I conclude they're illogical as well...along with the plethora of supernatural entities defined by humans. It is at that point I cease caring. I can't say that I'm "fence sitting" because...my position is..I don't believe the supernatural exist nor do I care. It makes for an interesting philosophical discussion/debate though.

This doesn't even consider the property of omnibenevolence (all loving) and the problem of evil. But this creates such cognitive dissonance it is lost on most people.

When you combine "creator of everything" with "hell" you invariably end up with a horrific monster deity that defies rational justification. And then theists want to argue for a need to bow in servitude and worship to this deity. Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot

 

[ArtieE]

Wait, you talk about "weak" and "strong" then present a chart with neither term in it

This is a chart for absolute beginners, those who haven't got a clue. It's the absolute basics. When you understand this chart, we can go on with the advanced stuff.

Somebody might be confused.

I assume you refer to yourself.

I understand and agree with the 4 quadrants of the gnostic/agnostic theist/atheist breakdowns.

Thank you. That's at least a start.

It's the vagueness of strong/weak I question.

There's no vagueness.

Weak atheist says: "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist."
Strong atheist says: "I don't believe gods exist and I believe gods don't exist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about the millions of atheists who think it is a belief? Do they get excommunicated?

The only way to get kicked out of atheism just for believing wrong things is if at least one of those things is a god.

 

[Thumper]

This is a chart for absolute beginners, those who haven't got a clue. It's the absolute basics. When you understand this chart, we can go on with the advanced stuff.I assume you refer to yourself.Thank you. That's at least a start.There's no vagueness.

Weak atheist says: "I don't believe gods exist and I don't believe gods don't exist."
Strong atheist says: "I don't believe gods exist and I believe gods don't exist."

Says you. I can find other references that say something else.

(And you presented the chart when talking about strong/weak atheism. )

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most accept that there is at least a tiny possibility that they could be wrong though.

Most people accept that there's at least a tiny possibility that they could be wrong on any knowledge claim. It seems like many theists try to cling to that possibility and make it out to be a bigger deal for rejection of god-claims than rejection of other claims.

I treat the claim "there are three grocery stores in my town" as provisional. I'm familiar with at least one case when a grocery store suddenly ceased to exist (a natural gas explosion in Toronto when I was a kid), so I certainly acknowledge that I could be wrong.

I thinn it can be useful to talk about doubt in relativ terms instead of absolute ones. "I'm not perfectly certain that God doesn't exist" fails to capture the idea that "I'm more certain that God doesn't exist than I am that there are 3 grocery stores in my town" expresses.

 

[ArtieE]

Says you. I can find other references that say something else.

(And you presented the chart when talking about strong/weak atheism. )

You have to start with the absolute basics and take it from there.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Strong atheist says: "I don't believe gods exist and I believe gods don't exist."

Tis the basics but not so black and white. I don't believe god/the supernatural exist because my only points of reference to them come from the believer. The believer has not presented tangible evidence of the existence of the supernatural so I can only conclude due to lack of evidence from the believer the supernatural is a figment of the believer's imagination. Since I didn't care to begin with I see no reason to believe now. For me that in of itself does not say ("I believe god's don't exist"). I'm brought back full circle to not caring since I have no belief in them in the first place. My default position is non-believer. Since I'm given no reason to "believe" how can I..?