Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[lewisnotmiller]

So I've been thinking about strong and weak atheism a little lately. First, I'll summarize where my head is at currently;

1) All atheists are actually weak atheists (although I'd prefer agnostic atheist)
2) Strong atheism involves claiming the ability to disprove God
3) Strong atheism is a theoretical position only, not one held by actual people
4) Some self-describe as strong atheists, but that is due to either a different definition of strong atheism than the one I run with, limitation of God-concepts, or other differences. (or self delusion)

I'd love the chance to pick some strong atheists brains, but since I figured they weren't real people, this seemed difficult. Enter LuisDantes, who has kindly offered to answer some questions, or discuss this. Any other strong atheists are more than welcome. One thing I'd ask, please no discussions on whether strong or weak atheism even exists as a concept (at least for now). There is value in that discussion, but it will derail this thread too quickly, I think.

Have to say, I'm ruling out the self-delusion angle, Luis...I am guessing we're going to find a slight difference in where we draw the line between weak atheism and strong atheism in some way.

So, first off, a couple of questions;

1) What is it in your beliefs that makes you a 'strong' atheist, rather than a 'weak' atheist.
2) Do you refer to yourself as 'strong' atheist, or is there another term you use (Gnostic Atheist, positive atheist...I dunno...)
3) Are there any authors/presenters/Kardashian sisters who present similar thoughts and beliefs to yours (so I can do some extra reading)

Oh, and thanks for doing this...helps me round out some things I've been thinking of late.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Mainly, I think it is too much of an affectation to claim that I do not know whether there are any deities.

Sure, I can recognize that it is impossible to prove that there are none (and it is).

But belief in deities is all about acknowledging them as important, as significant. It is an emotional thing, not a logical question.

And I am, for lack of a better word, impervious to that belief. I am pretty sure that there are no deities whatsoever except as human creations.

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

Strong atheist is what I prefer. It points out nicely that this is not something that I feel in doubt about.

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

Honestly, I will have to think about that for a while. I don't think I have ever considered that question.

For the moment, I suppose Peter Singer (an author I strongly favor) pretty much shows why it is not at all important to even have a concept of God, much less to make a point of showing whether he can exist.

After reading a bit of his worldview, the very idea that there are people who believe in God sounds so... so very alien, really.

Oh, and thanks for doing this...helps me round out some things I've been thinking of late.

My pleasure.

 

[Bunyip]

I think that strong atheism can only make sense if you are very clear and slecifuc about terms and definitions - if we are speaking about specifically defined gods, then strong atheism is defensible.

Of course weak atheism is a stronger logical position than strong atheism - which is why I object to the terminology.

 

[LuisDantas]

Weak atheism is definitely a stronger logical position.

But for theism, and as a consequence for atheism, being logical is of marginal importance at best.

Theism and strong atheism are both all about personal certainty, and only tangentially (if that much) about logic.

The theist creates gods and believes in them. The strong atheist refuses to take the idea seriously, or maybe is all-out incapable of doing so.

Both are opposite yet roughly equivalent manifestations of emotional preference about belief.

 

[Bunyip]

Weak atheism is definitely a stronger logical position.

But for theism, and as a consequence for atheism, being logical is of marginal importance at best.

Theism and strong atheism are both all about personal certainty, and only tangentially (if that much) about logic.

The theist creates gods and believes in them. The strong atheist refuses to take the idea seriously, or maybe is all-out incapable of doing so.

Both are opposite yet roughly equivalent manifestations of emotional preference about belief.

Sure, I understand what you are saying - BUT, you are using a different meaning for 'strong atheism'.

Strong atheism tends to be defined as a positive claim of knowledge, to KNOW that there is no god.

 

[LuisDantas]

And that is different from what I claim in which way?

 

[Bunyip]

And that is different from what I claim in which way?

As I said, what you claimed was absent of positive claims of knowledge, and thus differs from the more common definition.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I said, what you claimed was absent of positive claims of knowledge, and thus differs from the more common definition.

That would be true if knowledge about the existence of deities were logical in nature. Is it? I don't think so.

 

[Bunyip]

That would be true if knowledge about the existence of deities were logical in nature. Is it? I don't think so.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Deities are not subject to logical considerations, are they?

Belief in their existence is just that; belief.

The eccentric nature of the object itself makes the so-called "knowledge" about their supposed existence something quite unlike the logical or empirical knowledge of other things.

I do claim to know that no deity exists. It is not a logically tenable statement - but it does not have to be, because it is a statement about deities.

 

[Bunyip]

Deities are not subject to logical considerations, are they?

Belief in their existence is just that; belief.

The eccentric nature of the object itself makes the so-called "knowledge" about their supposed existence something quite unlike the logical or empirical knowledge of other things.

I do claim to know that no deity exists. It is not a logically tenable statement - but it does not have to be, because it is a statement about deities.

Sure, but there is no need to redefine 'knowledge' in the context of theism. I understand that theists often mistake belief for knowledge, but it remains belief and not knowledge.

 

[freethinker44]

I'm am a strong atheist.

Why? Because I got tired of replying to each and every separate personal definition of god, and I thought, "Why can't I have my own personal definition of god?" So I made one. I'm going to go into too much detail about the logic behind it, because it's way more than I am willing to sit and write, at least not in one sitting. But here's an overview.

The argument is basically; I am not god, therefore god does not exist.
There are a few axioms that need to be accepted to follow the logic, and I accept them so it works fine for me.
One, I am not god and by that I mean humans - past, present, and future - are not gods. Two, if something exists it can be known. Three, an intelligent entity has no limit to its potential. Four, god is greater than human potential.
Now to determine what is a god, you can't start with what you don't know you need to start with what you do know. I know I am not god, I am human, humans are intelligent entities, therefore there is no limit to the human species' potential, if there is no limit to human potential then there is nothing greater than human potential, therefore there is no god. This all differentiates between an actual god and a being with great power. There can be beings with greater power and ability than us, but I don't consider them gods. The second axiom, "if something exists it can be known" which means to me, if we can understand it we can attain it, removes the possibility that a god could exist outside of our universe and be beyond human potential, if it exists it can be known, therefore it isn't beyond human potential, therefore it's not a god. Extremely powerful but not a god.

So basically I've defined god as something whose existence is impossible. If something comes along with a concept of a god that doesn't measure up to those standards, I don't consider it a god, even if it actually exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Mainly, I think it is too much of an affectation to claim that I do not know whether there are any deities.
Sure, I can recognize that it is impossible to prove that there are none (and it is).
But belief in deities is all about acknowledging them as important, as significant. It is an emotional thing, not a logical question.
And I am, for lack of a better word, impervious to that belief. I am pretty sure that there are no deities whatsoever except as human creations.

Hmmm...that makes sense. Dammit, you were supposed to say something I could rant and rave about. :sarcastic
Would you consider the label apatheist as applying to you (even if you don't use it yourself)? Or do you actually see religion and belief as more destructive or negative than mere apathetic.

Honestly, I will have to think about that for a while. I don't think I have ever considered that question.

For the moment, I suppose Peter Singer (an author I strongly favor) pretty much shows why it is not at all important to even have a concept of God, much less to make a point of showing whether he can exist.

That sounds interesting, actually. I'll look him up if/when I get some reading time.

After reading a bit of his worldview, the very idea that there are people who believe in God sounds so... so very alien, really.

I get that way sometimes too, but there's too many people I respect who do it for me to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, but there is no need to redefine 'knowledge' in the context of theism. I understand that theists often mistake belief for knowledge, but it remains belief and not knowledge.

I beg to differ. "Deity" is an exceptional concept in that it is so very vague and subject to interpretation. That empowers people to fuse knowledge with belief. It can even be argued that such is the whole point of the concept.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmmm...that makes sense. Dammit, you were supposed to say something I could rant and rave about. :sarcastic

Gimme a bit of time, I shall.

Would you consider the label apatheist as applying to you (even if you don't use it yourself)? Or do you actually see religion and belief as more destructive or negative than mere apathetic.

I do consider myself an apatheist. It is kind of funny when people attempt to scare me about the afterlife or something.

I do, however, consider theism much too minor a thing to be religiously significant. And for that reason, I also consider atheism a minor thing.

Religion can be destructive and often is, but it is nonetheless very significant. Its relationship to theism is grossly exagerated; religion and belief in deities are fairly unrelated, all things considered.

I get that way sometimes too, but there's too many people I respect who do it for me to dismiss it out of hand.

The way I see it, that is a bit odd. One needs to have no more ceremony to believe or disbelieve than he needs to choose a favorite color. It is just an aesthetical preference either way.

Edited to add: it just came to me that there are a lot of odd consequences of the fact that deities are sometimes presented as having explanation power when they really do not, and of having (or lacking) whatever attributes one wants them to. Mainly, everyone is entitled to believe or disbelieve as they will, and it is even legitimate to change one's mind for no clear reason at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do, however, consider theism much too minor a thing to be religiously significant. And for that reason, I also consider atheism a minor thing.

Hmmm...interesting. Certainly I am seeing atheism as more and more a minor thing. Speaks to my bias that I haven't considered theism in the same light.

Religion can be destructive and often is, but it is nonetheless very significant. Its relationship to theism is grossly exagerated; religion and belief in deities are fairly unrelated, all things considered.

Funny...I've heard you say this, or similar things, many times. It never really resonated with me, but it's actually starting to.

The way I see it, that is a bit odd. One needs to have no more ceremony to believe or disbelieve than he needs to choose a favorite color. It is just an aesthetical preference either way.

Not sure I understand that entirely...at least, not yet.
If one moves from belief to non-belief does that not indicate a substantive shift in world view? If you mean 'ceremony' entirely literally, then I'd agree that no ceremony is required. But it has more impact than changing mind about one's favourite colour.

Edited to add: it just came to me that there are a lot of odd consequences of the fact that deities are sometimes presented as having explanation power when they really do not, and of having (or lacking) whatever attributes one wants them to. Mainly, everyone is entitled to believe or disbelieve as they will, and it is even legitimate to change one's mind for no clear reason at all.

Changing mind is all well and fine, but do you see people's decisions as being informative at all?

Strikes me that we've drifted from topic, but I'm okay with it if you are...lol

 

[LuisDantas]

Not sure I understand that entirely...at least, not yet.
If one moves from belief to non-belief does that not indicate a substantive shift in world view? If you mean 'ceremony' entirely literally, then I'd agree that no ceremony is required. But it has more impact than changing mind about one's favourite colour.

It may, or it may not. It will depend on the person.

Theism and atheism are not typical of most ideologies, in that they do not necessarily have clear goals and consequences.

Capitalism, or Marxism, or Objetivism, or Utilitarianism (just a random sample) are supposed to have a clear and demonstrable effect on one's priorities.

Theism and atheism truly are not. It is not like anyone can choose to start existence again with one deity more (or less) than we have now. It is not even clear that we could perceive any difference even if we had such choices.

Ultimately, theism and atheism are all about belief itself, and therefore far more personal matters than many people realize. Anyone is entitled to change their stance on those matters just because, by flipping a coin at random intervals if they see fit. It matters not.

What does matter is that most people care about their own beliefs to a considerable degree and therefore have practical reasons to choose a side and be somewhat stable with it. But not everyone needs to, and that is not a problem, but rather the absence of a problem.

Except, of course, that most societies end up pressuring people into choosing one way or the other. But that is actually a bit of a weirdness, all things considered.

Sometimes I wonder if theists don't realize at some level that they are in fact creating their deities by the very action of believing in their existence. Far as anyone truly knows, there is not other way for deities to exist or fail to. And there is little other explanation for how passionate people often feel about this.

Changing mind is all well and fine, but do you see people's decisions as being informative at all?

You mean decisions about whether they believe in deities?

They do inform how much of a need to believe or to disbelieve they have, and how stable that need is, I suppose. I'm not sure I understood your question.

Strikes me that we've drifted from topic, but I'm okay with it if you are...lol

Fine by me. It is good to let ideas flow as they will.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Theism and atheism are not typical of most ideologies, in that they do not necessarily have clear goals and consequences.

Okay...starting to see what you mean. So would you see a change in religion as being more impactful?

Ultimately, theism and atheism are all about belief itself, and therefore far more personal matters than many people realize. Anyone is entitled to change their stance on those matters just because, by flipping a coin at random intervals if they see fit. It matters not.

Entitled, yes. But if someone literally flipped a coin to determine their theism/atheism, I would suggest it's informative to some degree. But I was a psych major, so I still tend to do the pop psych 101 thing a little.

Except, of course, that most societies end up pressuring people into choosing one way or the other. But that is actually a bit of a weirdness, all things considered.

It's unfortunate, definitely. Pretty normal human nature, so I don't see it as weird, though. Irrational perhaps?

Sometimes I wonder if theists don't realize at some level that they are in fact creating their deities by the very action of believing in their existence. Far as anyone truly knows, there is not other way for deities to exist or fail to. And there is little other explanation for how passionate people often feel about this.

I've wondered similar things. Some believers seem more sincere than others, and the more sincere believers haven't seemed as defensive about those beliefs. Massive generalisation, and I'm only talking about people I've directly dealt with in RL, so take that with a grain of salt.

You mean decisions about whether they believe in deities?

They do inform how much of a need to believe or to disbelieve they have, and how stable that need is, I suppose. I'm not sure I understood your question.

Just the pop psych thing again. One of the reasons religion interests me is the psychology of it, and it's impact on behaviour. I wonder if belief in deities is similarly directive.

Fine by me. It is good to let ideas flow as they will.

Cheers...this is interesting for me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay...starting to see what you mean. So would you see a change in religion as being more impactful?

I certainly do. It is hard for me to imagine how it could not be.

Entitled, yes. But if someone literally flipped a coin to determine their theism/atheism, I would suggest it's informative to some degree.

I agree. At the very least it indicates a strong degree of detachment from the passions of either choice.

But I was a psych major, so I still tend to do the pop psych 101 thing a little.

Not a problem.

It's unfortunate, definitely. Pretty normal human nature, so I don't see it as weird, though. Irrational perhaps?

Irrational, I agree.

I've wondered similar things. Some believers seem more sincere than others, and the more sincere believers haven't seemed as defensive about those beliefs. Massive generalisation, and I'm only talking about people I've directly dealt with in RL, so take that with a grain of salt.

Not an unusual perception, it seems.

For quite a few theists, belief is an end in itself. There is an understanding that people ought to show their good will towards each other by agreeing at least to believe in God, despite that doesn't really informing much at all.

In a way, it is a safe way to appear to be commited without truly being.

 

[s2a]

So I've been thinking about strong and weak atheism a little lately. First, I'll summarize where my head is at currently;

1) All atheists are actually weak atheists (although I'd prefer agnostic atheist)

?

2) Strong atheism involves claiming the ability to disprove God

You are new to this then?

"Atheism" is actually a simple notion.

A lacking acceptance of theism (as answer). Only doubtful theists (ie, agnostics) Seek any "disproofs". Skeptics and "atheists" are not not hounded by doubt.

3) Strong atheism is a theoretical position only, not one held by actual people

Cool...then I actually do not exist.

4) Some self-describe as strong atheists, but that is due to either a different definition of strong atheism than the one I run with, limitation of God-concepts, or other differences. (or self delusion)

Awww. You mean that everyone you seek to define or compartmentalize does not fit within your conceptions? How unique!

I'd love the chance to pick some strong atheists brains, but since I figured they weren't real people, this seemed difficult.

Come get some...

Enter LuisDantes, who has kindly offered to answer some questions, or discuss this. Any other strong atheists are more than welcome. One thing I'd ask, please no discussions on whether strong or weak atheism even exists as a concept (at least for now). There is value in that discussion, but it will derail this thread too quickly, I think.

No worries. I don't even bother with any distinctions you infer exist between the two. You either think "god did it",or not. Not an especial challenge.

Have to say, I'm ruling out the self-delusion angle, Luis...I am guessing we're going to find a slight difference in where we draw the line between weak atheism and strong atheism in some way.

That may be wise...

So, first off, a couple of questions;

AS your inquiries are directed towards a single individual, my feedback is moot at this point. But, to be fair, the fedeback of an individual is no more compelling or comprehensive an "answer" than asking a "christian" if they believe in "Jesus".

Yet again, this inquiry did make me lol...

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

NO sentient person I know p[predicates any understanding of the entire cosnos upon the musings of any Kardashian.

Oh, and thanks for doing this...helps me round out some things I've been thinking of late.

We'll try to round that square circle when you are ready...OK?