Question about Strong/Weak Atheism

[Altfish]

There's no evidence of this scam?

When we have people worshipping Elvis Presley and getting a tax free break, and controlling the government and at the same time there are not many poor churches.
I call that a scam

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When we have people worshipping Elvis Presley and getting a tax free break, and controlling the government and at the same time there are not many poor churches.
I call that a scam

If this is "god", and this is evidence for god, how can you say there isn't evidence that "he" exists?

 

[ArtieE]

My point is, can you see the relationship between the two statements?

Which relationship?

 

[Altfish]

If this is "god", and this is evidence for god, how can you say there isn't evidence that "he" exists?

People say Elvis is still alive. That doesn't mean he is.

 

[Cephus]

It's also perfectly fine to believe something doesn't exist when the preponderance of the evidence points more to it not existing than to it existing, even if the evidence isn't conclusive.

That would be fine, if that's actually the case, but for religion, it isn't. That's because there is no actual evidence to ponder. Anything that anyone comes up with isn't objective evidence, it's blind rationalization of beliefs they already hold. You cannot start at a neutral position and get to a religious position solely by examining the evidence. It just can't be done.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Which relationship?

I know god does not exist as a result I do not believe god exists.

I believe god does not exist because I know god does not exist.

Why would I believe something exist when I know it doesn't?
If I believe something does not exist, why would I say that I know it does?

Atheism and Agnosticism goes hand in hand. It's just commonly defined that if you don't believe something exist, you, as a result know it doesn't. There is no possibility to be wrong. If so, you'd say "I don't know if I believe god exists" or to a similar affect. But saying "I believe" doesn't leave out a possibility unless you are in doubt or saying it as "I believe god exist, but I'm not quite sure."

Other people is more, "I believe god does not exist because I know."

It's kind of redundant if you think about it. But it's personal preference, I guess depending on how you say "I believe" and whether that belief is another way of saying "I know I just don't want to be that strong about it or I leave the possibility for the existence so I won't claim certainty."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That would be fine, if that's actually the case, but for religion, it isn't. That's because there is no actual evidence to ponder. Anything that anyone comes up with isn't objective evidence, it's blind rationalization of beliefs they already hold. You cannot start at a neutral position and get to a religious position solely by examining the evidence. It just can't be done.

I meant that the evidence for it not existing isn't conclusive. Beyond that, I feel like you were responding to a post other than the one I wrote.

 

[ArtieE]

I know god does not exist as a result I do not believe god exists.

I believe god does not exist because I know god does not exist.

Why would I believe something exist when I know it doesn't?
If I believe something does not exist, why would I say that I know it does?

Atheism and Agnosticism goes hand in hand. It's just commonly defined that if you don't believe something exist, you, as a result know it doesn't. There is no possibility to be wrong. If so, you'd say "I don't know if I believe god exists" or to a similar affect. But saying "I believe" doesn't leave out a possibility unless you are in doubt or saying it as "I believe god exist, but I'm not quite sure."

Other people is more, "I believe god does not exist because I know."

It's kind of redundant if you think about it. But it's personal preference, I guess depending on how you say "I believe" and whether that belief is another way of saying "I know I just don't want to be that strong about it or I leave the possibility for the existence so I won't claim certainty."

Right... I'm not even going to try to understand that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

People say Elvis is still alive. That doesn't mean he is.

If god is a scam, how can you say there is no evidence a scam exists?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Right... I'm not even going to try to understand that.

Haha.

I know this computer exist.

Therefore.

I can say I believe it does.

I believe this computer exist.

because it is in front of me. This makes me conclude:

That the computer does exist; now I know.

I believe because I know.

It's a simple concept. Just people don't put it in the same sentence because when someone says "I believe Jain is lying" usually they are implying "they know she is" but being weak about saying it. Other times people say "I know Jain is lying" and when someone says, "you really believe that?" and Jain says, "Yes, I do. Why would I say I know if I didn't believe it?"

Get it?

 

[Altfish]

If god is a scam, how can you say there is no evidence a scam exists?

Good grief, I retire gracefully before you unfairly twist my words.

You can have the last word.

 

[Cephus]

I meant that the evidence for it not existing isn't conclusive. Beyond that, I feel like you were responding to a post other than the one I wrote.

That's the thing about non-existent entities, they don't tend to leave evidence for their non-existence. Unless you're talking about something very, very specific, like a giraffe in your garage, you can never prove that something doesn't exist. But you don't have to. The default position for any claim is skepticism. Show me that this claim that is being made is true. I don't have any obligation to prove that it is false. And until that claim is shown to be objectively true, I have no obligation to believe it, in fact, I cannot be rational and believe it. The burden is always on the positive claimant. I am not claiming, and I don't see any other atheists claiming either, that gods don't exist. We just don't believe that they do, based on the complete and utter lack of corroboratory evidence presented.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Definition of god, easy!

A man made scam for controlling the population and making a lot of money

If god is a man made scam, and you said there is no evidence of god, is there evidence for this man made scam you defined (answered my question) as god?

You said there is no evidence of god.

I said define god.

You said its a man made scam (above)

I am asking how do you know god/scam (above) exist if there is no evidence for god?

I am nit picking but I am not twisting your words. You were very clear. Im questioning your logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the thing about non-existent entities, they don't tend to leave evidence for their non-existence.

... except when they do. When the existence of an entity implies predictions about what we should see, then we can look for those signs; if they're not there, this is evidence that the thing doesn't exist.

Unless you're talking about something very, very specific, like a giraffe in your garage, you can never prove that something doesn't exist. But you don't have to. The default position for any claim is skepticism. Show me that this claim that is being made is true. I don't have any obligation to prove that it is false. And until that claim is shown to be objectively true, I have no obligation to believe it, in fact, I cannot be rational and believe it. The burden is always on the positive claimant. I am not claiming, and I don't see any other atheists claiming either, that gods don't exist. We just don't believe that they do, based on the complete and utter lack of corroboratory evidence presented.

Again: I feel like you're responding to someone else's post. I'm not talking about the default position (i.e. not accepting a claim); I'm talking about rejecting the claim as either false or likely to be false.

 

[Milton Platt]

Could one, instead of saying that they just hold a lack of belief in a specific god or gods, say that they also believe that this god(s) do not exist, yet still hold that there is a possibility? If so, would this be considered strong or weak atheism?

Been an atheist most of my adult life. Don't care what label anyone wants to use. it doesn't change my views. I guess I would consider myself a "semi-hard" atheist (my own private term). I do not believe that any gods exist with the same certainty that I do not believe that there is a teapot orbiting Venus. There always might be, but I have no evidence that one does.

 

[ArtieE]

Haha.

I know this computer exist.

Therefore.

I can say I believe it does.

I believe this computer exist.

because it is in front of me. This makes me conclude:

That the computer does exist; now I know.

I believe because I know.

It's a simple concept. Just people don't put it in the same sentence because when someone says "I believe Jain is lying" usually they are implying "they know she is" but being weak about saying it. Other times people say "I know Jain is lying" and when someone says, "you really believe that?" and Jain says, "Yes, I do. Why would I say I know if I didn't believe it?"

Get it?

No. Just give up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. Just give up.

I hate drop off conversations. Defeats the purpose of being on RF.

I dont understand how you dont understand. I would like to question your logic.

"I believe god exist" is a passive sentence (in English) that implies one "knows" god exist.

You wont find many christians who say they believe god exist but they dont know. The implication is "because I believe, I know.

The other way around is redundant. If you know something is true, of course you'd believe it as well. (Implied)

Unless

In English language, your tone of voice is saying "well, I believe god exist [but Im not sure: one of your posts]"

But in English, depending on tone, "I believe in something implies that person knows."

Unless youre talkkng about strict definition (belief: maybe and know; cetainty), strong atheism and theism are implied as knowledge.

Weak atheism is not.

How is that hard to understand? Really? (Tone of voice and facial expression puzzled not sarcastic)

 

[ArtieE]

"I believe god exist" is a passive sentence (in English) that implies one "knows" god exist.

Of course it doesn't. "I know god exists" implies you know God exists. "I believe God exists" implies you believe God exists. Two different words with different meanings.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Of course it doesn't. "I know god exists" implies you know God exists. "I believe God exists" implies you believe God exists. Two different words with different meanings.

True. I know technically.

Implied, they mean the same thing especially in relations to religion. English has a lot of metaphoric meanings that isnt taken seriously until it involves religion.

A christian who says "I believe god exist" is saying that he Knows god exist. To many critical atheist this may not make sense but if you all see it from a religious perspective, it does completely. Not understanding does not mean it is not logical-based on whose perspective you are looking at. Especially in religion. Its not ver batum.

As such, my first point before the weak and strong was thrown in for some reason, is atheist is the same. It isnt a verbatum issue. You said gnostic means knowledge and atheism deals with belief. Thats fine.

My point like the theist above is many people who are atheist when they say they "dont believe god exist" they are implying "they know god does not exist".

Maybe RF is the exception, of course, but in English using "belief" is sometimes used as a passive word for know. We can go off the dictionary but since you cant hear my tone of voice, you have to go by context.

Its the English language. Translating it verbatum does not capture what Some atheists and what Some theist believe is true. Just because they use the word belief doesnt leave the possibility it is nit true. In english it is Already Implied it is true.

You just have to know the concept and be open to definitions outside the dictionary...

Especially with religion.

Please read this.

Im head for class but i hope you at least understand my point regardless if you disagree with it.