Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[lewisnotmiller]

Hola, s2a....
Bit of background on what I was aiming for with this post...

Been thinking about a strong/weak atheist dichotomy. Is there a valid distinction, or are atheists just atheists. I termed it as 'strong atheism doesnt exist' but it could have as easily been 'weak atheism doesnt exist'. Assumption I was working on was that there is no distonct grouping of atheists.

Came up as a side issue in another thread, and LuisDantes kindly agreed to answer some questions. Put my working assumptions in the OP since I was hoping Luis could challenge them and give me a different perspective.

More than happy for other strong atheists to do the same. Not especially looking to debate, just to learn, but ill challenge some points to better understand them or work out if I agree.

Errr...the Kardashian thing was a joke. Everyone knows Miley Cyrus is waaaay more epistomoligically sound.

 

[s2a]

Hola, s2a....
Bit of background on what I was aiming for with this post...

Been thinking about a strong/weak atheist dichotomy. Is there a valid distinction, or are atheists just atheists. I termed it as 'strong atheism doesnt exist' but it could have as easily been 'weak atheism doesnt exist'. Assumption I was working on was that there is no distonct grouping of atheists.

I have to say, there may be a discernible distinction to be to be defined within and beyond "ordinary atheists", I do not know. I best offer that I am akin to eggs that are cooked. I can't say if I'm over easy or over hard on someone's plate. Never seemed to me to conform to anothers definition or estimations as to how I must seem to their palate. Maybe that just makes me a dick, I don't know...

Came up as a side issue in another thread, and LuisDantes kindly agreed to answer some questions. Put my working assumptions in the OP since I was hoping Luis could challenge them and give me a different perspective.

Understandable.

More than happy for other strong atheists to do the same. Not especially looking to debate, just to learn, but ill challenge some points to better understand them or work out if I agree.

Cool. I'm a poorly written and unfinished tome myself... so ask away

Errr...the Kardashian thing was a joke. Everyone knows Miley Cyrus is waaaay more epistomoligically sound.

I know, which left open sport upon that barreled fish...

*bang*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have to say, there may be a discernible distinction to be to be defined within and beyond "ordinary atheists", I do not know. I best offer that I am akin to eggs that are cooked. I can't say if I'm over easy or over hard on someone's plate. Never seemed to me to conform to anothers definition or estimations as to how I must seem to their palate. Maybe that just makes me a dick, I don't know...

Nah, it makes sense. All the labels can never amount to anything more than a form of shorthand, I reckon. A way to work out an approximation of someone. Never gonna be more than that.

Cool. I'm a poorly written and unfinished tome myself... so ask away

Hmmm...okay...lessee...

Do you think being an atheist is anything more than being a not theist?
Do you apply the same rules of behaviour and thought to religion that you do to other belief/opinions (say...politics, or something)?
What do you think of when hearing the term 'weak atheist'

I know, which left open sport upon that barreled fish...

*bang*

Lol!

 

[viole]

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.

Do you count gnostic atheists as strong atheists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

Been thinking about a strong/weak atheist dichotomy. Is there a valid distinction, or are atheists just atheists. I termed it as 'strong atheism doesnt exist' but it could have as easily been 'weak atheism doesnt exist'. Assumption I was working on was that there is no distonct grouping of atheists.

Simply think about it this way. Remove all theists from the planet. All you have left are per definition atheists. The definition of the prefix a- is literally "not, without". Atheists are "not theists". Among the "not theists" is a subset who are not only "not theists" but also believe gods don't exist. These are "strong atheists". Take away the "strong atheists" from the planet. Those we have left are atheists, or "weak atheists" if you really need a special term for them to distinguish them from theists and "strong atheists".

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you count gnostic atheists as strong atheists?

Ciao

- viole

Yes...to my mind the terms are interchangeable. Whats your view on that?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Simply think about it this way. Remove all theists from the planet. All you have left are per definition atheists. The definition of the prefix a- is literally "not, without". Atheists are "not theists". Among the "not theists" is a subset who are not only "not theists" but also believe gods don't exist. These are "strong atheists". Take away the "strong atheists" from the planet. Those we have left are atheists, or "weak atheists" if you really need a special term for them to distinguish them from theists and "strong atheists".

But I believe gods dont exist. I just dont thibk its provable. In your opinion does that make me a strong atheist?

 

[ArtieE]

But I believe gods dont exist. I just dont thibk its provable. In your opinion does that make me a strong atheist?

That makes you an "agnostic atheist" because the subset "strong atheist" is included in the set "atheist". Or if you want to make your position especially clear: an "agnostic strong atheist".

 

[ArtieE]

Yes...to my mind the terms are interchangeable. Whats your view on that?

No they are not interchangeable.

A gnostic atheist is a person who says he both knows and believes gods don't exist.
A strong atheist is a person who says he believes gods don't exist. He says nothing about knowing anything.

 

[viole]

Yes...to my mind the terms are interchangeable. Whats your view on that?

Actually, I am not sure.

When I claim to know that God does not exist, I make a knowledge claim and not that I am dead sure that God does not exist.

Consider ripe apples. They fall down from their tree, don't they? There is no evidence whatsoever of any apple that doesn't fall to the ground according to gravity.

So, I can claim to know that there is no apple that flies into orbit when she leaves the tree. I admit that I did not check all apples today and in the past, but I doubt that anybody would require this check before I can make this claim of knowledge.

If that makes me a strong a-orbitingapplist then OK, but then we might need to re-evaluate the very concept of knowledge.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Yes...to my mind the terms are interchangeable. Whats your view on that?

If I may, the term "gnostic atheist" is reserved for use by arm-chair philosophers who think they've said something clever.

The hard (positive) atheist is the one who will declare that he doesn't believe in god/gods, and mean, in its implication, that he believes there is no god/gods. The weak atheist is the one what will say the same and mean, in its implication, everything else that is associated with the term atheism.

 

[s2a]

Nah, it makes sense. All the labels can never amount to anything more than a form of shorthand, I reckon. A way to work out an approximation of someone. Never gonna be more than that.

Hmmm...okay...lessee...

Indeed,

Do you think being an atheist is anything more than being a not theist?

Yes, of course. What is your determinative interest or qualifier in this?

Do you apply the same rules of behaviour and thought to religion that you do to other belief/opinions (say...politics, or something)?

No...I have a good many things to ponder other than religion. Don't you?

Allow me to offer as concise a metaphor as possible.

Weekly church attendance may put you front in line as a loyal adherent of any qualified religion, but being on time and regular in attendance is poor qualifier of piety.

I vote in every election. What "behavior" can you draw from such actions? ANY?

What do you think of when hearing the term 'weak atheist'

My first thought remains...um, what?

I'm just an atheist. What is your definition of "weak" vs. "strong" atheism? I really do not know.

I may be able to provide more earnest answer if you better define" your understanding/distinction betwixt the two.

I think ALL claims of any divine entities are bunk. ALL. Is that a "weak", "strong", or "neutral" perspective?

You tell me.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes...to my mind the terms are interchangeable. Whats your view on that?

"Gnostic atheist" would seem to me to be a clearer term than "strong atheist". Gnostic = knowing. Strong = What exactly? Good at arm wrestling?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, of course. What is your determinative interest or qualifier in this?

I'm just trying to work through in my head whether dividing atheism up into different 'types' is of any help from a descriptive point of view.

No...I have a good many things to ponder other than religion. Don't you?

Yep. I'm more thinking about whether people think about non-religious ideologies (politics was the example, but there are others) in the same fashion as religious.

Allow me to offer as concise a metaphor as possible.

Weekly church attendance may put you front in line as a loyal adherent of any qualified religion, but being on time and regular in attendance is poor qualifier of piety.

I vote in every election. What "behavior" can you draw from such actions? ANY?

Right...makes a lot of sense. I guess its informative to your personality type to a small degree, but it says nothing about your belief in and of itself.

My first thought remains...um, what?

I'm just an atheist. What is your definition of "weak" vs. "strong" atheism? I really do not know.

I may be able to provide more earnest answer if you better define" your understanding/distinction betwixt the two.

I think ALL claims of any divine entities are bunk. ALL. Is that a "weak", "strong", or "neutral" perspective?

You tell me.

*grins*
I'd call it strong atheism, but im moving more and more to just using the term atheism. The rest is more confusing than enlightening.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Gnostic atheist" would seem to me to be a clearer term than "strong atheist". Gnostic = knowing. Strong = What exactly? Good at arm wrestling?

Sure, works for me. Being referred to as a weak atheist makes mecsound unsure of my beliefs, when its not the case, and I describe that way for philosophical reasons.
All seems to boil down to how can you 'know'?

 

[Sunstone]

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!

 

[Sunstone]

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!

Just to clarify, I think the terms are useful in philosophical discussions, just not in casual discussions. Unless they turn into philosophical discussions.

 

[Sunstone]

All seems to boil down to how can you 'know'?

Yeah, or perhaps how can you know and what do you believe?

Logically, that would seem to give us four positions:

Knows there is no God and believes there is no God........................Gnostic Atheist
Knows there is no God and believes there is a God.*........................Gnostic Theist
Doesn't know whether there is a God but believes there is one...........Agnostic Theist
Doesn't know whether there is a God and doesn't believe there is one...Agnostic Atheist.

The trouble with those labels is that at least one of them would seem to be misleading -- gnostic theist -- because it's already in use to mean something different.

*Talk about a conflicted psyche!

 

[Sapiens]

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

As a good scientist who lacks the ability to search under every rock in the universe, I am a 6.9

 

[Sunstone]

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

As a good scientist who lacks the ability to search under every rock in the universe, I am a 6.9

I think his scale is generally more useful than most descriptions of atheism, although you might want to use other descriptions in some circumstances.