Strong Atheism doesn't exist

[Sapiens]

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

Why would that be?

 

[LuisDantas]

One of several conceivable reasons is that not all theisms are good fits to such a scale.

There are forms of theism that involve not so much having belief as choosing to attain inspiration from certain concepts.

 

[Sapiens]

One of several conceivable reasons is that not all theisms are good fits to such a scale.

There are forms of theism that involve not so much having belief as choosing to attain inspiration from certain concepts.

Kinda hard to call them theism, per se.

 

[LuisDantas]

Kinda hard to call them theism, per se.

It really depends on what one understands to be the necessary parameters for a deity to be recognized as such.

You may end up surprised by how much variation there is on that particular matter.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't think it would surprise me, most any responsive and sufficiently complex system can be viewed as an entity and thus a deity. I just find that to be a cop-out.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think it would surprise me, most any responsive and sufficiently complex system can be viewed as an entity and thus a deity. I just find that to be a cop-out.

Why? People have no inherent duty to follow a rigorous concept of deity.

 

[Sapiens]

'cause people have no inherent duty to have a rigorous (or for that matter any) concept of deity. Why go looking for trouble were it does not exist?

 

[LuisDantas]

In order to respect the choices of our theist brothers? They don't have to conform to our expectations.

 

[s2a]

lewisnotmiller said...

*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.

Good.

 

[Bunyip]

The simple solution here is to imagine atheism at relating to a specific claim, this resolves the complexities of assigning some form of ad hoc rating system.

In the context of a discussion with a Christian about god, the god in question is Yahweh - if you do not believe in Yahweh, then you are atheist.

There are forms of god that I as an atheist can believe in: Pantheists and Sun worshippers for example - I believe that the universe and the sun exist, although I see no supernatural dimension necessary to them.

So in any discussion on atheism the complicating semantic nuances can be eliminated by addressing the specific deity in question. Using the term 'atheist' in any non-specific sense renders it meaningless. If atheism is taken to mean a belief that no gods of any description known or unknown exist anywhere in the universe, then it becomes a nonsense term as opposed to a useful distinction.

It further resolves the problem that whenever the topic of debate between atheist and theist considers the existence of god, whatever refutations the atheist uses can be perpetually dismissed simply by changing the characteristics of the god in question.

 

[Willamena]

The simple solution here is to imagine atheism at relating to a specific claim, this resolves the complexities of assigning some form of ad hoc rating system.

In the context of a discussion with a Christian about god, the god in question is Yahweh - if you do not believe in Yahweh, then you are atheist.

There are forms of god that I as an atheist can believe in: Pantheists and Sun worshippers for example - I believe that the universe and the sun exist, although I see no supernatural dimension necessary to them.

So in any discussion on atheism the complicating semantic nuances can be eliminated by addressing the specific deity in question. Using the term 'atheist' in any non-specific sense renders it meaningless. If atheism is taken to mean a belief that no gods of any description known or unknown exist anywhere in the universe, then it becomes a nonsense term as opposed to a useful distinction.

It further resolves the problem that whenever the topic of debate between atheist and theist considers the existence of god, whatever refutations the atheist uses can be perpetually dismissed simply by changing the characteristics of the god in question.

But for those atheists who prefer to address their atheism to the concept of "god/gods," rather than any specific god (similar to those agnostics who prefer to address their agnosticism to the ontology of a claim), positive atheism is entirely useful. To them, atheism means the negation of theism--not the denial of the theists' claim, which in itself adready implies atheism in a question-begged definition, but the denial of the belief in god/gods.

 

[Sapiens]

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

 

[Bunyip]

But for those atheists who prefer to address their atheism to the concept of "god/gods," rather than any specific god (similar to those agnostics who prefer to address their agnosticism to the ontology of a claim), positive atheism is entirely useful. To them, atheism means the negation of theism--not the denial of the theists' claim, which in itself adready implies atheism in a question-begged definition, but the denial of the belief in god/gods.

Sorry, but I can't make sense of that post. Would you rephrase it please?

 

[Michael Colton]

To the OP: in my experience, you are working with a definition of strong atheism that I rarely come across. I typically see it defined as 'thinking there is no god' or 'believing there is no god,' not claiming to 'know there is no god.' This would be compared with weak atheism as defined as 'lack of belief in a god.' Those are the standard definitions I come across. It is also why I tend to consider 'agnostic' to be an odd label for oneself unless you are trying describe yourself as 'searching' or 'wavering' in some way. Otherwise, agnostics are simply weak atheists.

All of that being said, I find the entire system of strong/weak and all of that to be largely pointless. In my experience, the only times they will ever come up in life is on internet forums. Everywhere else, an atheist is an atheist and so are agnostics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To the OP: in my experience, you are working with a definition of strong atheism that I rarely come across. I typically see it defined as 'thinking there is no god' or 'believing there is no god,' not claiming to 'know there is no god.' This would be compared with weak atheism as defined as 'lack of belief in a god.' Those are the standard definitions I come across. It is also why I tend to consider 'agnostic' to be an odd label for oneself unless you are trying describe yourself as 'searching' or 'wavering' in some way. Otherwise, agnostics are simply weak atheists.

All of that being said, I find the entire system of strong/weak and all of that to be largely pointless. In my experience, the only times they will ever come up in life is on internet forums. Everywhere else, an atheist is an atheist and so are agnostics.

Hey, what's the big idea? You think you can just wander into the forums, and start posting sensible thoughts? How the heck are we supposed to play 'Pick on the newbie' if you make sense?



I think I've pretty much reached the conclusion that you're 100% correct here, actually. There definitely seems some differences in definition, and my definition of strong atheism doesn't seem to be the common one.

More than that, I think your point about 'strong' versus 'weak' being far less important in the real world than it seems to be on forums is accurate.
In some ways, that's where my thoughts were moving to when I made this thread. That strong atheism as a definition was of no great use. By extrapolation, that also means weak atheism is of no great use. My unusual definition of strong atheism notwithstanding, I'm going with 'I'm an atheist' and leaving the 'strong' versus 'weak' discussions behind.

By the way, welcome to RF.

 

[ArtieE]

To the OP: in my experience, you are working with a definition of strong atheism that I rarely come across. I typically see it defined as 'thinking there is no god' or 'believing there is no god,'

Correct.

not claiming to 'know there is no god.'

Of course strong atheists don't claim to know there is no god. That's what ghostics do.

This would be compared with weak atheism as defined as 'lack of belief in a god.' Those are the standard definitions I come across. It is also why I tend to consider 'agnostic' to be an odd label for oneself unless you are trying describe yourself as 'searching' or 'wavering' in some way.

A person saying he's an agnostic simply says he doesn't know whether gods exist or not.

Otherwise, agnostics are simply weak atheists.

What about all those agnostics who are theists?

All of that being said, I find the entire system of strong/weak and all of that to be largely pointless. In my experience, the only times they will ever come up in life is on internet forums. Everywhere else, an atheist is an atheist and so are agnostics.

So you simply discount all the theists that are agnostics?

 

[s2a]

To the OP: in my experience, you are working with a definition of strong atheism that I rarely come across. I typically see it defined as 'thinking there is no god' or 'believing there is no god,' not claiming to 'know there is no god.' This would be compared with weak atheism as defined as 'lack of belief in a god.'

Agreed. I confess I've never even pondered any distinctions attributable to weak vs. strong atheism, until confronted with the concept here.

To be fair, I'll only offer the atheistic perspective on my part: "there is zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it." I do not see this explanation as being controversial or unsatisfying inexplicable.

Some call this a "disbelief" (of any god(s)) and others are a tad more strident in pointing a finger of willful disobedience to same. Well, ok.

Those are the standard definitions I come across. It is also why I tend to consider 'agnostic' to be an odd label for oneself unless you are trying describe yourself as 'searching' or 'wavering' in some way. Otherwise, agnostics are simply weak atheists.

Up until recent years, "Agnostics" were just unsure atheists, which may have seemed a fair opinion to maintain, unless your excuse was living unter a really big rock for the last coupla' decades. For any that have chosen to draw their heads from comforting sands, being "agnostic" is merely a final attempt to live in a past time that never advances current understanding.

All of that being said, I find the entire system of strong/weak and all of that to be largely pointless. In my experience, the only times they will ever come up in life is on internet forums. Everywhere else, an atheist is an atheist and so are agnostics.

Overwhelmingly, we agree.

 

[ArtieE]

To be fair, I'll only offer the atheistic perspective on my part: "there is zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it."

This has nothing to do with what you call the "atheistic perspective" since even an agnostic theist can say "I have zero evidence to suggest that any "god(s)" are necessary to explain the natural world or cosmos as we understand it but I believe in "god(s)" anyway."

Up until recent years, "Agnostics" were just unsure atheists,

Or unsure theists who said "I don't know if god(s) exist but I believe they do".

 

[Iti oj]

I'm a strong atheist to some degree and weak in others. I like to say I'm an atheist about your god agnostic about a god.

 

[Michael Colton]

By the way, welcome to RF.

Thank you, nice to be here.

So you simply discount all the theists that are agnostics?

I will not go about telling them to stop labeling themselves as such, but yes I consider it a contradiction in terms.