Weak Atheism

[dust1n]

Strong atheist here.

I usually qualify the question of god as a pointless endeavor.

 

[evolved yet?]

Finally, I was wondering why nobody here was strong atheist.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Finally, I was wondering why nobody here was strong atheist.

I think part of the reason that strong atheism is more rare is due to "Belief in Belief." People think somehow playing up theism as a noble endeavour and being open minded to the "possibility of God" is being nice.

 

[evolved yet?]

I'm also strong atheist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh, I consider myself a "strong" atheist myself, although I probably wouldn't use that word.

 

[dust1n]

I think part of the reason that strong atheism is more rare is due to "Belief in Belief." People think somehow playing up theism as a noble endeavour and being open minded to the "possibility of God" is being nice.

I don't mind if people believe.. but it is really ridiculous.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I classify myself as a weak atheist in as much as I do not believe in God but I cannot say for sure I know there is no God with that same conviction that Carl Jung claims to know there is a God. Belief is only one's personal opinion to what they think is true but knowledge requires hard evidence to back up their claims. I don't think I will ever know whether or not there is deeper purpose to why I exist but I find the “God” theory to be extremely implausible. Also God by the very definition of the word is so ambiguous and vague it could mean many things, from the man like anthropomorphic god such as Yahweh to just a principle such as the personification of the blind laws of physics such as what Einstein subscribed to, or Spinoza’s God in other words. If it is the latter than many people who describe themselves as “atheists” would believe in such a God.

 

[evolved yet?]

Richard Dawkins is considered a strong atheist but he himself concedes he is only 99.99999% sure (if I got the wrong number of nines forgive me).

 

[jarofthoughts]

Richard Dawkins is considered a strong atheist but he himself concedes he is only 99.99999% sure (if I got the wrong number of nines forgive me).

Exactly. And that is because you look at the world scientifically you can NEVER be more than 99.99999...% sure of anything.
You can be very very certain, but you can never be a full 100% certain. Every conclusion in science is tentative and conditional, which is why it is ridiculous when people claim that "even the scientists aren't 100% sure" as a reason to not take a vaccine/disbelieve global climate change/whatever.
The scientists are NEVER 100% sure of anything ever, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act on their advice. After all it's the best advice we have...

People really need to get used to the fact that nothing is absolutely certain and that there is no ultimate truth.

 

[linwood]

Strong atheist here.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If the criteria for an atheist was a disbelief in Yahweh I would have to then consider myself a strong atheist.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is there any weak atheist on this forum or all strong Atheist?

I think all the atheists here are strong enough to throw bricks.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I think all the atheists here are strong enough to throw bricks.

Yes I do work out in the gym three times a week, that is making me a stronger scientific pantheist.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm a strong atheist because I believe gods are extremely implausible beings--somewhat less plausible than less powerful mythical beings such as elves, leprechauns, warlocks, ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, and flying pigs.

 

[evolved yet?]

I'm a strong atheist because I believe gods are extremely implausible beings--somewhat less plausible than less powerful mythical beings such as elves, leprechauns, warlocks, ghosts, poltergeists, fairies, and flying pigs.

I would think that ghosts,fairies and flying pigs are slightly less likely than god but the others I would agree are more likely than god.

 

[Copernicus]

I would think that ghosts,fairies and flying pigs are slightly less likely than god but the others I would agree are more likely than god.

Interesting. Why? Ghosts are based on existing human beings, who have died. We have lots of ghost stories and even pictures. Fairies and flying pigs are mythical beings, but they are physical beings that fly around, just like birds. Fairies use magic, but so do most of the other imaginary beings. I admit that all of those beings are absurd, but gods tend to have even more absurd imaginary powers. And more people have been trying to promote belief in gods than the other beings. If we made a serious effort at promulgating belief in flying pigs, I bet that we could get a large percentage of the adult population to believe in them. I am sure that CNN would run lots of stories showing both sides of the argument.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Interesting. Why? Ghosts are based on existing human beings, who have died. We have lots of ghost stories and even pictures. Fairies and flying pigs are mythical beings, but they are physical beings that fly around, just like birds. Fairies use magic, but so do most of the other imaginary beings. I admit that all of those beings are absurd, but gods tend to have even more absurd imaginary powers. And more people have been trying to promote belief in gods than the other beings. If we made a serious effort at promulgating belief in flying pigs, I bet that we could get a large percentage of the adult population to believe in them. I am sure that CNN would run lots of stories showing both sides of the argument.

If under well regulated scientific test someone proved the existence of one supernatural being. That would go a long way to proving the existence of god(s) and if we could prove the existence of one god it would be much easier to assume there may be multiple gods such as what Hindus and neo-pagans subscribe to, why stop at one?. With extraterrestrials intelligence however, I have to assume that they probably would exist, especially when I factor in the vast size of the universe, I would just have to believe their existence is highly probable so long as they fit the mould of physical carbon based life forms like ourselves. But unlike God or supernatural beings we already have one such example we all take so much for granted and that is the earth itself, so like everything else in nature, why stop at one?

 

[Copernicus]

If under well regulated scientific test someone proved the existence of one supernatural being. That would go a long way to proving the existence of god(s) and if we could prove the existence of one god it would be much easier to assume there may be multiple gods such as what Hindus and neo-pagans subscribe to, why stop at one?. With extraterrestrials intelligence however, I have to assume that they probably would exist, especially when I factor in the vast size of the universe, I would just have to believe their existence is highly probable so long as they fit the mould of physical carbon based life forms like ourselves. But unlike God or supernatural beings we already have one such example we all take so much for granted and that is the earth itself, so like everything else in nature, why stop at one?

What kind of "well-regulated scientific test" do you have in mind? And, in the absence of that kind of proof, why start with one?

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

What kind of "well-regulated scientific test" do you have in mind? And, in the absence of that kind of proof, why start with one?

If there is a gap in which actually has God’s presence in it, rather than some naturalistic explanation, as there invariably has been in the past such the what causes lighting, which has already been explained away with electrical discharges in the atmosphere or earthquakes which has already been explained away as rock masses yielding along at fault lines or the diversity of living things on Earth which can be explained away with natural selection.

If they actually find a gap which catches God red handed that would be good proof, but no one has found anything to date yet, so have no reason to believe in such an entity. Particularly a Judeo-Christian God and ignoring all the ambiguities of the word.
What kind of scientific test you say? well this is about as close as it gets IMHO, click on the The Harvard Prayer Experiment

Results
Some patients were told they may or may not receive intercessory prayer: complications occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1) versus 51 percent of those who did not receive prayer (Group 2). Complications occurred in 59 percent of patients who were told they would receive prayer (Group 3) versus 52 percent, who also received prayer, but were uncertain of receiving it (Group 1). Major complications and thirty-day mortality were similar across the three groups. Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. (13 in group 1, 16 in Group 2, and 14 in Group 3)
Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications.

 

[Copernicus]

If there is a gap in which actually has God’s presence in it, rather than some naturalistic explanation, as there invariably has been in the past such the what causes lighting, which has already been explained away with electrical discharges in the atmosphere or earthquakes which has already been explained away as rock masses yielding along at fault lines or the diversity of living things on Earth which can be explained away with natural selection.

Being unable to explain gaps in knowledge hardly rises to the level of "well-regulated scientific test". I thought that you had some kind of experiment in mind. But you do refer to the following:

What kind of scientific test you say? well this is about as close as it gets IMHO, click on the The Harvard Prayer Experiment

Results
Some patients were told they may or may not receive intercessory prayer: complications occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1) versus 51 percent of those who did not receive prayer (Group 2). Complications occurred in 59 percent of patients who were told they would receive prayer (Group 3) versus 52 percent, who also received prayer, but were uncertain of receiving it (Group 1). Major complications and thirty-day mortality were similar across the three groups. Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups. (13 in group 1, 16 in Group 2, and 14 in Group 3)
Not only did prayer not help the patients, those that were told they were being prayed for experienced more complications.

Let's be fair. This is not a test for the existence of the Christian "God". It is a test that assumes the existence of such a god and determines whether that god is inclined to grant prayers under the test circumstances. However, Christians are well aware of the fact that most of their prayers go unanswered. They spend a lot of their time explaining why one should keep the faith anyway.