"Strong" and "Weak" Atheism

[SMRT Blog Poster]

This topic corresponds to the post ""Strong" and "Weak" Atheism" of the SMRT group that can be found here:

Some confusion exists amongst those theists who choose to criticise atheism by targeting the positive claim that God does not exist, calling it "faith-based." At the same time, they assert that those who do not make this claim, and merely point out that there is no physical evidence for any god, are agnostic by the definition of the term.

However, the term "atheist" has developed in recent times to encompass both: those who assert that God does not exist, and those who assert merely that there is no evidence in favour of the hypothesis. No matter the historical definition of the word, it is now used as an umbrella term for both viewpoints.

The authors personal understanding is that those who assert the positive claim "there is no god" allege that their assertion is warranted due to the fact that a personal god, such as the one described by the Abrahamic religions, would have a noticeable and measurable effect on reality. When phenomena that should demonstrate such effect (such as the efficacy of prayer) are studied, they consistently fail to demonstrate it. Thus, an assertion of non-existence is considered warranted.

They often fail to take into account, however, that this does not disprove a more generalised theistic god: it merely disproves the properties given to the hypothesised deity by it's adherents.

This means that, for example, the god of the Young Earth Creationists (also known as YHWH) can be positively said to not exist: there are demonstratable effects that this deity should have on the universe that are not observed. However, the god of the theists or deists cannot be disproven in this manner, as it's effects on the universe are far more negligible and thus cannot be predicted: warranting the 'weaker' form of atheism: i.e. One has no reason to believe in it, but one cannot state with certainty that the deity in question does not exist.

Thus, the 'strength' of disbelief has more to do with the god in question than the individual. Many atheists are highly agnostic on the subject of the deistic god, while at the same time being certain of the non-existence of the "literal" god of the bible, which makes many testable claims which have, time and again, failed to hold up to scrutiny.*

*Examples would be the efficacy of prayer, the many scientific and historical discrepancies with regard to creationism, the flood of Noah, and other specifically mentioned biblical events, and the lack of any verifiable supernatural activity in natural history.

[Photosynthesis]

However this problem goes beyond merely knowing that the Abrahamic god does not exist. The theist or deist god would seem, after the many rejections of gods invented along human history, just as deniable. Why would we just believe that some impersonal god exists somewhere? What for? Why call such things "gods"?

To me, once we have noticed the bullshit about any of the gods of the many religions past and present, the idea of a "deistic" or "theistic" god looks ludicrous. A god hidden somewhere just because. What is that? A consolation prize of sorts? A god we have to be agnostic about just because?

I have been enormously irrational about "God." I went from being a convinced Christian who, confronted by such evil contradictions as knowing that children born in the "wrong religion" would go to hell for no fault of their own, thought, maybe we have misunderstood God. Then to maybe God is real, but has presented itself to the many cultures who have interpreted it in these many forms. To then noticing how cultures have progressed from making gods for anything they did not understand. So I started wondering why God at all? And all I could find were gaps to fill. Fears to tame. Nothing that would made any gods real. Cultural progress would make gods less numerous, and more mysterious, but the same crappy properties of old savage gods crept into their single god. Then, of course, science. noticing that yes, we ignore many things, but that ignorance does not mean god ... I still held the belief! The belief eroded little by little. Now I find the belief useless, and notice the irrationality. I do not see why the deistic and theistic gods would be any more real. They seem like clear examples of progression/evolution of the god meme into a much more mystical, untestable, and useless belief.

G.E.

EDIT: A couple typos

[E-lad]

Nicely done, GE. Thanks.

[BeamStalk]

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ._agnostic

[Vagon]

Some confusion exists amongst those theists who choose to criticise atheism by targeting the positive claim that God does not exist, calling it "faith-based." At the same time, they assert that those who do not make this claim, and merely point out that there is no physical evidence for any god, are agnostic by the definition of the term.

The criticism of the positive claim that god does not exist usually falls around the atheist not knowing all points of data. This fails for multiple reasons:

1. It in itself is an absolute positive statement

2. Any claim of non-existence that exists outside the most rudimentary of domains will be an equally "false" statement

3. It presumes that the incoherent attribute omniscience exists

[E-lad]

I anyone cares to hear my opinion it is this:

I don't fucking know, and I don't fucking care.

[Quasar]

I anyone cares to hear my opinion it is this:

I don't fucking know, and I don't fucking care.

Apatheism?

[Quasar]

The criticism of the positive claim that god does not exist usually falls around the atheist not knowing all points of data. This fails for multiple reasons:

1. It in itself is an absolute positive statement

2. Any claim of non-existence that exists outside the most rudimentary of domains will be an equally "false" statement

3. It presumes that the incoherent attribute omniscience exists

Which, of course, only applies for a generalised theistic or deistic god. One does not need to be omnicient, or make an absolute positive statement, to rule out the existance of a deity that itself makes positive claims.

i.e. if you prove that a global flood cannot have happened, you disprove the existence of any deity for which "flooded the entire planet" is a defining attribute.

[Photosynthesis]

Meh,

I do know, and I do not care. There is positively no gods whatsoever at all.

You may continue.

[jetson]

I am quite comfortable saying that "god does not exist." Although it is technically a positive assertion, it is based on the fact that a god must have first been positively asserted in order for me to make such a statement. In other words, some human once said that there was a god, and has failed thus far to ever provide evidence to support this assertion. This has happened over most of humanity and all of its gods - and still, silence. Someone like myself, is in no way obligated to consider this particular assertion, and is therefore free to say, no, there are no gods.

There are an infinite number of things that can be positively asserted. And once one of those assertions are made, they require some level of evidence from the claimant if they are to be considered at all. I don't believe that there are too many things asserted as non-existent, prior to an original assertion of existence, and this includes any and all gods invented by humans. Prior to any god ever claimed by a human, there was never a human that stood up and proclaimed that god does not exist.

I am a strong atheist. There are no gods, there never have been any gods, and there never will be any gods. It literally is that simple, and getting wrapped around the axle about making that "positive assertion", when we can all plainly see that no god has ever actually existed, is not worth arguing over.

What makes humans even think about "gods"? Probably our propensity to think abstractly, and to consider the vast, unknown universe around us, apparently unable to accept that it all just happened. We have just enough brain power to think ourselves into some of the most bizarre corners of unknown, imaginary scenarios, controlled by something that MUST be more intelligent than us. We have vivid imaginations, and we want some of them to be true.