Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.

Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof: It is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Just wanted to point out, without naming any names, that there're alot of weak atheists here at KMC so far from what I've been reading, again without saying any names.

I'd say the majority. You know who you are.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.

Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof: It is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Just wanted to point out, without naming any names, that there're alot of weak atheists here at KMC so far from what I've been reading, again without saying any names.

I'd say the majority. You know who you are.

Those who make assertions must prove up. The default position IS skepticism. If I say I have an invisible, intangible, silent midget on my shoulder who makes my life prosperous, would you naturally just believe me? No. There is no rational argument to prove that God exists in the capacity that he conforms to human views of him. I won't say personally that God existing is ruled out; that's a bit extreme. I think atheists are too absolutist on things the same way their opponents are absolutists on their stance. I prefer a more moderate view of agnosticism. God may or may not exist, but as it stands we cannot know him/her/them/it.

But really, was it worth it to single out atheism? They know who they are; they're just as loud as the religious types. And both of them are driving people like me nuts.

Week faith is not worth having. It requires faith to not believe in God in this day and time.

I, on the other hand, being an agnostic for many years, decided to take a leap of faith and say that the universe is a living being, that I call God. If you ask me to prove it, I will say, it doesn't matter, don't believe in God. Basically, the God that I am talking about does not need to be believed or worshiped. God doesn't need.

Which is why belief is subjective, not objective.

Originally posted by Wesker
Which is why belief is subjective, not objective.

But actively not believing is a belief.

Strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism, because knowledge claims are involved. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims.

Err, I don't see the big difference to agnosticim...seems more like a form of it to me, than anything on it's own.

indeed

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

I'd say the majority. You know who you are. Who are we???

But "GOD" is just a title.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why don't ypou like agnosticism? How can anyone possibly not like agnosticism? It's like the fairest and morst reasonable belief. Well doesn't agnosticism need no proof, they just think "Could be?".........As for me, I see there is something/proof with something of some intelligence to it.

OHhhhhhhh you sound confused.......

Well to me nothing is beyond the anything.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Well to me nothing is beyond the anything.

What? The more I think of that statement the more I don't get it.

That's because you're probably thinking nothingness.......again....

Originally posted by debbiejo
That's because you're probably thinking nothingness.......again....


Well, Nothingness is beyond anything, but I don't think he meant that.

Is it time for the box?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Is it time for the box?


No not the box

you actually have an agnostic view on agnostics views

An agnostic doesnt deny that there may be a god, but no one really knows for sure whether a god exists or not.

If there was such knowledge then a "god" could be proven beyond faith

Originally posted by Wesker
Those who make assertions must prove up. The default position IS skepticism. If I say I have an invisible, intangible, silent midget on my shoulder who makes my life prosperous, would you naturally just believe me? No. There is no rational argument to prove that God exists in the capacity that he conforms to human views of him. I won't say personally that God existing is ruled out; that's a bit extreme. I think atheists are too absolutist on things the same way their opponents are absolutists on their stance. I prefer a more moderate view of agnosticism. God may or may not exist, but as it stands we cannot know him/her/them/it.

But really, was it worth it to single out atheism? They know who they are; they're just as loud as the religious types. And both of them are driving people like me nuts.

I pretty much agree with you....


However I think Im more leaned towards atheism. I wont flat out deny the possibility of god but I find that way of thinking flawed and improbable. The universe is a great mystery that we cannot understand yet...

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.

Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence;

There are also weak religious junkies like yourself who cannot provide a shred of proof that proves that God exists.

Originally posted by Makedde
There are also weak religious junkies like yourself who cannot provide a shred of proof that proves that God exists.

He doesnt have to... its called faith...

^Religious people don't have to prove that God exists, but atheists cop shit because we don't believe in God? Not fair.

Originally posted by Makedde
^Religious people don't have to prove that God exists, but atheists cop shit because we don't believe in God? Not fair.

I'm not even that religious... if you have a genuine reason to be atheist then go ahead... but if you're doing it to jump on the bandwagon its a bit silly...

and life isn't fair...

There we go again with the burden of proof. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist (with the exception of strong atheism). Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.
If a claimant cannot provide that support, then the default position of disbelief is justified.

Originally posted by pr1983
I'm not even that religious... if you have a genuine reason to be atheist then go ahead... but if you're doing it to jump on the bandwagon its a bit silly...

and life isn't fair...


I've been atheist all my life. I know plenty of people who jump on the bandwagon, though.

Originally posted by Makedde
I've been atheist all my life. I know plenty of people who jump on the bandwagon, though.

Then good for you, believe what you want to believe... i may not agree but i'll respect your beliefs...

Originally posted by Bardock42
That IS indeed Agnosticism though...

If it is, I think I am agnostic then.

Originally posted by Makedde
There are also weak religious junkies like yourself who cannot provide a shred of proof that proves that God exists.

I'm not a religious junkie. I don't go around bible thumping nor do I impose religion upon anyone to any degree. I think those people should be committed to a psych ward. I don't go to church. I do believe in God. I have no proof he exists but I also have no proof that he doesn't exists. "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." - Moses

All I'm implying is, is that there are people who say they don't believe in God for the weak reasons. And to me, that's what makes an invalid and weak atheists. That they're doing it to merely just to sound cool or bad or different. -and that's just out of many reasons- And that's just fake, man.

I want to raise the bar on atheism here at KMC. I'm sick of people saying things don't exists just because they don't. I don't care if you believe in God or not, but at least have a strong enough reason to rather than a weak one like. "Just because" period.

Originally posted by Bardock42


I tend to agree.
No matter what position you take--atheist/religious--and no matter how fervently you may defend it and claim that You Know, the fact is No One Knows. It may well be impossible to know. I Don't Know. I mean, I have made arguments that one could, theoretically, use scientific method to determine whether or not there is a spiritual dimension to the universe. But in the interim, I have taken the position that, since I currently don't have any evidence, I'll make my decision based on pragmatics: which position gives me the better explanatory framework (Science Alone or Science + God) and which gives me a greater source of comfort and healing.

For me, the bottom line is a kinder, gentler, neutral version of Pascal's Wager (a version which avoids the pitfalls of the Original Wager): You might as well believe, cuz if you're wrong you'll never know it (or for the atheist: If you're right, you'll never know it).

A valid map of reality is outta my reach. A reliable map, however, may be another story.

Look, the distinction is very clear and simple, no need to complicate.


'Weak' atheists do not believe in God

'Strong' atheists believe there is no God.


See the difference?

The 'weak' atheist simply says "Everything else I believe in is provable, or at least can be evidenced, so why should I believe in God, a concept which is not and cannot be?"

The strong atheist actively makes out that everything he/she knows and has seen points to there actually being no God.


But 'weak' is a poor name because it sounds pejorative. It is not; 'weak' here does not mean anything bad, it is just a different style of position.

The opening post in this thread seems to be making out that weak atheists are doing something wrong. They aren't.


Bardock, the difference with agnostics is that they have seen all the evidence and say "I'm not sure." A 'weak' atheist is not giving any room for there to be one. He says, definitvely, God does not exist and the reasoning for that is the total lack of evidence. An agnostic says that the lack of evidence doesn't make it impossible. (A weak atheist would reply that whilst that is literally true, it isn't rational to believe in things, or even the possibility of things, simply because they cannot be actively disproved).

But only a 'strong' atheist is saying he has an actual reason that proves (or at least strongly suggests) that there is not one. Only he says "I have here reason X, and reason X proves that there can be no God."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Look, the distinction is very clear and simple, no need to complicate.
'Weak' atheists do not believe in God
'Strong' atheists believe there is no God.
See the difference?
The 'weak' atheist simply says "Everything else I believe in is provable, or at least can be evidenced, so why should I believe in God, a concept which is not and cannot be?"
The strong atheist actively makes out that everything he/she knows and has seen points to there actually being no God.
But 'weak' is a poor name because it sounds pejorative. It is not; 'weak' here does not mean anything bad, it is just a different style of position.
The opening post in this thread seems to be making out that weak atheists are doing something wrong. They aren't..

Perhaps "Default Atheism" might be a better term.

...the difference with agnostics is that they have seen all the evidence and say "I'm not sure." A 'weak' atheist is not giving any room for there to be one. He says, definitvely, God does not exist and the reasoning for that is the total lack of evidence. An agnostic says that the lack of evidence doesn't make it impossible.

I believe the expression is, "Lack of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of lack."

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Look, the distinction is very clear and simple, no need to complicate.


'Weak' atheists do not believe in God

'Strong' atheists believe there is no God.




Actually the correct terms would be:

Agnostic:
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism

Atheist
someone who denies the existence of god


To be an Atheist is simply put, not believing that there is a higher power.

For those of you that think you are Atheist, ask yourself this..."Have you ever asked someone of faith to prove the fact that there is a God?" If you have, then may I suggest the fact that you are Agnostic rather than Atheist, for you are still wanting the proof ( undeniable ) that there is no higher power, and therefore still questions their own faith.

But not a spiritualist.


Interesting thought.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The opening post in this thread seems to be making out that weak atheists are doing something wrong. They aren't.

Wrong.

What that opening post was implying was that if you're not going to believe in God or believe that he doesn't exists, have a stronger reason reason as to why he doesn't exists and not a weak one. That's all. Or be looked at as an invalid with a hollow-head that falls short of reasoning and logic.

And whether I think a person is right or wrong in his or her beliefs is my business but like I said before, I'm not going to impose my religious belief on anyone by telling them they're worshipping the wrong way and are being sacrilege. Or that they're wrong.

"What that opening post was implying was that if you're not going to believe in God or believe that he doesn't exists, have a stronger reason reason as to why he doesn't exists and not a weak one."

No, see, that quote is what makes out that YOU are wrong.

'Weak' atheism is NOT pejorative, as I said. It's not a 'weak' reason, it is a perfectly good reason that happens to be known by the name of 'weak atheism', which is a misleading term. Which is where your mistake was. You can have very strong reasons for being a 'weak' atheist, if you get what I mean.

After all, it is very, very difficult to be a 'strong' atheist as you have to present evidence that God does not exist. 'Weak' atheism is in fact a very widely held and entirely sensible viewpoint that does not need more justification than it has. Such atheists do not believe in God any more than they believe in pixies or leprechauns; should they have 'stronger' reasons to not believe in fairy tales also?



And Skinner... nope, I have to disagree, I think my definitions are the correct ones (certainly the more helpful ones); your definitions were no good for the weak/strong difference, in any case. Which is demonstrated in your post, which confuses asking for proof with being agnostic, which is nonsense. Pixes and leprechauns again- 'prove it or I do not believe'. That is not agnosticism.

You also mixed up your own question, giving an example where someone asks for proof of God, and then twisting that later into the person wanting proof there is no God- very different. You should not mix that up.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, Atheists claim there is no God
Theists claim there is a God

Both don't really have much proof of anything.

Oh bardock! I thought you were a smart guy?

You must know that is broken logic.

It is incumbent to prove positves, not negatives. Theists say there is a God, and must prove it.

Saying there is NOT something, if there is no evidence to support it, is perfectly reasonable. You don't have to provide evidence to prove a negative. The positive must be established in the first place.

This is basic scientific method. Schoolkids know this; it is a principle that should not be forgotten. It is the cornerstone of rationality.

The better way to look at it is:

-

Theists says there is a God

Atheists say they are wrong.

It is therefore the Theist who must produce evidence in such a situation.

-

And as Storm also pointed out, only the Strong atheist is making a positive claim which therefore requires evidence. For in fact, the only reason the 'weak' atheist thinks there is no God is because there isn't any other alternative. The 'weak' atheist rejects the idea that God exists; by default, therefore, the 'weak' atheists believes God does not exist but has not the need to prove it because it is the only option left.

The strong atheist is actively supporting the alternative.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Saying there is NOT something, if there is no evidence to support it, is perfectly reasonable.

So by that token, would it be fair to say that saying there is something, if there's no evidence to support it, perfectly reasonable? And if your answering subjectively or objectively, please let me know.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
So by that token, would it be fair to say that saying there is something, if there's no evidence to support it, perfectly reasonable? And if your answering subjectively or objectively, please let me know.

If you make a positive claim, the burden of proof falls on you. It's as simple as that.

You cannot prove a negative.

Yeah, yeah.............we always hear that.........

So why do people expect one to prove a negative?

There is a difference between saying "I do not believe in a god" and saying "Higher beings cannot exist."

Well to me this is this a play on words....One says I don't believe in god or does that even mean something else that is not understood. The other says there is no higher power but not sure and the other says I don't believe it's true..........means the same to me....I Don't understand.....They both sound confused on what they believe...........god or not....higher power or not.....Is Atheism not even considering a possibility of a higher power or at least something that is not quite understood?..............Or denying the possibility with all their being of what is not understood with science and all.

Originally posted by Lana
If you make a positive claim, the burden of proof falls on you. It's as simple as that.

You cannot prove a negative.

Then would you say an atheist holds a positive claim by saying (claiming) that God doesn't exist? And if so, shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the atheists view.

Well, if I weren't LDS I'd probably be agnostic. Saying you don't know if you don't know sounds like the most logical course. No need to make any assumptions that could possibly get you in trouble in the afterlife.

There really is no need to prove a positive, and of course you can disprove a negative. In statistics it's called the null hypothesis.

Truth is, I've decided that science can never actually prove anything. Science is only good for disproving things. That's why we're still calling things theories after eons. We trust gravity, it's never failed us so far, but if it could ever be shown that our present understanding were incorrect, the theory would have to be altered.

Logically it's the same with the existence of God. The burden is on the one making the claim. You make your hypothesis, then you gather data. There really is no default position.

Skepticism isn't always the default. If I said that I'd visited south america do you automatically assume that I'm lying? Or do you reply, "Oh, that's interesting. What part?" For most people it's the latter. If there's no reason to disbelieve someone, most people trust. So are the sources saying there's a god trustworthy? That's the real question.

Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Then would you say an atheist holds a positive claim by saying (claiming) that God doesn't exist? And if so, shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the atheists view.

No.

The stance of "weak" atheism is that they personally do not believe in god. They don't definitively state that a god cannot exist. As I said, there is a difference between "I do not believe in god" and "God cannot exist."

Originally posted by docb77
Well, if I weren't LDS I'd probably be agnostic. Saying you don't know if you don't know sounds like the most logical course. No need to make any assumptions that could possibly get you in trouble in the afterlife.

There really is no need to prove a positive, and of course you can disprove a negative. In statistics it's called the null hypothesis.

Truth is, I've decided that science can never actually prove anything. Science is only good for disproving things. That's why we're still calling things theories after eons. We trust gravity, it's never failed us so far, but if it could ever be shown that our present understanding were incorrect, the theory would have to be altered.

Logically it's the same with the existence of God. The burden is on the one making the claim. You make your hypothesis, then you gather data. There really is no default position.

Skepticism isn't always the default. If I said that I'd visited south america do you automatically assume that I'm lying? Or do you reply, "Oh, that's interesting. What part?" For most people it's the latter. If there's no reason to disbelieve someone, most people trust. So are the sources saying there's a god trustworthy? That's the real question.

Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?


Thats similar to avoiding walking under ladders on the pretense that it *might* be possible you get bad luck from it even though you dont believe in superstitions. I prefer to trust my judgements, christianity is laughable if you look straight at it.

Originally posted by docb77
Well, if I weren't LDS I'd probably be agnostic. Saying you don't know if you don't know sounds like the most logical course. No need to make any assumptions that could possibly get you in trouble in the afterlife.

There really is no need to prove a positive, and of course you can disprove a negative. In statistics it's called the null hypothesis.

Truth is, I've decided that science can never actually prove anything. Science is only good for disproving things. That's why we're still calling things theories after eons. We trust gravity, it's never failed us so far, but if it could ever be shown that our present understanding were incorrect, the theory would have to be altered.

Logically it's the same with the existence of God. The burden is on the one making the claim. You make your hypothesis, then you gather data. There really is no default position.

Skepticism isn't always the default. If I said that I'd visited south america do you automatically assume that I'm lying? Or do you reply, "Oh, that's interesting. What part?" For most people it's the latter. If there's no reason to disbelieve someone, most people trust. So are the sources saying there's a god trustworthy? That's the real question.

Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?
Many things wrong with this.
First off you are Mis-interpreting a null hypothosis.
This is not disproving a negative, it is your basic assumption that you are trying to find strong evidence (P-value of .05 or less) against.
For example A null hypothosis for God (which is rather silly to look at as a theistical being and statistics don't mix rather well) would look something like this,
(bear with me as I can't do Greek letters and subtext's in this)
if Mew (represented by M)=the existance of god.
then the Null hypothosis or H (sub) o :M=1
and the Alternative Hypothosis would be H (sub)a :M<1
or that god does not exist.
Then you would do test and get data (This is where the statistics part gets a bit messed up, Can't get hard evidence for this)
Run some calculations and get some strange numbers. For example a P-value, which is basically the probability that the numbers you got came up by chance. And if this number is low enough (>.05) then you can legally (thats true, court systems only accept p-values lower than .05) say that there is Strong Evidence against the Null Hypothosis.
Get it?

Therefore the fact remains that you can't prove a negative. And comparing God to vacations is dumb. People go on vacations and they go to South America. I know what South America is, and generally, what goes on there. I have seen it, and I can test its existance.
God is different. No-one has seen god, heard god or smelt god, or tasted god even felt god. There is no evidence to give me any sort of bearing to latch on to if you say "There is a God." this lack of sustanable evidence of anything leads to the default of skepticism. If you said for example "I went to Paratizakastan" I, having never heard seen or otherwise experienced this place, and having a rather good grasp of Geography would have to call Bullshit.

Now for some theoreticals. Lets pretend God exists.
and you believe in him simply as a saftey net. Part of Pascals wager. Don't you think that he would be a BIT pissed off that you only believed in him because of the fear that you could be wrong? A rather selfish reason to believe in something that wants you to love him and lead a good life and all that crap. I wouldn't think God would enjoy being believed in as a saftey net. I think its much better to stick to your guns, and defend what you thing. And it would be more honorable than say using him as a free insurance policy.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well to me this is this a play on words....One says I don't believe in god or does that even mean something else that is not understood. The other says there is no higher power but not sure and the other says I don't believe it's true..........means the same to me....I Don't understand.....They both sound confused on what they believe...........god or not....higher power or not.....Is Atheism not even considering a possibility of a higher power or at least something that is not quite understood?..............Or denying the possibility with all their being of what is not understood with science and all.

Only in your dreams are they confused!

It is very simple.

After considering the evidence:

Agnostics says they are in no position to say whether there is a God or not.

'Weak' atheists says that the lack of evidence for a God shows that by any reasonable standard there is not one.

Strong atheists say that the evidence actively proves there is no God.

-

tpt is right with his post above. That wager thing is a very cheap get out that has no real intellectual power behind it. I remember Douglas Adams being extremely contemptuous of such an attitude. Good on him.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Then would you say an atheist holds a positive claim by saying (claiming) that God doesn't exist? And if so, shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the atheists view.

If he is saying that the evidence actively says that God does not eixst, then that is strong atheism and, like we have already said, that requires proof.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bardock, the difference with agnostics is that they have seen all the evidence and say "I'm not sure." A 'weak' atheist is not giving any room for there to be one. He says, definitvely, God does not exist and the reasoning for that is the total lack of evidence. An agnostic says that the lack of evidence doesn't make it impossible. (A weak atheist would reply that whilst that is literally true, it isn't rational to believe in things, or even the possibility of things, simply because they cannot be actively disproved).

But only a 'strong' atheist is saying he has an actual reason that proves (or at least strongly suggests) that there is not one. Only he says "I have here reason X, and reason X proves that there can be no God."

Yes, I understand what weak atheism means, but I am just saying that weak atheism can very well be (and most often is) an agnostic view. Agnostics think that there either can't be or that there is no proof for God at the moment. So to be a weak atheists already includes being an agnostic. I suppose the difference is important to point out against agnostics who have faith in God, but it is still part of agnosticism.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Theists says there is a God

Atheists say they are wrong.

It is therefore the Theist who must produce evidence in such a situation.


I am aware that there is no way to prove a negative.

I don't like the "Atheists say they are wrong" because in my opinion Atheists say that God doesn't exist, despite anyone else claiming there is a God (Sure, probably no one would really think of God but still....) .


Originally posted by Lana
No.

The stance of "weak" atheism is that they personally do not believe in god. They don't definitively state that a god cannot exist. As I said, there is a difference between "I do not believe in god" and "God cannot exist."

= agnosticism (one form of it at least)

Originally posted by docb77
God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

Believing in God is not a choice though....sure it is safer (well, except the Hindus are right and by "choosing" the Christian god you will be born again as an Ant), but if you don't believe in God can you just make yourself believe? ...no you can't.

Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism.

Originally posted by Storm
Agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism.

Yes...

But, isn't weak atheism always agnosticism?

Originally posted by docb77
...Saying you don't know if you don't know sounds like the most logical course.

I agree that it is the best, most honest place to start.

Truth is, I've decided that science can never actually prove anything. Science is only good for disproving things. That's why we're still calling things theories after eons. We trust gravity, it's never failed us so far, but if it could ever be shown that our present understanding were incorrect, the theory would have to be altered.

Realistically, Science does not pursue "truth," it pursues accuracy. It is the best we finite beings can do, so we hope and accept (until shown otherwise) that as our keyhole-view of the universe grows, we will be able to continually refine our maps.

Logically it's the same with the existence of God. The burden is on the one making the claim. You make your hypothesis, then you gather data. There really is no default position.

Skepticism isn't always the default. If I said that I'd visited south america do you automatically assume that I'm lying? Or do you reply, "Oh, that's interesting. What part?" For most people it's the latter. If there's no reason to disbelieve someone, most people trust. So are the sources saying there's a god trustworthy? That's the real question.

IMO, thinking merely in terms of economy of energy, the default position is the most logical. Why believe in something if there's no reason to? Unlike a visit to south america--which is an entirely plausible thing for a person to be able to do (and even here, the person could be lying, or hallucinating, both of which are confounding variables)--"God" is a whole other ballgame, for reasons which I believe are obvious.

Here's another question. Although I don't agree with the original statement of Occam's razor in this thread, let's assume it's correctly applied. How compatible is it with Pascal's wager?

ex. Pascal's wager

God exists
- You believe, you gain some spiritual reward
- You don't believe, you forfeit said reward

God doesn't exist
- You believe in God, You lose nothing
- You don't believe, you gain nothing

So, even with Occam's razor (as per our previous assumption), isn't it safer to believe in God?

Pascal was a believer, very much devoted to the Christian concept of God. He was looking to convince people by scaring them with logic (proceeding from non-neutral premises). Automatically, IMO, this nullifies Occam's Razor, because the simpler position would be to take the neutral stance: "I Don't Know" (to get back to your first point).

From the position of "I Don't Know"--and then further applying Occam's Razor by not making any a priori assumptions about the nature/personality of God (eg, "If you don't believe in Me, when you die I'm gonna git you, sucka"--one can proceed with a position where, I feel, believing is the more practical bet.

God Exists...
- you believe, you have the satisfaction of being right. Period.
- you don't believe, you find out you're wrong. Period.

God Doesn't Exist...
- whether you believed or not, you'll never know it. End of story.

Again, I would argue for the practical benefits of believing while alive (ie, larger map of reality; source of comfort/healing in times of loss/suffering). As Bardock said in an earlier post, "Atheist or Religious is just kidding one self..." Why? Because, ultimately, while we are here, We Don't Know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes...

But, isn't weak atheism always agnosticism?

No it is not.

Agnosticism is "I do not know whether there is a god or not and have seen no evidence to suggest that one does exist - or doesn't, for that matter. One may exist, but I do not know."

'Weak' atheism is "There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists and I do not believe one does or can exist."

'Strong' atheism is "There is no god, one cannot exist, and this, this, and this is evidence to prove it."

See the differences? Agnosticism acknowledges that one could exist but you just don't know either way. Atheism states that one does NOT exist. The only thing that differs in the two views of atheism presented are the reasons for this - lack of evidence for the existance of a god, or evidence that shows one cannot exist.

Its not really terribly complicated if you think about it.

Originally posted by Lana
No it is not.

Agnosticism is "I do not know whether there is a god or not and have seen no evidence to suggest that one does exist - or doesn't, for that matter. One may exist, but I do not know."

'Weak' atheism is "There is no evidence to suggest that a god exists and I do not believe one does or can exist."

'Strong' atheism is "There is no god, one cannot exist, and this, this, and this is evidence to prove it."

See the differences? Agnosticism acknowledges that one could exist but you just don't know either way. Atheism states that one does NOT exist. The only thing that differs in the two views of atheism presented are the reasons for this - lack of evidence for the existance of a god, or evidence that shows one cannot exist.

I see. So weak atheism is only if you think that there is 100% no God, because there is no evidence...

Okay, makes sense.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Many things wrong with this.
First off you are Mis-interpreting a null hypothosis.
This is not disproving a negative, it is your basic assumption that you are trying to find strong evidence (P-value of .05 or less) against.
For example A null hypothosis for God (which is rather silly to look at as a theistical being and statistics don't mix rather well) would look something like this,
(bear with me as I can't do Greek letters and subtext's in this)
if Mew (represented by M)=the existance of god.
then the Null hypothosis or H (sub) o :M=1
and the Alternative Hypothosis would be H (sub)a :M<1
or that god does not exist.
Then you would do test and get data (This is where the statistics part gets a bit messed up, Can't get hard evidence for this)
Run some calculations and get some strange numbers. For example a P-value, which is basically the probability that the numbers you got came up by chance. And if this number is low enough (>.05) then you can legally (thats true, court systems only accept p-values lower than .05) say that there is Strong Evidence against the Null Hypothosis.
Get it?

Therefore the fact remains that you can't prove a negative. And comparing God to vacations is dumb. People go on vacations and they go to South America. I know what South America is, and generally, what goes on there. I have seen it, and I can test its existance.
God is different. No-one has seen god, heard god or smelt god, or tasted god even felt god. There is no evidence to give me any sort of bearing to latch on to if you say "There is a God." this lack of sustanable evidence of anything leads to the default of skepticism. If you said for example "I went to Paratizakastan" I, having never heard seen or otherwise experienced this place, and having a rather good grasp of Geography would have to call Bullshit.

Now for some theoreticals. Lets pretend God exists.
and you believe in him simply as a saftey net. Part of Pascals wager. Don't you think that he would be a BIT pissed off that you only believed in him because of the fear that you could be wrong? A rather selfish reason to believe in something that wants you to love him and lead a good life and all that crap. I wouldn't think God would enjoy being believed in as a saftey net. I think its much better to stick to your guns, and defend what you thing. And it would be more honorable than say using him as a free insurance policy.

Thanks for the clear up, admittedly it's been about 10 years since I took statistics. I remembered the null hypothesis as being just the opposite of the stated hypothesis.

I wasn't comparing God to vacations. I was comparing evidence of God existing to evidence of having visited another place. How is God different? There have been people who have seenor heard him - Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Stephen. My previous question stands. The real question is whether or not they are trustworthy or not.

I think the main thing is that you're right about not being able to gain reproducible data. I do think a person can prove the existence of God to him/herself, but I have never seen an instance where it could be proved to another person.

On the other hand, It would be impossible to actually disprove the existence of God to either oneself or another. Lack of data not being actual data and all. Wasn't there a guy a few years ago that actually did try to mathematically prove God? Maybe I'm just remembering things.

As far as God being pissed if that were the only reason, probably. But as I understand it, the wager doesn't actually deal with motives. The "true believer" should get some reward, while the nonbeliever would not get that same reward. PS - Pascal's wager isn't the reason I believe, it's just an intresting piece of logic a few hundred years old. Same as Occam's razor. Basically all it means is that in the absence of evidence you make the assumption that gains the greatest rewards with the fewest possible losses. It can be applied outside of a religious context as well.

-edit-

I was right, there was guy doing number games with God's existence!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_D._Unwin

67% chance of God existing according to his number games. hysterical

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I understand what weak atheism means, but I am just saying that weak atheism can very well be (and most often is) an agnostic view. Agnostics think that there either can't be or that there is no proof for God at the moment. So to be a weak atheists already includes being an agnostic. I suppose the difference is important to point out against agnostics who have faith in God, but it is still part of agnosticism.

Agnosticism and Negative Atheism may be compatible, but they are not equivalent. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas Atheism is an ontological position. In other words, Agnostics question whether the existence of God is knowable, whereas Atheists question whether or not God exists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Agnosticism and Negative Atheism may be compatible, but they are not equivalent. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, whereas Atheism is an ontological position. In other words, Agnostics question whether the existence of God is knowable, whereas Atheists question whether or not God exists.



Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

So you're saying that a weak atheist is actually both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time?

Originally posted by docb77
So you're saying that a weak atheist is actually both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time?

Well, yes...although I understand (now) that it is not equal... it seems to me that of you are a weak atheist you also decided to be an agnostic....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

Where has anyone said that?

I just spelled out a few posts up exactly what the differences between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism are.

Originally posted by Lana
Where has anyone said that?

I just spelled out a few posts up exactly what the differences between agnosticism, weak atheism, and strong atheism are.

I concluded that. If someone thinks there is no evidence it seems to me that they already made up their mind about the evidence...which is what Agnosticism is about..isn't it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I concluded that. If someone thinks there is no evidence it seems to me that they already made up their mind about the evidence...which is what Agnosticism is about..isn't it?

No....agnosticism is just that there is no evidence to prove either side, so they think a god might (or might not) exist but they just don't know either way.

Atheism is the stance that there is no god. Reasoning for this varies from being the lack of evidence to show that one does exist, or evidence that they believe proves one does not exist.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The weak atheism conclusion is that there is no reason to believe in God or gods, for reasons other than evidence of their nonexistence.

Weak atheists argue that merely pointing out the flaws or lack of soundness in all arguments for the existence of God is sufficient to show that God's existence is less probable than his nonexistence; by Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), the burden of proof lies on the advocate of that alternative which is less probable. By this reasoning, an atheist who is able to refute any argument for the existence of God encountered is justified in taking an atheist view; atheism is thus the "default" position. This objection is often stated in terms that relate it to the burden of proof: It is incumbent upon advocates of a God's existence to establish that fact, and they have not done so.

Just wanted to point out, without naming any names, that there're alot of weak atheists here at KMC so far from what I've been reading, again without saying any names.

I'd say the majority. You know who you are. i would say the default belief is more towards agnosticism(probably weak agnosticism); the belief that religious claims are incoherent and unknowable hence not important to life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Originally posted by Lana
No....agnosticism is just that there is no evidence to prove either side, so they think a god might (or might not) exist but they just don't know either way.

Atheism is the stance that there is no god. Reasoning for this varies from being the lack of evidence to show that one does exist, or evidence that they believe proves one does not exist.

Yes, agnostics say there is no evidence for god or there can never be...then they can still go ahead and believe there to be a god or not...

And that'S what weak atheists do, they see that there is no evidence (so they already acknowledge that god can't be know) but then they reason that because of this lack of evidence God doesn't exist.

That is an agnostic view, just that they believe it to be a sure sign that God doesn't exist....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but didn't a weak atheist already decide that it is not knowable at the moment, and is therefore an agnostic?

No. Atheism deals with whether or not God exists. Agnosticism deals with whether or not it possible to know whether or not God exists.

Well, this topic boomed. And damn, Bardock... having difficult grasping the concepts much?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No. Atheism deals with whether or not God exists. Agnosticism deals with whether or not it possible to know whether or not God exists.

That's not true, agnosticism is not a field of study..it is a certain belief.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, agnostics say there is no evidence for god or there can never be...then they can still go ahead and believe there to be a god or not...

And that'S what weak atheists do, they see that there is no evidence (so they already acknowledge that god can't be know) but then they reason that because of this lack of evidence God doesn't exist.

That is an agnostic view, just that they believe it to be a sure sign that God doesn't exist....

Okay, you state the differences, and then go on to say they're the same again.

Agnostics believe that there might be a god. Atheists believe there is not a god nor can one exist.

Using the lack of evidence in favor of the existence of a god to believe that there IS no god is NOT an agnostic view.

I feel like a broken record.

Originally posted by Lana
Okay, you state the differences, and then go on to say they're the same again.

Agnostics believe that there might be a god. Atheists believe there is not a god nor can one exist.

Using the lack of evidence in favor of the existence of a god to believe that there IS no god is NOT an agnostic view.

I feel like a broken record.

No, I don't say they are the same....I say that to be one of them (a "weak atheist"....that sounds funny...) you also need to be the other (an agnostic) ...I understand that they are not equal....and with your definition that makes sense, but Adams definition doesn't....

Does God exist?

Agnostic: I don't know.
Weak Atheist: I don't think so.
Strong Atheist: No

Originally posted by Mindship
Does God exist?

Agnostic: I don't know.
Weak Atheist: I don't think so.
Strong Atheist: No

Simplicity is key. Sometimes would-be philosophers forget that.

Originally posted by Mindship
Does God exist?

Agnostic: I don't know.
Weak Atheist: I don't think so.
Strong Atheist: No

What would you call...?



???????: Yes, but every one has gotten it wrong.

Originally posted by Mindship
Does God exist?

Agnostic: I don't know.
Weak Atheist: I don't think so.
Strong Atheist: No


Actually a "Weak Atheist" would say just "No".

It's better put like this:

Weak Atheist: No. Or, I don't think so just because it can't be. No particular reason.

Strong Atheist: No, because the facts are....etc, etc.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What would you call...?



???????: Yes, but every one has gotten it wrong.

That's called human nature, where everyone thinks THEIR 'god' is right.

Another reason religion is so irrational.

That's a cool sig, Mike