Weak atheism..

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.

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.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North

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

But "GOD" is just a title.

I don´t like it either. Occan´s Razor can be interpreted in many ways.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I don´t like it either. Occan´s Razor can be interpreted in many ways.

Why don't ypou like agnosticism? How can anyone possibly not like agnosticism? It's like the fairest and morst reasonable belief.

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.

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.

Agnosticism is the point of view that knowledge of the divine is impossible to human beings. I don´t think it is impossible. I don´t know if it is possible or not, it could be.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Agnosticism is the point of view that knowledge of the divine is impossible to human beings. I don´t think it is impossible. I don´t know if it is possible or not, it could be.

I didn't know that was a requirement. I believe in God but I also believe that knowledge of the divine is impossible for human beings to know. So, classify me. 😛

Let me see.... I classify you as weird. Just kidding. 😂

But I don´t know, maybe its just indecision. But I think some knowledge of the divine can be possible, or else spirituality will not have any sense... I think.

I think I am in between weak agnostic and gnostic then... but who knows !

OHhhhhhhh you sound confused....... 😂 😛

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Let me see.... I classify you as weird. Just kidding. 😂

But I don´t know, maybe its just indecision. But I think some knowledge of the divine can be possible, or else spirituality will not have any sense... I think.

I think I am in between weak agnostic and gnostic then... but who knows !

I know what you are saying...

This is how I see it: The sun in the sky is something I cannot look at, but I know it's there because of how bright it is outside. In that way we can have indirect knowledge but not direct knowledge. Is that better.

The problem I have with a lot of religions is they claim to have direct knowledge, and I know that is not possible.

Yeah, it is something like that I think.... and I think we can´t have direct knowledge of God in the sense, we can´t establish, or define what God is. God is something that we must individually understand.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Yeah, it is something like that I think.... and I think we can´t have direct knowledge of God in the sense, we can´t establish, or define what God is. God is something that we must individually understand.

I once defined God, but I had people complaining that it hurt their head. 😆