Weak atheism..

Originally posted by Bardock42
[B...And I think to be either, Atheist or Religious is just kidding one self, and having faith for something where there is no evidence...[/B]

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.

So there, to think you cannot prove or disprove God is agnosticism. And I think to be either, Atheist or Religious is just kidding one self, and having faith for something where there is no evidence....

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.

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?

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.