Weak and strong atheism - The Atheist Experience #635

[ndrthrdr1]

I'm a New Atheist.  (Dawkins).

[retrogamerist]

How can an ism be based off not having an ism? This is why I just use implicit and explicit atheism, rather than just atheism, because I'm not too sure of the linguistics.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick And yes, I am a strong gnostic atheist. I don't give allowances to gee, because people think it, then it MIGHT exist in the real somewhere.

If it exists in the real it exists in the real. I will not deny what is real. I will not deny evidence that proves reality.

I am 100% certain I am alive because of evidence.

I am 100% certain I am not dead because of evidence.

If something has ZERO evidence, why make allowances for it? Because people THINK it? No way, not me.

[BastEternal]

@BastEternal @SPACKlick

Correction: "because people think it" should say "because people think up a being."

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal Because there was a time when we had no evidence for Australia, a time when we had no evidence of extrasolar planets, a time when we had no evidence of many things, being certain requires positive evidence.

I am also a strong atheist but am dubious of the use of the word CERTAIN. As I said in my previous post, I ascribe certainty to positions where there is 0% chance of being wrong, and as you have admitted you have 0 evidence, which means there could be evidence not seen.

[SPACKlick]

@SPACKlick Which also means you could be wrong.

I honestly think the only thing we are disagreeing on is the meaning of the word Certain.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "Because there was a time when we had no evidence for Australia, a time when we had no evidence of extrasolar planets, a time when we had no evidence of many things.."

There is no comparison to these things with made up beings in made up myth stories. You are comparing no evidence for Australia to no evidence for made up imaginative myth beings. Please give just 1 example in history where an imaginative mythological being was proven to exist. Just one.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal The atom

[BastEternal]

"being certain requires positive evidence."

How do you define positive evidence? The evidence I provide is human history.The "proofs" that have NOT been provided for even ONE prehistoric myth being. Not one. The proof that humans have used superstitious stories (not ONE that has been proven to be real) to explain the unexplainable since the beginning of time.

Yes, I am certain that imaginary mythological beings that manifest themselves from the mind do not, and will never REALLY exist.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal I agree that it is infinitecimally likely we should EVER conceive of something and then have it turn out to exist. but there are cases. It could turn out, for example, that there is a species of habitually bipedal apes living in the pacific northwest of America which has caused SOME of the bigfoot myth.

There could be a god that created the universe although the form of it and attributes of it are unlikely to ever be those of a specific god previously thought of.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "but there are cases."

"It could turn out.." examples is not a case. You know that.

"There could be" ANYTHING man can think up, or hasn't even thought up. Are you going to allow for anything and everything?

Where's the fine line between coherent and incoherent?

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal the case I gave, to another post, was Atoms.

Anyway, As I have said, for certainties sake, all that needs to be shown is that it is possible not that it is likely.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "the case I gave, to another post, was Atoms."

And I asked you, what about atoms? You did not respond.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "as you have admitted you have 0 evidence, which means there could be evidence not seen."

Yes, I have 0 evidence that humans can manifest real beings out of their brains. It's impossible for human beings to think "Zeus," therefore he exists. We can't even manifest a real leprechaun or a fairy, much less a "god."

Are you suggesting that because I have 0 evidence that human beings can manifest myth beings out of their brains, there could be evidence not seen that proves existence?

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal But here is where you are missing the point. It is not a case that Humans manifest things from their thoughts, it's that humans can conceive of things and those things MAY already exist. Imagine you are going on holiday, and you imagine what your hotel may look like. You have never seen a photo of it or been to that chain of hotels before. When you get there it turns out that the reception looks exactly like you thought. It was a lucky guess, not caused by the thought.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "It is not a case that Humans manifest things from their thoughts, it's that humans can conceive of things and those things MAY already exist."

Again, it's not just that humans are conceiving things and those things may exist.

It's human beings making up stories about made up beings and claiming that those beings in those stories may exist.

If you're going to allow for those stories, you must allow for ANY story based on an imaginative being, such as a child's imaginary friend.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal I allow for the possibility of those imaginary beings when they are logically consistent and do not directly contradict evidence.

I rank their probability at "fucking minute"(apologies if you are offended by swearing) but I accept that there is a possibility they exist.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick " I allow for the possibility of those imaginary beings when they are logically consistent and do not directly contradict evidence."

How are they logically consistent and what evidence?

[BastEternal]

@BastEternal @SPACKlick

To clarify: "How are imaginary beings logically consistent and how do they not directly contradict evidence?"

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "You have never seen a photo of it or been to that chain of hotels before. When you get there it turns out that the reception looks exactly like you thought. It was a lucky guess."

Not a lucky guess, not by a long shot. There was a point of reference based on past experiences, in being in other reception rooms. Reception rooms don't vary much from each other.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal Ok, but no human idea is thought of in a vacuum. They all are created in reference to certain prior experience. I have moved this conversation to PM as the multithread convo is becoming rather confusing.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick I'll respond to you in pm then.

[gulbirk]

why does omnipotent contradict itself?

[SPACKlick]

@gulbirk I think the reference is to the old "can an omnipotent being create something so hard to move that it cannot move it?"

Either answer, allegedly, leaves something that the omnipotent being cannot do. but it is really just a wordplay.

The other self contradiction is

"can an omnipotent being create an omnipotent being?"

If it cannot it is limited in power, if it can then there would be two omnipotent beings so which one would win in a fight? That would cause a contradiction.

[gulbirk]

@SPACKlick Tie, LOL. Yeah, but thats kinda playing with words. Most theists would say that omnipotent means he can do whatever he wants to, and has NO limits.

[GuacamoleKun]

Can someone please explain how omniscience and omnipotence are contradictory? Or point me to a video where he explains it?

[iliveon]

@GuacamoleKun Omniscience and omnipotence are not contradictory, but it would lead to all knowing, human-killing-in-many-ways gods intentionally

[GuacamoleKun]

@iliveon Well they wouldn't seem to be contradictory, but that one host said they were, and I'm sure he must have an explanation for that opinion, so I was just interested in knowing what it was.

[iliveon]

@GuacamoleKun I am not sure how omnipotence contradicts itself, though it is a weird notion to be everywhere at once and all powerful over everything. Well that would just mean God is everything

[o0mesopelagic0o]

@GuacamoleKun I was wondering the same thing...

[kjrandom]

@GuacamoleKun The basic thrust of the contradiction goes thus: If god is omniscient then he knows everything that is going to happen in the future, including his own actions. If he cannot choose to act in a way that is not constrained by that foreknowledge, then he is not omnipotent. If he can choose to act in such a way then he may be omnipotent, but he was not omniscient after all. The wikipedia pages on omniscience and omnipotence also point out some contradictions in these concepts alone.

[GuacamoleKun]

@kjrandom Thank you!

[kjrandom]

@GuacamoleKun You're very welcome!

[SPACKlick]

@GuacamoleKun If you know what you are going to do you are unable to do anything else. Honestly I think it's mostly a semantic argument and can be avoided if your idea of omniscience doesn't include foreknowledge.

[CambridgeHeights]

I claim with certainty that there are no such thing as leprechauns, tooth fairies, and ghosts.

[SPACKlick]

@CambridgeHeights Then you are a fool, you are not certain of any of those things, you could still be wrong about ANY of those things?

[CambridgeHeights]

@SPACKlick Of course I could be wrong but I am certain that I am right. Just like im certain that the earth is not flat, though it is possible that I am wrong

[SPACKlick]

@CambridgeHeights Then you are using a meaning of the word "certain" that I am unfamiliar with.

I would say I think that there are no ghosts, I believe that there are no ghosts, I know that there are no ghosts, I doubt there are ghosts, I would be surprised if there were ghosts, It would take some really solid evidence to convince me there were ghosts, I am almost 100% confident there are no ghosts but I would never claim certainty, for me certainty is the position of 0 doubt.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick I'm a fool because you think I could still be wrong? So you have evidence that the beings in mythological stories exists?

So I can think up ANY imaginary being right on the spot, then by default my imaginary being can exist?

Wow, I guess there's evidence that people can create an imaginary being and *poof* it can magically exist. I guess Shrek exists in the real somewhere out of the minds of animators, beyond media.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal You are creating a false dichotomy between "certain they don't exist" and "they exist".

The only part of your position I am disagreeing with is that "ofcourse I could be wrong but I am certain that I am right" is coherent.

So let's stop dancing around and ask the important question, what do you mean by certainty?

Under the definition I am using it means 100% surity 0% doubt. Admitting the possibility of being wrong means you have knowledge not certainty, but you clearly disagree.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "You are creating a false dichotomy between "certain they don't exist" and "they exist"."

When? I never said "they exist" - my guesses were sarcastic responses to the sarcastic question I posed "So I can think up ANY imaginary being right on the spot, then by default my imaginary being can exist?" All sarcasm.

Main point: You said I'm a fool because I'm not allowing the possibility of beings in myth stories to exist. Please provide evidence that the beings in these stories exist.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal I need not provide evidence they exist in order for them to be possible.

You are a fool not to admit their possibility without evidence. of their impossibility.

Any coherent entity could exist in some way such that we have yet to discover evidence of it, as such, being certain that they don't exist is an untenable position.

Providing evidence would balance the PROBABILITY they exist but their possibility is bound in logical consistency.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick What exactly is coherent about made up imaginative beings that people think up?

Are you suggesting that every child who creates an imaginary creature therefore creates a coherent entity? Are you suggesting Shrek is a coherent entity?

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal Sorry, here I was using coherent to mean internally consistent and not in direct conflict with any empirical evidence we have so far to date collected.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "The only part of your position I am disagreeing with is that "ofcourse I could be wrong but I am certain that I am right" is coherent."

Please point to a specific quote where I claimed I could be wrong but I'm certain I'm right.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal My apologies, I had become confused between yourself and CabridgeHeights.

So is your position that you could not possibly be wrong?

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick Listen, if you want to debate me, quit calling me a fool. Thank you.

And yes, I can't be wrong when it comes to made-up mythological supernatural beings.

And please, stay WITHIN context. I've gotten into this debate before and folks introduce all sorts of other things (like human inventions and toilets), when my argument is not ABOUT other things. Just made-up myth beings.

[SPACKlick]

@BastEternal Ok, by defining them to begin with as mythical (ie. non-existant) you have defined yourself to be right.

Man will conceive of many things, most of them will turn out to be false. Almost all of them. It is possible that some of them will turn out to be true. Therefore, untll I find evidence to show that a thing could not exist, such as a logical or empirical contradiction, I maintain certainty is too strong a position to hold.

[BastEternal]

@SPACKlick "Therefore, untll I find evidence to show that a thing could not exist, such as a logical or empirical contradiction,"

And then you'll meet someone else who will claim you are a fool for saying that thing could not exist.

& What do you mean by logical or empirical contradiction? Are my conclusions not based on a contradiction? If it's impossible for people to manifest beings out of the mind, why can't I make an absolute certainty claim that those beings don't and can't exist?

[JayDee98765]

I think the most logical stand is that of a scientist, hence Dawkins position on the matter. I dont think it has to do with 'strong' or 'wear' atheism. Scientific method.

[kimflie]

The sun is atleast doing something good for us!

[GravDiga]

@kimflie i agree!

[MrMk1G]

I know the term is in common usage, but I find the term 'weak' atheist pejorative. Am I the only one?

It seems to carry an implication that my reasons for being an atheist are weak, or that my position is weak. Of course - it doesn't actually mean this.

If a Christian bases his/her belief on faith rather than proof, we don't normally call them a 'weak Christian', do we?

Is this fair - or am I just being paranoid :)

[SPACKlick]

@MrMk1G I'd say it was paranoia, but not to an extreme. The weak position is labelled such because it does not stake a strong positive claim. Not to do with the strength of the arguments or conviction.

The reason we don't talk of strong or weak theists is because atheism is the response but many other rejections are described in terms of strong (belief against) and weak (no belief in).

[MrMk1G]

@SPACKlick

Thanks for your comments. Fair enough - I'm paranoid. Time to go back on the medication ;)

I agree completely with your 'reason' part.

Still - when there are members of the opposition (and you know who you are) who prefer to twist words & misquote, rather than engage in a decent argument, then labeling one's own position as 'weak' seems to be handing them a gift. I guess my point is not about 'truth' but about 'arguing tactics'. Sad, really. :(

[Jordennwn]

Seriously stop bashing the christians man, btw, ShockofGod blocked me cause I made a point and owned the hell outta him. No offence with the hell part.

[XX847]

The more we learn, the more we realize how little we know. With that in mind people watch star trek and wonder, "in the next 100 or so years will we have that?" To know everything is i think not comprehendible to us because although humans are, "so smart" we really know so little.

[imapisces23]

they put bounderies on God which don't exist. God is the creator of everything. Who knows his limitations? Can you fathom the mind of God?

[LostSubsForever]

@imapisces23 Probably. It's easy to imagine about things that don't exist.

[GodUsesAMinistry]

This blurring the lines of definition is amazing. By this I would be an atheist too but just by the gods I don't believe exist.

We know the overall idea of god and either you are generally agnostic or atheist or believer/theist/deist etc. But weak atheism is more like being agnostic which is the only intellectually honest position.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@GodUsesAMinistry

Claiming that "weak" atheism is basically just agnosticism shows you're seriously confused. You're either atheist or you're not. Agnosticism isn't a position at all. It's not even relevant. Furthermore, you are most likely an atheist as well... within regard to certain gods. That is the truth. Take it or leave it.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@GodUsesAMinistry

Strong atheism = certainty in the nonexistence of God

Weak atheism = lack of belief in a God (not certain)

Agnosticism = without KNOWLEDGE of the existence of a God (which makes us all an agnostic which is why it's not a valid position on the question).

Theism = the practice of worship of a God

There is no middle ground. Don't blur the lines. It is what it is.

[GodUsesAMinistry]

@itcanbecheezcaketime No blurring on my part. We either choose to use the dictionary definition or we change them. Maybe mirriam Webster needs an update.

[progrockcoffee]

I mostly stand with these guys. I'm a strong atheist towards the Christian God, a weak atheist towards the Creator/deistic God, an agnostic towards the Creator/deistic God, and an anti-theist towards religion. However, I've seen some good arguments for a strong atheist position on the Creator/deistic God, which is making me muse over my views. Still, it's easier to just take the weak agnostic atheist position when arguing about the Creator/deistic God.

[Adventfred]

@progrockcoffee

i agree im strong atheist on all gods but in argument the weak position is the only one

[GodUsesAMinistry]

@progrockcoffee Then technically by definition, you are agnostic by definition. These definitions are not on par with true definitions.

[progrockcoffee]

@GodUsesAMinistry You can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge. Atheism and theism deal with belief.

[GodUsesAMinistry]

@progrockcoffee I'll take your words for it I guess. People can call themselves whatever they like really.

[guitarzeroh]

I see a spasgetty monster!? ruuuuuunnnn.... = )

[amberview30]

Why can't a "god" be omnicient and omnipotent at the same time?

[adt33]

@amberview30 - If God sees the future then he knows his actions beforehand and has no free will.

[amberview30]

@adt33 why can't he be all knowing and all powerful...besides the part about him not existing. he he. I still don't get how knowing his stuff before hand has anything to do with it being a contradiction that it is omnipotent and omniscient. I know I sound dumb about this, but I just don't get the point.

[FatoDrunkoAndoStupid]

Dawkins claims that he is agnostic about god in the same way that he is agnostic about unicorns. The only reason Dawkins takes this view is because when Dawkins debates theists they often question his lack of belief in hope of trapping him into admitting that he cannot prove that god does not exist.

Being an atheist does not mean that you would reject god despite proof of god's existence. Being atheist simply means rejecting the idea that god exists based on what we know to be true.

[omghai2u]

@FatoDrunkoAndoStupid dawkins doesnt only take this view to make argument easier. he does it because its the only honest choice a logical rational person can make at this point in time, period

[gulbirk]

@FatoDrunkoAndoStupid No atheist means that you dont believe in god. Its as simple as that. Im not rejecting god. Something has to be accepted before you can reject it. So Im not rejecting it, im waiting for evidence BEFORE i believe it.

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

i think that is a good response from christians, rather than arguing with our limited knowledge, why not leave it to god? if not we will ended up...fighting

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

i prayed lol, and so...you want to continue?

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

ok, i pray to god to let u see his existance or feel his existance..if you still don't feel it, it's ok...may god bless you

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

oh....

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

Romans 1:20-22

"20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools"

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

Is not showing himself passive? and the bible itself says when god created heaven and earth.

read Romans 1:20-22

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

if there is no person yet to prove him..and maybe cant prove him, doesn't make him inexistant.

Before people discover mount everest, what is the tallest mountain? Mount everest

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

why must god be proved? you don't believe, you don't believe it. no one force you though

[Shaunthesushi]

@gamlastanarn

you suppose because you are NOT god

[SoleilCollective]

I don't like the the "strong" and "weak" terminology either. No one can prove either theism or atheism, so therefore the most "reasonable religion" would be weak atheism. I believe anyone who is at least willing to consider atheism over a religion they were brainwashed to believe as a child is strong regardless of the level in which they find it credible.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

Theism is real, as is Atheism. What is there to prove? That the doctrines exist? I think you mean God which is clearly not the same thing as theism. No one knows if God exists which by technicality makes us all "Agnostic" (translation: Without knowledge).

"Weak Atheism", imo, is just an unhealthy dichotomy of the atheist community. Atheism has no content. There is nothing to prove/disprove. The burden of proof rests upon the believers in a God. The Atheists don't have to prove a negative.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

Did you know you could be an Atheist and an Agnostic at the same time?

Me, I'm an anti-theist, atheist and agnostic! How's that for a mess? I'll explain:

Anti-theist = I actively oppose all theism (this has nothing to do with God. It is about organized religion)

Atheist = I don't believe a God exists simply due to the lack of evidence but I am not dogmatically certain. I feel like I have a 98% chance of being correct.

Agnostic = I am without knowledge on the existence of a God.

[automaticSOM]

@itcanbecheezcaketime

Well said

[Acorafication]

@itcanbecheezcaketime Same with me. I classify myself as an agnostic atheist, as I do not believe there is a god, but I am willing to believe in a god if it could be irrefutably proven, and I also do not believe that god can ever be disproven, as anything that would do so could be explained away by 'God working in mysterious ways'.

[lepthymo]

@itcanbecheezcaketime 98 percent? thats way to generous dude. i'm a strong atheist personally, becouse no evidence means non-existant. at least it does with claims that have been put forward already.

[GodUsesAMinistry]

@itcanbecheezcaketime Your definition of agnostic is not complete. The intellectually honest position would be agnosticism. As far as opposing organized religion does not mean you have to oppose theism, which is just one who believes a deity exists. Just go and look up the definition for both theist and agnostic and you will see where you are off a bit.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@GodUsesAMinistry

If you were right, I would agree with you. I know the definition. Plus, I know that agnosticism isn't a position at all. It's an uneducated attempt to divert the question from "Do you believe in a God?" to "Do you know if a God exists?". Truth is, everyone on the planet is an agnostic. It's another unnecessary label but people still like to hold on to it. Opposing organized religion is opposing theism because a personal religion is an oxymoron.

Maybe YOU need the dictionary?

[GodUsesAMinistry]

@itcanbecheezcaketime There is no reason to get upset, in fact I refreshed my own memory on the definitions before I posted. Your comment reminded me of a Hindu gentleman I encountered who told me he was half Christian. The term just does not make sense. It's a lot like playing both sides of the fence. No I'll will on my part, apologies if my comment sounded insulting.

[FreeInquisition]

@itcanbecheezcaketime Same here bro. You pretty much summed up my position, except that my definition of anti-theism might be slightly different. Whilst I also go by the characterization of being against organized religion, I would also say it can be a stance that the whole concept of theism (the divine, heaven/hell, commandments etc) is horrible and immoral.

[dutchbb1979]

@itcanbecheezcaketime I like it when people explain that, because so many get that completely wrong. It can not be explained enough.

[XxStrickenedxX]

You have to understand that it is not atheists job to disprove god. it is theists resposibility to do so. if i said i owned an invisable cat it wouldnt be your problem to prove that i dont. i would have to show the evidance.

[SoleilCollective]

The cat cannot even be compared to the insane devotion of theists. I wouldn't care about disproving your cat or religion, but it's the fact that theists are always trying to convert people and rub it in everyone's face. They're never going to disprove it because it gives them a purpose in this huge universe. Therefore, it's up to the atheist to challenge it. Whether humans will ever be capable of proving or disproving the other, no one will ever know.

[Craigipedia]

The Aristotlean image of an unmoved prime mover is fine, but there is no way of concieving of such a thing... therefore it doesn't "exist" perceptually or rationally. But it is downright EASY to disprove the existence of Thor, Wotam, Zeus, Yahweh, etc.

[Craigipedia]

I don't like the "strong", "weak" monikers... But I think that is because I see the slim possibility of the existence of a trans-universal "god-like" force in the mold of a Einstein, Kaku, Dawkins, etc. If there is an nonevolved creative force of the universe I think we will never know, so there is no point in taking a stand because it is irrational, illogical, and beyond the realm of reason. However, i WILL SAY there are NO personal "gods" which cannot be explained.

[SkyDoginthetube]

Craigipedia

In general I take a weak athiest position because I can't rule out the existance of somthing big and powerfull out there that could claim the title of a god.

However in responce to spacific religions I take the position of strong athiesm.

To every religion I've ever heard of I can say within reasonable doubt "Your god(s) arn't real"

[Finiras]

i think that strong atheism can be a very intellectually honest position to take, because there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of a god... it would be like saying that it wouldn't be intellectually honest to have a strong belief that an omnipotent flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist...

[MilletGtr]

No it's not. The intellectual position to take is of course Weak Atheism, because the lack of evidence is not any kind of proof for the opposition.. You say you know god doesn't exist, but I say theres no way anyone can ever know anything like that.

My point is that there is no absolute knowledge, whether it's you know god does, or doesn't exist.

[Finiras]

there is no evidence for a god, just as there is no evidence for an omnipotent teapot orbiting mars, or the flying spaghetti monster. thus there is no reason (based on evidence) to believe in their existence, thus the position that they don't exist is a reasonable position to take.

[MilletGtr]

Yeah, I agree.. There is no reason to believe that they exist. That does not mean they certainly do not exist. As any other scientific mind would tell you, there are no absolutes.

[Finiras]

i see the reasoning behind weak atheism being more intellectually honest, but that same reasoning can be applied to anything without any evidence, like pink flying unicorns, leprecons, (insert any imaginary entity). thus i dont think its reasonable to take the position of "weak atheism" at all.

[waltermh111]

I agree with Finiras but will elaborate as I am a strong atheist.

The only reason you believe their is a .001~ chance that a god may exist, the only reason you are open to the idea despite your disbelief, is because somebody claimed there is a god.

They didnt provide proof, they didnt even give good arguments, unless you consider god of the gap a good argument.

So, with all of that being said, why do you give any weight at all to the claim?

[MilletGtr]

Even though the chance there is a god is so infinitely close to zero, there is still a chance. Therefore you can not say you know it doesn't exist.

I don't give any weight to such ridiculous claims, such things as unicorns, pixies or god, but that doesn't mean you can be sure they don't exist.

There was no evidence for the germ theory of disease 2000 years ago, but that doesn't mean it's not real. This can basically be applied to anything, which is why scientists never are sure.

[waltermh111]

I do not consider that intellectually superior view because your chance is not based on anything except fear.

If you give no weight to a claim, then you admit you have no rational reason to believe their claim.

Your germ theory example does not work because nobody proposed it 2000 years ago.

They proposed possession, sin, spirits, and other mumbo jumbo.

With time they proposed leeches for certain things.

We are talking about actual claims that the person pulled out of thin air.

[MilletGtr]

You don't seem to understand. No matter what you claim, there's always a possibility that it might be true, no matter what it's about or who said it. That doesn't mean I believe in god.. In fact, I don't believe in god, which is why I'm an atheist.

I don't say this because I fear going to hell, I don't believe in such nonsense.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence one way or the other, so there is absolutely no reason to even consider anything regarding 'god'.

[waltermh111]

I never said you fear going to hell.

I said simply out of fear.

In reference to the idea that you are scared of being wrong or calling somebody a complete lier.

There is not always a possibility something might be true unless the person making the claim gives a reason for their claim that is either verifiable or able to be disproven

So, if you cant even give evidence against this made up entity, then the entity has no worth and you can safely claim 100% unreal

[SkyDoginthetube]

waltermh111

In general I take a weak athiest position because I can't rule out the existance of somthing big and powerfull out there that could claim the title of a god.

However in responce to spacific religions I take the position of strong athiesm.

To every religion I've ever heard of I can say within reasonable doubt "Your god(s) arn't real"

[waltermh111]

Any concept of god is human derived.

There has never been any reason to even have 0.0~1% chance of there being a god is worth believing.

Its always been a concept designed to answer questions that people couldnt previously answer, and the goal post of what a god is answer to has constantly shrunk and many times over the concept of god has changed throughout history.

[waltermh111]

I simply cannot see the intellectual honesty in saying that just because somebody makes a claim without any logical, rational, provable or disprovable reasoning whatsoever, that now there is at least a minute chance of that claim being real.

You can say you have an open mind, but when the theists keep moving the goal posts to make sure you cant ever find or understand him, I think your cheating yourself by humoring them with even a .0~1% chance

[Finiras]

how do omnipotence and omniscience contradict eachother, and how does omnipotence contradict itself?

[Suzahi]

You know those silly questions where people ask if god can make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift or if god can make a taco so big that he himself cannot microwave and etc?

By definition, if god is omnipotent, he should be all powerful and be able to achieve this feat but it would be logically impossible to complete and be omnipotent at the same time.

[Finiras]

if god can't create a rock that is so large that he can't lift it himself, that doesnt seem a very good argument because god would be able to create rocks of any size, but also have limitless strength to lift whatever he can create, so i dont see how omnipotence contradicts itself this way?

[Suzahi]

Scenario A) He cannot create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift - That would mean he is either not all powerful enough to create a rock of any size he wants and cannot therefore be omnipotent.

Scenario B) He does create a rock that is so big that he himself cannot lift - That would mean he does not have limitless strength and is therefore cannot be all powerful (a.k.a omnipotent).

As such, it is impossible for any omnipotent being to exist.

[Finiras]

no, in theory, god has limitless strength, so he can create a rock of ANY size and still be able to lift it. so it doesn't contradict.

[Suzahi]

Sigh, I knew this would be a bit too confusing for some but if you didn't get it the second time where I broke it down for you, I doubt you'll get it the 3rd time. Just try to reread the original premise slowllllyyy......veryyyyyy slowllyyyyy......

[Finiras]

no, actually i did see it your way, but then somebody pointed out the reasoning for it being a contradiction is faulty and i saw it. you're the one that is confused.

the reason god (if he existed) wouldn't be able to create a rock heavy enough that he can't lift it, is because god would have limitless strength... LIMITLESS, meaning that whatever the weight of the rock is that he creates he can carry it. those 2 qualities do not contradict each other.

[Suzahi]

You are still ignoring the original premise then; "A rock so big that he himself cannot carry". If he had limitless strength, the act (creating a rock so big that he himself CANNOT carry) would be impossible for him, which would contradict the definition of being all powerful and omnipotent.

[Finiras]

you completely lost the point of the argument. the idea behind the contradiction.

[Munkatten]

If god cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent.

He cannot lift a rock that he created so that he couldn't lift it, then he isn't omnipotent, because he cannot lift the rock.

Simple.

[Finiras]

no, he can create a rock of any size, and has limitless strength. those 2 properties are not a contradiction.

[Munkatten]

Size isn't the matter.

Can he create a rock he cannot lift?

[Suzahi]

My original point has not changed one bit. You are just altering the argument to center around the 2 properties alone and nothing else.

An all powerful and omnipotent being should be able to do anything and complete any task or objective. Yet if he possesses both those properties, he would not be able to complete this task nor anything similar, disqualifying him from omnipotence. If he does complete it, that would also disqualify him. Hence the contradicting nature of being all powerful.

[waltermh111]

To beat a dead bush, the idea is this:

Can an omnipotent god create something that he cannot lift?

If he cannot create something that he cannot lift, then he is not all powerful, because that is one task he cannot complete.

[mrselfrog]

I don't understand why omnicence and omnipotence dont work together and why it is contradictory, that would be interesting to find out

[ZarlanTheGreen]

I disagree with their definition of strong/weak atheism.

To me it's like this:

Weak atheist doesn't accept the claim that there is a god or gods, and strong atheists say that there is no god or gods (which doesn't have to be a claim of absolute knowledge, as there'd barely be anyone who'd take that position, thus making the label not particularly useful).

As such, I define myself as strong atheist.

[maisteri]

Well, that's not how weak / strong atheism are defined. You'll just cause confusion by sticking to wrong definitions.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

"Well, that's not how weak / strong atheism are defined. You'll just cause confusion by sticking to wrong definitions."

Your saying that I (and wikipedia, Matt Dillahunty and wiktionary, to just mention the sources I can mention, of the top of my head) use the wrong definition?

Oh really?

What reason do you have to say so and what is your definition?

BTW, just so you know: Defining strong atheism as a claim of absolute knowledge that there is no god(s), makes the word pretty pointless.

[maisteri]

Strong atheism is indeed a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a position that carries the burden of proof and requires justification, just like the other end of the spectrum. Even your great authority, Matt Dillahunty, acknowledges that (there is a video where he explicitly says this).

In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins put it this way:

" 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.' "

[ZarlanTheGreen]

"Strong atheism is indeed a claim of absolute knowledge."

Knowledge, sure, but absolute?

Wouldn't that make the term, largely useless?

What's the point in having such a term?

"Even your great authority, Matt Dillahunty, acknowledges that "

That strong atheism has the burden of proof, sure, but it being _absolute_ knowledge? I've heard him define it quite differently.

Oh, and concerning Dawkins:

That use of strong atheism, is one of the points where I think he's wrong.

[maisteri]

"Knowledge, sure, but absolute?"

When you have no shred of doubt that a proposition is true, we are talking about absolute knowledge (absolute certainty). Now, I think it is impossible for anyone to possess such knowledge about gods' non-existence, which brings us to...

"Wouldn't that make the term, largely useless?"

Not useless, but bullshit. It is in fact a very useful label, because you will instantly know if someone is not to be taken seriously.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

Ah, you provide an explanation of what absolute knowledge means.

Eh.. why?

Now take a look at this set of definitions:

Weak atheism=lack of belief in god(s).

Strong atheism=belief that there is/are no god(s).

Definitions of two significantly separate groups, both well populated. Useful.

Change the strong atheism definition to claiming absolute knowledge and you have a definition for a group for which there is about as much evidence for as god(s).

What's the point in such a term?

[maisteri]

This is why I hate arguing over semantics. It's so hard to find common grounds, because everyone seems to have their own definitions. Even dictionaries never seem to agree :P

I prefer Dawkins' spectrum of probabilities and the definitions associated with it. I think he explained strong atheism pretty well. Just out of curiosity, where would you place yourself on that scale?

"What's the point in such a term?"

There are people who claim to know there are absolutely no gods. I think it is bull.

[ZarlanTheGreen]

Semantics is important.

"Just out of curiosity, where would you place yourself on that scale?"

6, just like Dawkins.

"There are people who claim to know there are absolutely no gods. I think it is bull."

What is more useful:

Terms for two big groups? (i.e. my definitions)

or terms for one big group (for which there would be useful to create further terms to distinguish two subgroups: The ones who disbelieve, and those who believe in the non-resistance), and one ridiculously small group?

[isaachaze1]

i think the term "atheist" is unfortunate in some ways, whether it have "strong" or "weak" attached to it