One's belief or disbelief in a deity doesn't really control a person's actions. I'm not saying that strong atheists would necessarily be bad, I'm just saying that morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Which, is sort of what you said during the 3 minute mark. Anyway, thought provoking video. :)
I didn't know there were differences between the degrees of atheism. If a person doesn't believe in a god, wouldn't that make them an atheist regardless of how strong they hold their beliefs or non beliefs? Sometimes I think it's not religion that is the problem in the world, though. There can be bad sides to both religion and atheism.
you cant prove or disprove god, but u can prove that there is a CREATOR! the universe is so well crafted that it is able to bring life about. gravity is at a right level along with electromagnetism and all the other principles.if u wake up one day and theres a building youve didnt see the nite would you think it just popped up from the ground? you know someone built it, it wasnt a random thing, i blame all this nonsense thats going on in the world on religion
I don't know any strong atheists who call anything an absolute fact, including their atheism. Do you find that those that call themselves "strong" are claiming certainty? Dawkins himself does not adhere to such certainty.
As I said earlier, it is for these reasons I do not like such terms.
I think you're confusing strong atheism with MILITANT atheism. You should check the definition of strong atheism. If we are to follow the standard definition then Dawkins is not a strong atheist. he's more of a militant atheist. He campaigns against religion. He doesn't claim absolute knowledge of god's nonexistence
That's what strong atheism is.Strong atheists claim knowledge of god's nonexistence. There is a formal definition for strong atheism.if you don't fit that definition, don't call yourself a strong atheist.Dawkins doesn't like being branded a strong atheist either. He calls himself de-facto atheist. The difference between belief in gravity and belief in god's nonexistence is that THE FORMER HAS RELATIVELY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FOR IT, while the latter doesn't. Yes, god is a pretty silly concept
...and it lacks supporting evidence. But absence of proof isn't proof isn't proof for absence. The silliness of a claim isn't proof against it either. A conclusion based on nonexistent evidence is not a very scientific position. All of us atheists are all pretty much convinced that god doesn't exist. But I will make no absolute conclusion as it won't stand in a truly objective forum and if I'm not being objective, I might as well call myself a theist.
I consider myself a "strong" atheist, not that I make the claim "God does not exist," since it is impossible to either prove or disprove his existence. I simply use it to refer to what I think the probability is of his existence, which, at least in my own mind, is very unlikely.
All atheists consider the probability of god's existence to be lower than god's non existence. they wouldn't call themselves atheists otherwise. If you claim that god is improbable and not impossible, you're a weak a atheist. Strong atheism is a position that claims certainty of god's nonexistence
I personally do not like any terms to describe my absence of belief (I just use words like irrational and bullshit). However, those who call themselves strong atheists are well within their rights to do so, as they all say this knowing that nothing can be said to be impossible.
The "strong" is to demonstrate a person recognises the complete lack (or abundance of contrary) evidence for the proposition.
..Pretty strongly. I also pretty strongly think that god doesn't exist. I don't like using the word believe. It reeks of dogma. I will say that i lack the belief in a god but i will not say that I believe that there is no god. Because that is a claim that I cannot prove.
The empirical evidence for gravity is pretty strong. There may still be a slim possibility that you're only imagining it and it doesn't actually exist but it's more or less conclusive for the positive -Because there's strong evidence for the positive. ATheism is a good position since given the complete lack of evidence for a certain claim, the default position is NOT TO BELIEVE.[cont...]
However to hold the negative as an ABSOLUTE FACT is a position that is NOT derived from evidence and therefore not very scientific. To claim that you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there is no god is a weak position since that is a claim that you have no proof for and you cannot prove.
One's belief or disbelief in a deity doesn't really control a person's actions. I'm not saying that strong atheists would necessarily be bad, I'm just saying that morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Which, is sort of what you said during the 3 minute mark. Anyway, thought provoking video. :)
HaleyMary 2 years ago
I didn't know there were differences between the degrees of atheism. If a person doesn't believe in a god, wouldn't that make them an atheist regardless of how strong they hold their beliefs or non beliefs? Sometimes I think it's not religion that is the problem in the world, though. There can be bad sides to both religion and atheism.
HaleyMary 2 years ago
you cant prove or disprove god, but u can prove that there is a CREATOR! the universe is so well crafted that it is able to bring life about. gravity is at a right level along with electromagnetism and all the other principles.if u wake up one day and theres a building youve didnt see the nite would you think it just popped up from the ground? you know someone built it, it wasnt a random thing, i blame all this nonsense thats going on in the world on religion
kaizer310 4 years ago
I don't know any strong atheists who call anything an absolute fact, including their atheism. Do you find that those that call themselves "strong" are claiming certainty? Dawkins himself does not adhere to such certainty.
As I said earlier, it is for these reasons I do not like such terms.
jpararaja 4 years ago
I think you're confusing strong atheism with MILITANT atheism. You should check the definition of strong atheism. If we are to follow the standard definition then Dawkins is not a strong atheist. he's more of a militant atheist. He campaigns against religion. He doesn't claim absolute knowledge of god's nonexistence
jaywalker23 4 years ago
So let me get this right:
Is there a difference between "strong atheist" and "strong gravitationalist"?
If no, then strong atheism is sensible.
If yes, then the definition of strong atheism is silly and patently absurd.
As I said, no one in their right mind would claim to ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of anything when pressed on the logic of that assertion.
jpararaja 4 years ago
That's what strong atheism is.Strong atheists claim knowledge of god's nonexistence. There is a formal definition for strong atheism.if you don't fit that definition, don't call yourself a strong atheist.Dawkins doesn't like being branded a strong atheist either. He calls himself de-facto atheist. The difference between belief in gravity and belief in god's nonexistence is that THE FORMER HAS RELATIVELY CONCLUSIVE PROOF FOR IT, while the latter doesn't. Yes, god is a pretty silly concept
jaywalker23 4 years ago
...and it lacks supporting evidence. But absence of proof isn't proof isn't proof for absence. The silliness of a claim isn't proof against it either. A conclusion based on nonexistent evidence is not a very scientific position. All of us atheists are all pretty much convinced that god doesn't exist. But I will make no absolute conclusion as it won't stand in a truly objective forum and if I'm not being objective, I might as well call myself a theist.
jaywalker23 4 years ago
I consider myself a "strong" atheist, not that I make the claim "God does not exist," since it is impossible to either prove or disprove his existence. I simply use it to refer to what I think the probability is of his existence, which, at least in my own mind, is very unlikely.
naejimba 4 years ago
All atheists consider the probability of god's existence to be lower than god's non existence. they wouldn't call themselves atheists otherwise. If you claim that god is improbable and not impossible, you're a weak a atheist. Strong atheism is a position that claims certainty of god's nonexistence
jaywalker23 4 years ago
Nothing is impossible.
jpararaja 4 years ago
True. that is why you can't hold an ABSOLUTE position on ANYTHING. For all we know there may actually be invisible pink unicorns. It is possible
jaywalker23 4 years ago
I personally do not like any terms to describe my absence of belief (I just use words like irrational and bullshit). However, those who call themselves strong atheists are well within their rights to do so, as they all say this knowing that nothing can be said to be impossible.
The "strong" is to demonstrate a person recognises the complete lack (or abundance of contrary) evidence for the proposition.
How strongly do you believe in gravity?
jpararaja 4 years ago
..Pretty strongly. I also pretty strongly think that god doesn't exist. I don't like using the word believe. It reeks of dogma. I will say that i lack the belief in a god but i will not say that I believe that there is no god. Because that is a claim that I cannot prove.
jaywalker23 4 years ago
Any rationalist who is pressed on their "certainty" about anything would agree that they remain open minded.
But to then force such people to state their opinion in weaker terms JUST based on that epistemological fact is complicating the issue.
jpararaja 4 years ago
So you're a strong gravitationalist, why not strong atheism?
jpararaja 4 years ago
The empirical evidence for gravity is pretty strong. There may still be a slim possibility that you're only imagining it and it doesn't actually exist but it's more or less conclusive for the positive -Because there's strong evidence for the positive. ATheism is a good position since given the complete lack of evidence for a certain claim, the default position is NOT TO BELIEVE.[cont...]
jaywalker23 4 years ago
However to hold the negative as an ABSOLUTE FACT is a position that is NOT derived from evidence and therefore not very scientific. To claim that you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that there is no god is a weak position since that is a claim that you have no proof for and you cannot prove.
jaywalker23 4 years ago
lost sound at about 04:14
KasparHauser4 4 years ago
The video was supposed to end at 4:14. I had a slight problem while editing the video
jaywalker23 4 years ago