Is strong atheism "faithy," dishonest, awkward, or hard to defend?

[Shadowy Man]

If Sara says, "There are no gods," and Joe says, "There is a god," then their burden of proof is equal.

Then Sara asks "where is it?" And Joe can say "well, you can't prove that somewhere yet to be seen there isn't a god." And Sara then asks Joe what's the point in believing in a god that can't be found without searching all of existence for it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This wording is a bit too broad for my liking. It doesn't seem to allow for overlap between the groups. I'm a strong atheist about specific gods; but a weak atheist about gods in general.

But that goes to the definition of what makes a god. Anything with an omni in its description, I'd be a strong atheist about. Anything so nebulous that it can't even be defined, I'd be a strong atheist about since I haven't been given anything to potentially believe in. Anything that could actually exist, I wouldn't use the word "god" to describe it. If Loki or Poseidon showed up, I'd take the position from the Thor movie and call them aliens instead of gods.

So anything that I'd be a weak atheist about because it actually has the potential to exist wouldn't be the kind of thing I'd use any variation of the term "theism" to describe.

 

[Wiploc]

So let's distinguish what we believe from why we believe it.

- Theists believe (for whatever reasons) that gods do exist.
- Strong atheists believe (for whatever reasons) that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists (everybody else) do not believe (for whatever reasons) either way.

And then you could, if you wanted to, divide weak atheists into groups based on what their reasoning is.

This wording is a bit too broad for my liking. It doesn't seem to allow for overlap between the groups. I'm a strong atheist about specific gods; but a weak atheist about gods in general.

I don't see a problem with that. It's very precise.

I'm a gnostic strong atheist with regard to the standard Christian god, but an agnostic strong atheist overall.

ETA: And if you don't wish to be that precise, you just say you are an atheist, which covers both categories.

 

[Wiploc]

If Sara says, "There are no gods," and Joe says, "There is a god," then their burden of proof is equal.

Then Sara asks "where is it?" And Joe can say "well, you can't prove that somewhere yet to be seen there isn't a god." And Sara then asks Joe what's the point in believing in a god that can't be found without searching all of existence for it.

I'd mention Santa and Thor and the Easter bunny, and ask if Joe believes any of those don't exist. Is there anything that he can believe doesn't exist even though he hasn't searched the entire universe? If so, why--aside from special pleading--is he using a different standard for Santa and Jehovah?

 

[PyramidHead]

Atheism is impossible to defend philosophically.

That's why atheists I admire (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) are actually empiricists requiring evidence, and suspend any belief in the deity (i.e. any of the myriad deities available on the beliefs market) until then. And good luck with the evidence since the other obstacle is the self-contradicting theologies and the mounting evidence on the lack of effective power of the deity or any of their promises (actual no-kidding-yourself miracles promissed to followers).

I'm a proud agnostic = weak atheist = empiricist.

Note: I know that Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge or a lack of knowledge, while Atheism is a statement about belief or lack of this, but for all practical purposes they're the same.

The problem I have with that line of reasoning is that it can easily be applied to any number of things that I am happy to say do not exist. I suspect you are too. For example, even though quantum mechanics does not make sense, I know that its strange effects are not caused by a magical being tinkering behind the scenes. In just the same way, although the universe's existence remains a mystery, I know it was not created by a magical being with infinite power. I can almost hear you cringe as you read the second one, but you probably didn't cringe at the first one. I think that's a social conditioning phenomenon, not a philosophical problem for atheism.

 

[Wiploc]

But that goes to the definition of what makes a god. Anything with an omni in its description, I'd be a strong atheist about. Anything so nebulous that it can't even be defined, I'd be a strong atheist about since I haven't been given anything to potentially believe in. Anything that could actually exist, I wouldn't use the word "god" to describe it. If Loki or Poseidon showed up, I'd take the position from the Thor movie and call them aliens instead of gods.

So anything that I'd be a weak atheist about because it actually has the potential to exist wouldn't be the kind of thing I'd use any variation of the term "theism" to describe.

I like this a lot.

But I'm more inclusive in what I'll allow as a god. Poseidon seems like a god to me.

My rule of thumb is that anything godlike is unlikely to exist, and anything likely to exist isn't godlike. That allows me to dismiss the gods as a category. Anything that counts as a god is presumptively nonexistent.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think it is indefensible. The question regarding the origin of the universe is indeterminate. To say outrightly that there is no creator seems about as bad as saying there is one, though not as bad as saying there is a personal creator that has spoken to man and given them commandments and what not.

There are lots of creators. Chris Carter is the creator of The X-Files. Everybody on TFT is the creator of at least one post. That doesn't make us all gods. But you mean that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one. Well, that depends. What does "universe" mean? Dictionaries disagree with one another.

"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" -- Merriam-Webster

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole" -- OED

So what do you mean by "universe" when you argue that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one?

If you agree with Merriam-Webster's definition, then your argument is plainly wrong. Of course there is no creator of the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. To postulate such a creator is to postulate a thing that created itself, which is self-contradictory. Strong atheism about that sort of god is perfectly defensible; it's the only defensible position.

If you agree with the OED's definition, then perhaps it's true that it's indefensible to say outrightly that there is no creator of all existing matter and space considered as a whole. But strong atheism is saying outrightly that there's no god. If we postulate that there is a creator of all existing matter and space considered as a whole, it follows that reality contains other things besides matter and space, just as it contains other things besides The X-Files and TFT posts. So all this postulated creator did was find itself in a preexisting reality and add something to reality that wasn't there before. And we've already established that merely adding something to a preexisting reality is not sufficient to make someone a god.

So when you argue that strong atheism is indefensible, what additional criterion do you mean for a creator of some arbitrary extension of reality to have to satisfy, in order to qualify for the title "a god"?

 

[Mageth]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

As to the notion of "gods in general", or ambiguously defined / undefined gods, possibly being out there somewhere...so what if they can't be absolutely ruled out? There are all sorts of things, not to mention all sorts of gods, that can't be absolutely ruled out. My position on all such "things that can't be absolutely ruled out" including "gods in general" can be summarized as "Meh".

 

[Malintent]

Atheism is as strong as the absence of evidence for the existence of a God or gods. As there happens to be no available evidence for the existence of a God or gods....

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by strong and weak Atheism, in this context.

Strong Atheism is the assertion that enough evidence has been gathered to be assured that no possible gods exist. it is an assertion that carries some burden of proof.
Weak Atheism is the position that all arguments made to date have failed to support the existence claim of any gods.. The position does not carry burden of proof.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

Good definition of weak Atheism

As to the notion of "gods in general", or ambiguously defined / undefined gods, possibly being out there somewhere...so what if they can't be absolutely ruled out? There are all sorts of things, not to mention all sorts of gods, that can't be absolutely ruled out. My position on all such "things that can't be absolutely ruled out" including "gods in general" can be summarized as "Meh".

Good definition of Strong Atheism.

Both are Atheistic... but the reasoning is different.

 

[Atheos]

Attempting to pigeonhole large clusters of people's beliefs into tidy containers is like herding cats. Never going to get 'em all. Personally I've jettisoned the appellation "Atheist" (although I still carry the name Atheos) in favor of just calling myself a skeptic. I'm as skeptical that any god or gods exist as I am that I'll one day ride in a space ship exploring the Andromeda galaxy. Sure, either one *could* happen, but a there is compelling (to the point of certainty) evidence that neither one will. But I've been wrong before.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

As to the notion of "gods in general", or ambiguously defined / undefined gods, possibly being out there somewhere...so what if they can't be absolutely ruled out? There are all sorts of things, not to mention all sorts of gods, that can't be absolutely ruled out. My position on all such "things that can't be absolutely ruled out" including "gods in general" can be summarized as "Meh".

I did have an idea pop into my head recently regarding a multiverse, that if that is indeed what exists and there could be an infinite number of universes, gods could possibly exist in some of them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Strong atheism is simply applying logic to claims about god(s). So far I have not found any concept of God that is able to stand. Of course some concepts are not popular with believers. But more to the point, the major versions of God as held to the most common religions, Christianity, Islam et al, are the most vulnerable. Omni-everything creator gods with maximized abilities are most vulnerable of all.

The problem is that strong atheism seems to be the least developed approach and not well known.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I did have an idea pop into my head recently regarding a multiverse, that if that is indeed what exists and there could be an infinite number of universes, gods could possibly exist in some of them.

But what would make them gods? Are you saying that universes could exist wherein there's a guy who uses a hammer to fly around and fight giants or are you saying that there could exist universes with triomni beings or something inbetween?

 

[Wiploc]

Atheism is impossible to defend philosophically.

It's as easy to defend as not believing in Santa.

That's why atheists I admire (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) are actually empiricists requiring evidence, and suspend any belief in the deity

Impossible to defend, and yet you admire them?

...
I'm a proud agnostic = weak atheist = empiricist.

So why do you say it is impossible to defend?

Note: I know that Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge or a lack of knowledge, while Atheism is a statement about belief or lack of this, but for all practical purposes they're the same.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. That made her an agnostic theist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is indefensible. The question regarding the origin of the universe is indeterminate. To say outrightly that there is no creator seems about as bad as saying there is one, though not as bad as saying there is a personal creator that has spoken to man and given them commandments and what not.

There are lots of creators. Chris Carter is the creator of The X-Files. Everybody on TFT is the creator of at least one post. That doesn't make us all gods. But you mean that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one. Well, that depends. What does "universe" mean? Dictionaries disagree with one another.

"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated" -- Merriam-Webster

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole" -- OED

So what do you mean by "universe" when you argue that to say outrightly that there is no creator of the universe seems about as bad as saying there is one?

If you agree with Merriam-Webster's definition, then your argument is plainly wrong. Of course there is no creator of the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated. To postulate such a creator is to postulate a thing that created itself, which is self-contradictory. Strong atheism about that sort of god is perfectly defensible; it's the only defensible position.

If you agree with the OED's definition, then perhaps it's true that it's indefensible to say outrightly that there is no creator of all existing matter and space considered as a whole. But strong atheism is saying outrightly that there's no god.

The universe is all things... within whatever the heck it is we are in. We know jack about what is "outside" the boundaries of the universe, if anything... if it is even legit to say outside of the boundaries.

If we postulate that there is a creator of all existing matter and space considered as a whole, it follows that reality contains other things besides matter and space, just as it contains other things besides The X-Files and TFT posts. So all this postulated creator did was find itself in a preexisting reality and add something to reality that wasn't there before. And we've already established that merely adding something to a preexisting reality is not sufficient to make someone a god.

There is a reason I used the word creator. As I noted before, to exclude god, renders our existence somehow very unusual. If there is a god, that renders its own existence very unusual.

So when you argue that strong atheism is indefensible, what additional criterion do you mean for a creator of some arbitrary extension of reality to have to satisfy, in order to qualify for the title "a god"?

Strong atheism, in my opinion, concludes that origins are naturally occurring. If it doesn't conclude that, then I'm mistaken. But without a god, origins can only be natural. And honestly, to me, origins make no sense either way. Personally, I'm an ashamed strong atheist.

 

[Wiploc]

Of course some concepts are not popular with believers.

I like to tell Christians, "I know the Christian god doesn't exist, and I'll take your word for it that none of the others do."

 

[Bomb#20]

Atheism is impossible to defend philosophically.

That's why atheists I admire (Dawkins, Dennet, Harris) are actually empiricists requiring evidence, and suspend any belief in the deity (i.e. any of the myriad deities available on the beliefs market) until then. ... I'm a proud agnostic = weak atheist = empiricist.

Atheism is the opinion that "There exists an X such that X satisfies the criteria for the deity classification." is not a correct proposition. Therefore "Atheism is impossible to defend philosophically." is itself a claim that's impossible to defend philosophically unless you explain the criteria for the deity classification.

So what's a god?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did have an idea pop into my head recently regarding a multiverse, that if that is indeed what exists and there could be an infinite number of universes, gods could possibly exist in some of them.

But what would make them gods? Are you saying that universes could exist wherein there's a guy who uses a hammer to fly around and fight giants or are you saying that there could exist universes with triomni beings or something inbetween?

The ability to control space and time or gloab and hgisn as they are called in the god universe.

 

[Mageth]

I'm strongly atheistic about any and all gods that I've ever had described to me in any detail. The more you define a god, the harder it becomes to support the assertion that it actually exists.

As to the notion of "gods in general", or ambiguously defined / undefined gods, possibly being out there somewhere...so what if they can't be absolutely ruled out? There are all sorts of things, not to mention all sorts of gods, that can't be absolutely ruled out. My position on all such "things that can't be absolutely ruled out" including "gods in general" can be summarized as "Meh".

I did have an idea pop into my head recently regarding a multiverse, that if that is indeed what exists and there could be an infinite number of universes, gods could possibly exist in some of them.

As could any number of things one could dream up. Hence my "meh" position.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But what would make them gods? Are you saying that universes could exist wherein there's a guy who uses a hammer to fly around and fight giants or are you saying that there could exist universes with triomni beings or something inbetween?

The ability to control space and time or gloab and hgisn as they are called in the god universe.

Well, take the alien argument further, then.

Say that there exists an alien race which gets more and more advanced until its science is enough to allow them to control space and time. They can even create their own infinitely sized pocket universes where they can control everything within them. Would their scientific advancements have turned them into gods or would they still just be super advanced aliens?