Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[minotza]

"This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way.."

I thought that was a good introduction lol, what else am I supposed to say?

My purpose in asking those questions was to see where people disagree with me. If you think people would disagree, please, tell me where and on what basis so that I may learn where I went wrong in making my argument.

Well, think if you started a conversation IRL that way. It isn't an introduction. It used to be a requirement to start off with an introduction in the "Introduction" thread but is not required any longer. It IS nice to at least tell us a little bit about yourself rather than just jump into a discussion. Anyway, welcome to the forums.

Here is s thread discussing the topic of levels of belief that you might find interesting. The definitions were hashed out between an atheist (Adrian) and a Christian (Arcanus AKA Ryft). I find value in their definitions and you might also.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3817.htm...+of+belief

Thanks for that link, I'm reading through it now its very interesting. So far from the first two pages I got that Gnostic Atheist = Strong Atheist and Agnostic Atheist = Weak Atheist? I didn't see much a difference from Dawkins definitions with those two...I'll finish reading it later though since I have some work to do, and I'll put in an introduction after I'm done reading that =D

---

due to the objective things we know about our universe

Such as?

Chocolate is a good anti-depressive


I consider myself a strong atheist, but i don't absolute certainty that there is no god, not 100% but about 99%, and i made my objective of peacefully oppose the negative parts of religion, and try to passively and non-obstructive spread atheism

Who's definition of "strong atheist" do you go by? If your going by Dawkins definition then your contradicting yourself..

I cannot claim with absolute certainty anything, we could exist as you see, or i could be a crazy guy in asylum imagining you or the reverse, or we could all be a dream... or a nightmare,

In essence, i cannot claim absolute certainty only the omniscient can.

In order to continue I need to know your definition of "strong atheist"

---

Well, in rationalizing the jump from Pure Agnostic to Weak Atheist I would say that the probability of god's existence/non existence is dependent on the logical things we know about our universe (whatever those things may be) Am I right in thinking this way? For example, (lets imagine we haven't seen or heard of a black swan yet) the probability of a black swan was extremely low because we have never seen one or heard of one, therefore it is rational to assume that swans were ONLY white..right? So basically I'm saying that based on our current knowledge, it is rational to make the jump from Pure Agnostic to Weak Atheist..and if its rational to do that then it is irrational to actually be a Pure Agnostic, due to our current knowledge.

What do you think about this?

I think you hold to rather too many assumptions. For one, you assume that God's existence is a matter of probability. On Christian theism, God is a necessary being, which means that either the Christian God must exist or cannot exist. Two, you assume that "we" (all humans?) have not experienced God or have awareness of any arguments in favour of God's existence. Three, you assume the principle that "If something hasn't been observed, then it probably doesn't exist." Try telling that to the guys at CERN. Four, the big one, that the laws of logic and universal epistemic principles that you wish to apply exist, and that there is a plausible atheistic account of their existence.

The fact that we cannot conclusively prove or disprove god's existence means that there is a probability for his existing, right? I'm not talking about the God in the traditional sense, you can replace "God" with "supernatural being" or whatever pleases you. To prove you have experienced god you would have to prove god exists first which has yet to be done. No human being has any awareness of any GOOD arguments in favor of God's existence, otherwise we wouldn't be atheists, right? I never said if something hasn't been observed it probably doesn't exist, I said that if something hasn't been observed then it is only rational based on our knowledge to not believe that it exists. I have no idea what you mean by your last point =[

[I love atheists]

"This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way.."

I thought that was a good introduction lol, what else am I supposed to say?

My purpose in asking those questions was to see where people disagree with me. If you think people would disagree, please, tell me where and on what basis so that I may learn where I went wrong in making my argument.

Minotza,
Appreciate your thoughts. I don't think there is such a thing as strong atheist. First of all if you completely deny God (devine power, uncause cause), you would need to explain universe. It appearance from nothing (scientists proved there were nothing before something). You would need to explain intricate complex and harmony of it. You would explain the reason why we are here, how do we know what to do, where are we going. What is going to happened to us when we die. You would need to explain moral law (don't tell me it does not exist. I can challenge anyone on that). You would need to explain love, faith and hope we humans have in us. I can't explain it apart from God.
thank you!

[Rhizomorph13]

---

"This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way.."

I thought that was a good introduction lol, what else am I supposed to say?

My purpose in asking those questions was to see where people disagree with me. If you think people would disagree, please, tell me where and on what basis so that I may learn where I went wrong in making my argument.

Minotza,
Appreciate your thoughts. I don't think there is such a thing as strong atheist. First of all if you completely deny God (devine power, uncause cause), you would need to explain universe. It appearance from nothing (scientists proved there were nothing before something). You would need to explain intricate complex and harmony of it. You would explain the reason why we are here, how do we know what to do, where are we going. What is going to happened to us when we die. You would need to explain moral law (don't tell me it does not exist. I can challenge anyone on that). You would need to explain love, faith and hope we humans have in us. I can't explain it apart from God.
thank you!

---

Well, exactly! The Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHH) brought all that about with one stamp of her mighty hooves! It didn't take her seven days either. The best part is she abhors worship and doesn't expect anything from her creation. She is a perfect union between both science and faith! We know she is invisible because we can't see her (science) but we also know she is pink because our heart knows (faith). Can you explain why it wasn't her?

P.S. Welcome to the forums! Tell us a little about yourself.

[Relayer]

The fact that we cannot conclusively prove or disprove god's existence means that there is a probability for his existing, right? I'm not talking about the God in the traditional sense, you can replace "God" with "supernatural being" or whatever pleases you.

It really depends which god you are talking about. There are some gods that we know conclusively don't exist - for example, gods that only allow worlds without suffering in them to exist. With the Christian God, it is either necessary that He exists or impossible. To say that it is possible, probable or even improbable that He exists leads to the conclusion that He does exist. (This is a conclusion of the modal ontological argument.) So it is not a case of probability with the Christian God.

To prove you have experienced god you would have to prove god exists first which has yet to be done.

To prove that you have experienced a tree, do you need to prove that a tree exists first?

No human being has any awareness of any GOOD arguments in favor of God's existence, otherwise we wouldn't be atheists, right?

"We" are not all atheists.

I never said if something hasn't been observed it probably doesn't exist, I said that if something hasn't been observed then it is only rational based on our knowledge to not believe that it exists.

I never said you did say it - I said you assumed it. In particular, when you said that "the probability of a black swan was extremely low because we have never seen one or heard of one".

I have no idea what you mean by your last point =[

What I mean is this:
You acknowledge in your use of argumentation that things like the laws of logic exist and universally apply. In order for an atheistic worldview to be consistent, it needs to be able to provide some plausible explanation of this. One of the major arguments for the Christian God put forward is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which argues (to put it very simply, and to give only one aspect of the argument) that if the laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists (equivalently, if the Christian God does not exist, then the laws of logic do not exist). So TAG challenges your assumption that the laws of logic exist.

[Ashendant]

---

"This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way.."

I thought that was a good introduction lol, what else am I supposed to say?

My purpose in asking those questions was to see where people disagree with me. If you think people would disagree, please, tell me where and on what basis so that I may learn where I went wrong in making my argument.

Well, think if you started a conversation IRL that way. It isn't an introduction. It used to be a requirement to start off with an introduction in the "Introduction" thread but is not required any longer. It IS nice to at least tell us a little bit about yourself rather than just jump into a discussion. Anyway, welcome to the forums.

Here is s thread discussing the topic of levels of belief that you might find interesting. The definitions were hashed out between an atheist (Adrian) and a Christian (Arcanus AKA Ryft). I find value in their definitions and you might also.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-3817.htm...+of+belief

Thanks for that link, I'm reading through it now its very interesting. So far from the first two pages I got that Gnostic Atheist = Strong Atheist and Agnostic Atheist = Weak Atheist? I didn't see much a difference from Dawkins definitions with those two...I'll finish reading it later though since I have some work to do, and I'll put in an introduction after I'm done reading that =D

---

Such as?

Chocolate is a good anti-depressive


I consider myself a strong atheist, but i don't absolute certainty that there is no god, not 100% but about 99%, and i made my objective of peacefully oppose the negative parts of religion, and try to passively and non-obstructive spread atheism

Who's definition of "strong atheist" do you go by? If your going by Dawkins definition then your contradicting yourself..

I cannot claim with absolute certainty anything, we could exist as you see, or i could be a crazy guy in asylum imagining you or the reverse, or we could all be a dream... or a nightmare,

In essence, i cannot claim absolute certainty only the omniscient can.

In order to continue I need to know your definition of "strong atheist"

---

---

Above 90% belief there is no god

[Edwardo Piet]

if you completely deny God (devine power, uncause cause), you would need to explain universe.

You need to explain God. If God doesn't need a cause or is said to cause himself, atheists can say the same about the universe.

[Relayer]

You need to explain God. If God doesn't need a cause or is said to cause himself, atheists can say the same about the universe.

"Causing yourself" to exist makes no sense. Necessary existence is what you're looking for.

[downbeatplumb]

With the Christian God, it is either necessary that He exists or impossible. To say that it is possible, probable or even improbable that He exists leads to the conclusion that He does exist. (This is a conclusion of the modal ontological argument.) So it is not a case of probability with the Christian God.

Thats a bit of a reach and one that I dont agree with. There is zero evidence for the god of the bible. I rate scientology as a more viable belief and that religion is laughable. (it gets extra points for positing an alien overlord, rather than anything as hyper unlikely as a god).

To prove that you have experienced a tree, do you need to prove that a tree exists first?

Well it would be a good start wouldn't it.
Also a thorough and definitive description of the tree would be nice. I note we have a moving target in the nature of god. Just when one aspect gets disproved theists make excuses and shuffle the goal posts.

What I mean is this:
You acknowledge in your use of argumentation that things like the laws of logic exist and universally apply. In order for an atheistic worldview to be consistent, it needs to be able to provide some plausible explanation of this. One of the major arguments for the Christian God put forward is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which argues (to put it very simply, and to give only one aspect of the argument) that if the laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists (equivalently, if the Christian God does not exist, then the laws of logic do not exist). So TAG challenges your assumption that the laws of logic exist.

Utter bullshit of the highest order. The following is a quote from an article in iron chariots.org

logical absolutes are not conceptual by nature. Instead, they are a physical property of reality—observed by humans and pointed to with language.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

Oh and hello by the way, I dont think we've met before.

[Relayer]

Oh and hello by the way, I dont think we've met before.

Hi, nice to meet you. Sadly, I don't think you've understood what I was talking about, as demonstrated by the irrelevance of your responses:

With the Christian God, it is either necessary that He exists or impossible. To say that it is possible, probable or even improbable that He exists leads to the conclusion that He does exist. (This is a conclusion of the modal ontological argument.) So it is not a case of probability with the Christian God.

Thats a bit of a reach and one that I dont agree with. There is zero evidence for the god of the bible. I rate scientology as a more viable belief and that religion is laughable. (it gets extra points for positing an alien overlord, rather than anything as hyper unlikely as a god).

Which one of the sentences I wrote are you talking about? Which claim is "a bit of a reach"? What does evidence have to do with anything I said? Why should your opinion about Christianity and scientology be of any interest?

To prove that you have experienced a tree, do you need to prove that a tree exists first?

Well it would be a good start wouldn't it.
Also a thorough and definitive description of the tree would be nice. I note we have a moving target in the nature of god. Just when one aspect gets disproved theists make excuses and shuffle the goal posts.

Are you honestly serious that observation is not the reason that we believe trees exist? Do you have some kind of a priori argument for the existence of trees???

What I mean is this:
You acknowledge in your use of argumentation that things like the laws of logic exist and universally apply. In order for an atheistic worldview to be consistent, it needs to be able to provide some plausible explanation of this. One of the major arguments for the Christian God put forward is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which argues (to put it very simply, and to give only one aspect of the argument) that if the laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists (equivalently, if the Christian God does not exist, then the laws of logic do not exist). So TAG challenges your assumption that the laws of logic exist.

Utter bullshit of the highest order.

Pleasant. What do you disagree with? Do you disagree that minotza assumes the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent if it cannot explain the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that TAG is one of the major arguments Christians give for the existence of their God? Do you disagree that the purpose of TAG is to challenge the assumptions people make about the laws of logic? And what is the point of your assertion that laws of logic are "physical properties" (leaving aside how bizarre this assertion is)?

[xingli]

I think its safe to say that Strong Atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion (based on the assumption it makes) and may as well be considered a religion itself.

Not in all cases, I don't think. For the Christian god, for example, there are a few proofs that suggest that God CAN'T exist, so he doesn't. For example, the concept of omnipotence, usually ascribed to the Christian god, cannot exist because of logical impossibilities (can he create a rock he can't lift?), therefore the god can't, if it is defined that way.

Just saying, I think it's justified in some cases. For others, naw...