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..

Strong Atheism as defined by Dawkins belief scale (shown here: http://christophersisk.com/dawkins-belief-scale-images/) says "Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God."
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.

I've been exploring a lot of youtube clips lately of news channel and talk show interviews with atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and various others and I've come to the conclusion that theists when structuring their arguments (usually) argue on the premise that all atheists are what Dawkins defines as Strong Atheists. This makes the theists look better then they are to the masses, because in reality its just two religions arguing with each other. I think that in order to show how religion is irrational atheism cannot be viewed in this way. I'm not saying that anyone is actually a Strong Atheist here (to be so is to be irrational and illogical I think), but whether we like it or not that is how the atheistic community is commonly viewed by theists. I think this mostly just stems from lack of understanding on the theists part..but the point I'm trying to make is why is Strong Atheism even mentioned at all? I think all the principles of rationality and logic go against Strong Atheism....right?

My second dilemma:
What is the real difference between a Weak Atheist and a De-facto Atheist in Dawkins belief scale?
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

It seems to me as Dawkins is saying that a Weak Atheist does not let his view point affect his life where as a De-facto Atheist does, and that that is the only difference, since:
"I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical" = "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable..." These two statements are equal, right?

But whether or not you let your viewpoint affect your life says nothing about the correctness of said viewpoint...right? If that's true..why does Dawkins make that distinction? Should atheism ever be a statement about how you live your life, or just about your objective perceptions and observations about life?

My third dilemma:

Wouldn't a Pure Agnostic logically make the next step and become a Weak Atheist?
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

As a pure agnostic you accept that gods existence and non existence have the same probability - which makes perfect sense to me, but the thing is your dealing with probability..so jumping from Pure Agnostic to Weak Atheist would make sense due to the objective things we know about our universe..right?

Thanks for reading, I hope you guys can answer my questions =D

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Welcome minotza.

It's considered good manners to introduce to yourself before posting.

It's been observed that getting a bunch of atheists to agree on anything is like herding cats.Lots of luck getting everyone to agree with your argument


I assert " I do not believe in gods due to lack of evidence". When I began to frequent atheist forums,I found that the large majority of members have pretty much the same view.Such people often refer to themselves as 'agnostic' or'weak atheists'.I do the same for the sake of simplicity, not because I care about the label.

[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.

[Relayer]

due to the objective things we know about our universe

Such as?

[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.

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

[minotza]

due to the objective things we know about our universe

Such as?

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?

[Ashendant]

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

[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..

[Relayer]

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.

[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

---

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.