Total Posts:209|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YYW on Athiesm

YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:15:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why would a weak atheist be of trouble to talk to?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:44:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm curious how you determined anything about strong atheists given that they're so rare. You've probably interacted with fewer than you could count on both hands, yet feel confident enough to describe them all as "too stupid" to interact with. That seems a tad presumptuous.

I'll echo 1harder and wonder what you mean about weak atheists still be trouble.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:45:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.
If the universe were created, YYW, was it of necessity created by a god?

Let me put it another way: if the universe arose as the result of intelligent metaphysical agency, must that agency of necessity have:

1) created this universe deliberately and intentionally?
2) awareness or concern about any beings living within the universe created?
3) a morality compatible with or beneficial for humanity?
4) concern for or engagement with humanity at all?

Let's assume that 1-4) are not necessarily entailed by the creation of the universe.

If the universe were created without all 1-4 being true, is there any reason to treat the universe's creator as a god?

So how is it intellectually dishonest to say that any creator of the universe should not be treated as a god?

Moreover, is there any human theology that has ever demonstrated itself intellectually honest, in the sense of being:
* transparent in its processes for claiming knowledge, and the evidence supporting it;
* accountable for any ignorance and error in its claims; and
* more legitimate in the weight of independent evidence than any other?

If not, then is there any reason not to reject the intellectual dishonesty of theology outright, and point out that all gods are simply products of theology anyway?

That being so, what is intrinsically intellectually dishonest about strong atheism in its:
1) belief that any creator is unworthy of being called a god; and
2) rejection of any beings called gods as the product of intellectually dishonest theologies?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:54:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, can we talk about what it really means to declare that "there is no god?" Let's go through this in proper order. Someone makes a testable god claim, and it fails to pass all tests of its truth. More simply, god = x, !x, therefore !god. In the absence of any other god claims, wouldn't "there is no god" be a correct statement?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:55:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

A post for blowing your own trumpet and it turns out to be a tin whistle.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 4:59:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

- Those who subscribe to SA & WA or otherwise are all believers. They might not believe there is a God, but they believe in some form of Cosmology: Nature, coincidence... or any of the other possible explanations.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 5:03:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

I agree with this, although I would change your definitions around. Your "strong atheists" should be considered the New Atheists, advocated by people like Hitchens and Dawkins, who are generally anti-theists and are bigots who think creationist viewpoints are dangerous to society. Then we have your weak atheists, which I would contribute more to agnosticism than anything else.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 6:15:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

It would take someone devoid of a life to even contemplate someone having a passion for a disbelief.
WOW
Mobutu
Posts: 325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 6:22:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

Agreed. These new Atheists encourage bullying which is a very irresponsible thing to tell anyone to do. It's like a teacher encouraging students to bully another because of their different opinions.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:19:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 6:22:53 AM, Mobutu wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

Agreed. These new Atheists encourage bullying which is a very irresponsible thing to tell anyone to do. It's like a teacher encouraging students to bully another because of their different opinions.

Just think of all those crusades, inquisitions, wars etc started in the name of atheists. What horrid bullies.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:31:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:19:41 AM, desmac wrote:
At 9/22/2015 6:22:53 AM, Mobutu wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

Agreed. These new Atheists encourage bullying which is a very irresponsible thing to tell anyone to do. It's like a teacher encouraging students to bully another because of their different opinions.

Just think of all those crusades, inquisitions, wars etc started in the name of atheists. What horrid bullies.

Yeah but just look how that 2% is persecuting those poor christians now. We've got so many of them in jail already.
mwuahahahaha
smitten
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:52:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life. : :

Have you ever considered that God may be testing His people by using atheists to refute false religious dogma and traditions?
smitten
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 6:22:53 AM, Mobutu wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

Agreed. These new Atheists encourage bullying which is a very irresponsible thing to tell anyone to do. It's like a teacher encouraging students to bully another because of their different opinions. : :

Think of all the Muslims, African-Americans, native Americans, atheists, abortionists and gay people that have been bullied in the name of Jesus.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:20:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

But various religious people are SA too.........in regard to the OTHER GOD conceptions out there.

So are you going to wack the christians and muslims over the head to in regard to their claims that such and such a God does not exist ? or are you just looking the other way on that ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:31:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

This just comes off as a huge false dichotomy. I so much more prefer Dawkins scale over the "Weak and Strong" atheist. It just seems to lump people based on a weak criteria into one or the other, and thus lumps those in the said groups as what you claim SA and WA are.

Most of the SA you meet are very much likely a WA, just are more vocal and argue there is no God, but actually know it's based on the lack of evidence. Most atheist now a day you see on places like the YouTube comments are New 'New Atheist' who are just far more emotional about it because they just got out.

I would say someone asserting there is no God is simply not always based on belief, but rather they see it as they are handed these coins of belief and instead throw them away and say they just reject all beliefs known because no of them logically are true. And the only one could be a deist God, but little thought on it.

At 9/22/2015 7:52:11 AM, smitten wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life. : :

Have you ever considered that God may be testing His people by using atheists to refute false religious dogma and traditions?

That really doesn't make much sense for an all powerful and all knowing God, though.
YYW
Posts: 36,417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 11:41:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.
Tsar of DDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 1:30:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If someone describes god with internal inconsistencies, is it stupidity to say that god doesn't exist?
For example, I.say with certainty that married bachleors do not exist. I say with certainty that square circles do not exist. Is that stupidity?

If someone describes god in a way that is inconsistent with reality, is it stupidity to say that it doesn't exist?
For example, if someone proposed the existence of a sphere that was not made of exotic matter and when near objects with mass it would shoot away from those objects, can I not say that object doesn't exist (as it is inconsistent with our laws of physics)?

I feel that being an SA is justifiable if the definitions of god all seem to be internally or externally incoherent.

IF someome proposes a god with characteristics that are internally and ecternally coherent, that is when SA is not justifiable, but WA is.

So, can one not be an SA in regards to some gods and a WA in regards to others?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 1:44:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:59:53 AM, Yassine wrote:

- Those who subscribe to SA & WA or otherwise are all believers. They might not believe there is a God, but they believe in some form of Cosmology: Nature, coincidence... or any of the other possible explanations.

You do understand the vast difference between a theistic vision and philosophical naturalism, don't you? You can make a fuss about how both are philosophical stances, which is true, but that's just a doomed attempt to obfuscate the glaring differences between the two.

Likewise, there's a distinction to be drawn between believing for good reasons and based on evidence and believing in the absence of good reasons and evidence. Again, both can de described as convictions but that's just a doomed attempt to obfuscate the differences.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 1:54:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life.

I was beginning to wonder, five days after I've registered, when the first of this kind of statements would pop in. Took 120 hours. Someone who deems SA stupid, seems to know the intimate lives of people he doesn't know from Adam well enough that he's comfortable telling them to get a life.

Ah.

So it doesn't occur to you that SAs or WAs might have a passion for scepticism, for science, for knowledge, all of which are foundational to their atheism? And it doesn't occur to you that they might have a passion for a whole lot of unrelated interests, whose mere mention on the Religion forum would be deemed off topic? And it didn't occur to you that some SAs and WAs might have taken on the task to fight zealously back against religion, some of them or all of them, because they have witnessed for themselves the pernicious effects they have had?

It didn't, did it?
Didn't think so.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 2:04:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:03:12 AM, PetersSmith wrote:

I agree with this, although I would change your definitions around. Your "strong atheists" should be considered the New Atheists, advocated by people like Hitchens and Dawkins, who are generally anti-theists and are bigots who think creationist viewpoints are dangerous to society. Then we have your weak atheists, which I would contribute more to agnosticism than anything else.

This is slander.

Hitchens was an anti-theist in the sense that, even though he was unpersuaded of His existence, if faced with the Christian God, Hitchens would still oppose Him. I'd guess Dawkins has a similar albeit mitigated stance.

Neither was a bigot, unless you're prepared to claim that anyone who opposes religious views is. Both Dawkins and Hitchens have been passionate advocates of free speech, which they readily extended to people holding antipodean views.

While they did recognize people's right to defend Creationist viewpoints, they also saw through their problematic nature and called people out on them. Such was their right and there was nothing of bigoted about it.

Bad ideas should be criticized.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This form of the distinction between strong and weak atheism is quite good. I'd align to weak atheism per this definition (i.e. Russell's agnosticism). But if you discredit all strong atheism, you discredit theological non-cognitivism (since that would be -- technically -- a form of strong atheism). On what grounds do you disagree with theological non-cognitivism? I remain largely undecided/lean against it.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 2:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Theists like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While this is a valid statement in some cases (There are no such things a black swans, e.g.) if this absence of evidence is prolonged and universal (as in the case of the Abrahamic deity, the lack of evidence lasting about 4 millennia now) it is reasonable to assume absence until demonstrated by evidence to the contrary. Call it weak, if you wish, but my lack of belief has a firm, evidential basis. I cannot conclusively disprove the existence of some supernatural being but I can refuse to accept assertions that have no evidential underpinnings of any sort.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:52:11 AM, smitten wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:24:33 AM, Wylted wrote:
Definitely WA here, and I actually avoid the religious forum a lot because of a large amount of stupid SAs. I also find it more tolerable that people would be passionate about things they believe than things they disbelieve. Anyone who has a passion for atheism, really needs to get a life. : :

Have you ever considered that God may be testing His people by using atheists to refute false religious dogma and traditions?

Nope
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 1:30:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
If someone describes god with internal inconsistencies, is it stupidity to say that god doesn't exist?
For example, I.say with certainty that married bachleors do not exist. I say with certainty that square circles do not exist. Is that stupidity?

If someone describes god in a way that is inconsistent with reality, is it stupidity to say that it doesn't exist?
For example, if someone proposed the existence of a sphere that was not made of exotic matter and when near objects with mass it would shoot away from those objects, can I not say that object doesn't exist (as it is inconsistent with our laws of physics)?

I feel that being an SA is justifiable if the definitions of god all seem to be internally or externally incoherent.

IF someome proposes a god with characteristics that are internally and ecternally coherent, that is when SA is not justifiable, but WA is.

So, can one not be an SA in regards to some gods and a WA in regards to others?

This is silly. The question is whether some sort of God exists, not a specific one.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:07:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 2:13:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
Theists like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While this is a valid statement in some cases (There are no such things a black swans, e.g.) if this absence of evidence is prolonged and universal (as in the case of the Abrahamic deity, the lack of evidence lasting about 4 millennia now) it is reasonable to assume absence until demonstrated by evidence to the contrary. Call it weak, if you wish, but my lack of belief has a firm, evidential basis. I cannot conclusively disprove the existence of some supernatural being but I can refuse to accept assertions that have no evidential underpinnings of any sort.

Obviously
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:10:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 4:07:39 AM, YYW wrote:
I've debated making this post for many months, but I feel like now is the time before my sleeping pill kicks in.

Atheism ("A") exists in two kinds, strong atheism ("SA") and weak atheism ("WA"). SA is the belief that there is no god, whereas WA is the emphasis on the fact that there is no proof of any god. SA is intellectually dishonest, whereas WA is not.

People who believe in SA ("SAs") are people who generally don't understand the metaphysical implications of their beliefs. The reason for this is simple: SAs believe with a kind of militant zeal in something which cannot be proven; which is to say that they are hypocrites because they are implicitly believing in something by "faith" alone, as there is no way to believe in anything in the absence of sufficient evidence without faith. It can be taken for granted that there is not sufficient evidence to say that, as a point of fact, that there is no god. It's nonsense, because you can't prove it.

People who believe in WA ("WAs") are people who may or may not understand, or at least be able to articulate the metaphysical implications of their beliefs, but are at least typically more intellectually self aware than SAs. This is not nonsense, because it is a claim that reflects that is consistent with reality: the existence of any god cannot be proven.

Yet, SAs are typically the people who are the least clever (in that they believe things with faith, while criticizing faith generally) but the most dedicated to inflicting their beliefs on others. So, there is some irony to what they're doing. These are generally people who are too stupid for me to interact with. Of course, this is very sad for them. WAs can also be trouble, but they tend to be trouble to a much less degree than SAs because they are self aware enough to know what they do not know.

All straightforward stuff, but as a point of policy the implication here is that the first thing that anyone who desires to discuss atheism with people is that they should identify if an atheist is an SA or a WA. SA's are too stupid to talk too. WA's might not be, but they might be not conversation worthy for other reasons.

My stance on this issue is that is it oversimplified by the use of those terms. I've dissected this issue myself, to a decent degree.

When someone or a religion makes a claim that God exists, their claim can be broken into two separate claims:

#1. God exists
#2. My description of God is correct.

Unless you are omniscient, it is illogical to assert that there is no God AT ALL (antitheism), which pertains to claim #1. Those who do not accept claim #1 lack belief in God and, therefore, do not have a corresponding claim #2. Additionally, deists accept claim #1 but do not make a claim #2, so believing that deism is absolutely false is equally illogical.

Regarding claim #2, every religion and holy book provides information about God. Subsequently, every theist derives their idea of God from some source, which is subject to interpretation or un/conscious manipulation, especially when fine details are not given. If every theist's individual concept of God were to be broken down to the most tiny and intricate details possible, then I would bet that no two theist would have the exact same concept of God.

For this reason, I make the analogy that claim #1 is like a blank mannequin which acts as more of a placeholder that represents God in a generic sense. Claim #2 is represented by a mask, which every theist applies to the mannequin which defines then God. Every religion, denomination, and even every theist has a different mask that they have for God (as explained above). From the perspective of those who make these claims, the mask and the mannequin are one single object (because that it what it is if it's the truth), whereas, to those from outside their view, they are seen as separate.

My stance is that since the "mask" represents information that is asserted about a God, only that information can be falsified by contradiction within itself or with truths that we know with certainly about the natural world (provided that the assertion is supported in some way). A person who is able to analyze the asserted description of God is fully justified in asserting that description of God cannot exist if logical inconsistencies are found, but that does not pertain to the general existence of God.

Essentially, the concepts of strong atheism and weak atheism were created from the perspective of Christian theists who believe that their idea of a one true God is the only possibility (because it's true), so those terms only legitimately apply to that notion of God (claim #2), and not to the general existence of God (claim #1).

With this reasoning, I could assert that every non-deistic God that I have every seen claimed is outright false, while still maintaining that I am a weak atheist in that I do not assert that *some* God does not exist. I can assert that Yahweh, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are false as a weak atheist because I am merely claiming that descriptions are not possible.

Please knock me in the head if this seems nonsensical. But, if you don't give me a reason as to why, I get to knock you in the head right back. :)
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 3:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 3:07:11 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 9/22/2015 2:13:46 PM, dhardage wrote:
Theists like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While this is a valid statement in some cases (There are no such things a black swans, e.g.) if this absence of evidence is prolonged and universal (as in the case of the Abrahamic deity, the lack of evidence lasting about 4 millennia now) it is reasonable to assume absence until demonstrated by evidence to the contrary. Call it weak, if you wish, but my lack of belief has a firm, evidential basis. I cannot conclusively disprove the existence of some supernatural being but I can refuse to accept assertions that have no evidential underpinnings of any sort.

Obviously

I would think so but you might be surprised at the number of people who either cannot or will not understand my position.