Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[scepticat]

I came across these definitions on wikipedia.

• Strong atheists claim that there is no god or gods.
• Weak atheists claim have no belief in god, but no not reject the possibility of god or gods might exist.
• Strong agnostics claim that the existence of god is unknowable.
• Weak agnostics claim that the existence of god in unknown.

I tried to figure out which one is the most rational position.

Strong atheism seems to require a specific proof that god doesn't or can't exist. I have seen no such proof. No, lack of evidence isn't a proof.

Strong agnosticism requires that it be impossible for a diety to reveal itself to humans. Not sure how one would go about backing up a claim like that.

Weak agnostics are claiming that no one knows. Being that there are 6+ billion of us, it would be hard to demonstrate that no one knows.

Weak atheism seems to be the most justifiable viewpoint, if only because it doesn't claim anything at all.

Without arguing over the definitions, which one seems the most reasonable to you?

 

[Tricky]

You don't have to choose. They are not mutually exclusive. Theism refers to belief, gnosticism to knowledge.

Gnostic Theist - Believe in god(s) and claims to have knowledge of god(s)

Agnostic Theist - Believes in god(s) but does not claim to have certain knowledge of god(s)

Agnostic Atheist - Does not believe in god(s), but does not claim to know for sure.

Gnostic Agthist - Claims to know for certain no god(s) exist.

***
In my opinion, gnostic anything is foolish. Nobody holds complete knowledge of the universe.

 

[chriswl]

Strong atheists are sometimes said to "believe that there is no God" which is perhaps subtly different from "claim that there is no God" or even "know that there is no God".

For some definitions of God we can legitimately claim to be certain of his non-existence on the grounds that the definitions lead to logical contradictions or are not consistent with the way the world is. For example, I regard the Problem of Evil as a knockout argument against the Christian God.

The irony is that the more theologically sophisticated the God-definitions get the more they leave themselves open to arguments that they are contradictory or just completely empty. More primitive gods however, can't strictly be disproved. You can't say for sure there's no Thor - he might turn up one day and give us a lightning show and entertain us with his reminiscences about the old days.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I am a weak atheist and a weak agnostic. There used to be a chart someone had where you can attempt to classify yourself. Many skeptics are weak atheist/weak agnostic. (I would also be an agnostic atheist by Tricky's definition)

 

[joller]

No, lack of evidence isn't a proof.

It is in conditions where evidence would be strongly expected, like i.e. the abominable snowman. Plus you'd have to define God, and his/her nature. It is possible to show that God couldn't be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent at the same time.
Of course, there are theists that argue holocaust was there to give Jews the opportunity to be brave etc...


My position is than we can never be 100% certain God doesnt exist, but the probability is so small, we can safely assume he doesn't, otherwise we'd have to remain sceptical about everything, including Sagan's dragon and Thaiboxerken's armpit monster.

 

[hammegk]

None of 'em are rational, but at least Strong Atheism "There is not, cannot, be a god." can be used a logical defense of that worldview.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I'm a militant agnostic:

 

[fuelair]

I assume there isn't - because if there is I need to take it out.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

None of 'em are rational, but at least Strong Atheism "There is not, cannot, be a god." can be used a logical defense of that worldview.

So it's your viewpoint that neither theism, atheism, agnosticism, or any of the variations of the same are rational at all? New one on me. Are you suggesting that a rational viewpoint is impossible (which is itself a viewpoint) or that there is some unlisted viewpoint?

I'd best fit in the weak atheist category. I can't think of a single person I've met who fits the strong atheist definition. I don't believe, as I've seen no reason to believe, and I have no expectations of future evidence, but I am open to being shown evidence. I see nothing irrational about this viewpoint.

 

[Squishua]

God n 1. God a. a perfect being conceived as the creator of the universe and worshipped in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers of attributes, believed in and worshipped by a people, esp. a male deity. 3. An image of such a being. 4. One that is worshipped, idealized, or followed. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot.
(The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed.)

God 1a is a complete fairy tale. By extension, 1b is also a fairy tale.

God 2 is also a fairy tale, mostly because of the term "supernatural." If it happens in nature, it is not supernatural. If it doesn't happen, it isn't real (that's a tautology, I know). God 2 exists only as an idea created by humans.

Gods 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all quite real. Praise the lord! I'm a theist!

Hmm. Now I don't know what I am!

-Squish

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

For some definitions of God we can legitimately claim to be certain of his non-existence on the grounds that the definitions lead to logical contradictions or are not consistent with the way the world is.

And at least one God concept, the Taoist/pantheist concept that God is simply the sum total of everything that exists, is undeniable. Similarly the Spinozan concept.

 

[hammegk]

So it's your viewpoint that neither theism, atheism, agnosticism, or any of the variations of the same are rational at all?

Theism was not under discussion, but most versions are not rational.

New one on me. Are you suggesting that a rational viewpoint is impossible (which is itself a viewpoint) or that there is some unlisted viewpoint?

See next comment.

And at least one God concept, the Taoist/pantheist concept that God is simply the sum total of everything that exists, is undeniable. Similarly the Spinozan concept.

I'd best fit in the weak atheist category. I can't think of a single person I've met who fits the strong atheist definition.

Few people have the cojones to defend the 100% Atheist view.

The rest of the OP choices devolve into some form of dualism, all of which are irrational and illogical.

I don't believe, as I've seen no reason to believe, and I have no expectations of future evidence, but I am open to being shown evidence. I see nothing irrational about this viewpoint.

Hint: "Supernatural" is a word coined by materialists.

If it effects or affects "Reality Stuff", it's made of the same "Stuff". Your logical choice, based on your knowledge and understanding of perceived reality, is of the monism you prefer to defend.


I'm a 100% ~materialist/atheist; my position could be termed objective idealism.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Theism was not under discussion, but most versions are not rational.

You're right. Sorry about that.

And at least one God concept, the Taoist/pantheist concept that God is simply the sum total of everything that exists, is undeniable. Similarly the Spinozan concept.

Yeah, but that's not really addressing god at all. That's just a semantic rename of "the universe" with none of the baggage of god. I might as well rename my toes "god" and say that gods exist on the end of my feet. While true, it doesn't say anything except that I mess around with words.

Few people have the cojones to defend the 100% Atheist view.

The rest of the OP choices devolve into some form of dualism, all of which are irrational and illogical.

What do you mean? How do they devolve into "dualism"? All I'm saying is I see no evidence of god's existence and thus have no reason to believe in said existence. I see nothing dualistic about that. I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Hint: "Supernatural" is a word coined by materialists.

If it effects or affects "Reality Stuff", it's made of the same "Stuff". Your logical choice, based on your knowledge and understanding of perceived reality, is of the monism you prefer to defend.


I'm a 100% ~materialist/atheist; my position could be termed objective idealism.

What? I'm saying that if someone asks if I believe in god, I say "I have no reason to, therefor I don't". That's it. I have no idea what you're talking about. What is "objective idealism"? What do you mean by "monism"? My understanding of reality is based on observations of it, a lot of them done by people smarter than me, that's all. You seem to also be a materialist so this doesn't seem to be about some lifegazer style "reality doesn't exist" thing. So, what's up? Are you basically saying "I think these two things but not really for logic but just because it's my personal preference."? Also, 100%? So, does that mean that like me you don't think god exists for the same reason you don't think santa exists, or are you going even further and stating "I can never be convinced that god exists, even if evidence is presented", which is the step I fall short of because it's just saying you only BELIEVE god doesn't exist, and well being right for the wrong reasons is still wrong. It's like saying "1 + 1 = 2 because every addition problem equals 2". Right answer, bad work.

 

[CP489]

How is weak atheism illogical?

I see no evidence there is a God, so I don't believe there is one.

There may be one, there may be evidence, I just haven't seen it.

Where's the failure in logic?

 

[chriswl]

And at least one God concept, the Taoist/pantheist concept that God is simply the sum total of everything that exists, is undeniable. Similarly the Spinozan concept.

That's what I meant by definitions that are "empty". The "God" idea here adds nothing to what we already know exists so it can be dropped.

 

[Darat]

As always - start by defining your terms i.e. God, then it's easy.

 

[Rufo]

And if we are bringing in the problem of evil as 'evidence' against certain Gods, we would need several other definitions as well.

You don't have to choose. They are not mutually exclusive. Theism refers to belief, gnosticism to knowledge.

While this is entirely true, the term 'agnostic' is often used to describe those who are neither theists or atheists, who take no position. It really shouldn't be, since the positions are different, but it still is due to the lack of a term to describe the 'fence sitters'. Since the argument for this position usually derives from agnosticism (Nobody knows/can know of God's existance/nonextistance, so I refuse to take a position without knowledge), these people often refer to themselves as agnostics only, which I can find understandable.

Being such a person myself, I suggested the term kathomaiphrachtesism (from Greek káthomai "to sit" and phráchtes "fence"). However, it seems it never won much popularity compared to the old misuse of 'agnostic'.

I'm a militant agnostic:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/23084574cc78e14d6.jpg[/qimg]

Heh. Maybe I should get one of those...

 

[chriswl]

And if we are bringing in the problem of evil as 'evidence' against certain Gods, we would need several other definitions as well.

The evidence is the imperfection of our world. The only definition we then need is God as omni-everything and its clear that the two things are not compatible.

It's a slam-dunk really, but the vehemence with which theists argue their case is usually indirectly proportional to how strong their argument is. So this argument, being a real killer, has generated volumes and volumes of sophistry designed to counter it.

This has largely been successful in producing the perception that the problem is really very subtle and complicated. This overlooks the fact that not one of the apologist counter-arguments is actually any good.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've never heard a definition of god that made any sense, therefore I am a Strong Incoherentist.

~~ Paul

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I've never heard a definition of god that made any sense, therefore I am a Strong Incoherentist.

~~ Paul

Too bad the Pentecostals beat you all to the speaking in tongues ritual.