Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[Tricky]

In view of what I sense is a rather unsavory reputation the appellation "atheist" carries, it's too bad they choose to hide their good works from public acclaim.

The goal of almost all charities is to not only do good things, but to encourage others to help them. Any charity which openly advertises themselves as atheist is unlikely to garner much assistance from the general populace, thanks to the calumny that has been leveled at them for so many years.

I sometimes help Christian charities, in fact, I did a stint at a self-labeled Christian homeless shelter just a couple of weeks ago. I cannot imagine any Christian helping out at a self-labeled atheist homeless shelter, but they might if the shelter said nothing about their affiliation.

 

[Mr Clingford]

...I sometimes help Christian charities, in fact, I did a stint at a self-labeled Christian homeless shelter just a couple of weeks ago.

Very commendable, but seems in character with you.

I cannot imagine any Christian helping out at a self-labeled atheist homeless shelter, but they might if the shelter said nothing about their affiliation.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me more a paucity of imagination. Without doubt may millions, perhaps, unfortunately, would not help out, but many would; Jesus says whatever is done for the sick, poor etc is done for him, so even the Bible supports a Xtian helping the work of such an atheist charity, and the charity itself. Of course, if this atheist charity was more interested in trying to deconvert than aid, the xtian might not be welcome .

 

[Tricky]

Are you sure about that? It seems to me more a paucity of imagination. Without doubt may millions, perhaps, unfortunately, would not help out, but many would; Jesus says whatever is done for the sick, poor etc is done for him, so even the Bible supports a Xtian helping the work of such an atheist charity, and the charity itself. Of course, if this atheist charity was more interested in trying to deconvert than aid, the xtian might not be welcome .

Of course I can't be sure about it because there are no self-labled atheist shelters. Sometimes we get things that say "multi-faith" or universalist or such non-specific labels.

However, it seems that you run with a different sort of Christian than is the usual over here. If adding "atheist" to a name would help participation, they would do it. But I believe it wouldn't. It would hurt participation.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Now, you see that all depends where you live. Over here, being a christian would actually carry a more unsavoury reputation than being an atheist.

I'll ensure your point is discussed, though - it's worth considation, if simply because of the fact that there aren't openly atheist groups showing charitable aims.

One must consider the number of atheist organizations vs. the number of non-atheist organizations. When one considers that atheists are a small minority and that their organization is limited and generally informal, especially when compared to most religions, it is not surprising that there are few "atheist charitable organizations". That is far from evidence that individual atheists are less likely to engage in philanthropy than theists.

 

[Mr Clingford]

In Britain if there was a labelled 'Atheist Charity of St Randi' people would either say, 'Sounds like dangerous fundamentalism to me' or 'Atheist Charity' - is that religious?' in our ignorance and general uninterestedness.

I'm afraid for you but glad for me that I do run with a different pack of Christian than is the usual American one.

 

[joobz]

NZ's a funny place - Australia's very similar when it comes to religion. While just over 40% of people identify themselves with mainstream christianity, only a miniscule number of them attend church - ever. I watched an Anglican vicar welcome his THREE parishioners to a service at one church yesterday. Most of those 40-odd% wouldn't class themselves as "christian" if asked - it's more of a reflex action, "Mum and dad were Anglicans, so I must be." The vast majority of these people will also have secular funerals, conducted at a funeral chapel rather than a church.

Religion is so low on the radar here that people who are openly christian are seen as a bit odd. Plus, we've had a number of fundamentals attract really bad press here in recent times and they are seen as very cultish.

Is that why you have so many hobbits?

 

[Foster Zygote]

In Britain if there was a labelled 'Atheist Charity of St Randi' people would either say, 'Sounds like dangerous fundamentalism to me' or 'Atheist Charity' - is that religious?' in our ignorance and general uninterestedness.

I'm afraid for you but glad for me that I do run with a different pack of Christian than is the usual American one.

Well, I don't know that I would say "usual". There are certainly many level-headed Christians in the U.S., many of whom are among my dearest friends and family. But there is just as certainly a much greater population of narrow-minded fundamentalist than in most other countries. Here in South Carolina they can be particularly unnerving. I'm just 15 minutes drive from a place called Bob Jones University. Look it up if you'd like a fright.


I must say that even as an atheist if I had the means to establish a charitable foundation I would not label it as "atheist". It would definitely be secular, but I just don't think that whether one is of a certain religious faith or lack thereof is what's important when one is helping one's fellow humans. Atheism is an important part of my identity, but then again, so is jazz. I wouldn't establish a Bebop oriented charity either.


I must say I've enjoyed your participation in this forum Mr. Clingford. I hope you enjoy it too and will stay for a long time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Is that why you have so many hobbits?

Oh, Joobz. Hobbits are make believe, like elves, fairies and Eskimos.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, I don't know that I would say "usual". There are certainly many level-headed Christians in the U.S., many of whom are among my dearest friends and family. But there is just as certainly a much greater population of narrow-minded fundamentalist than in most other countries. Here in South Carolina they can be particularly unnerving. I'm just 15 minutes drive from a place called Bob Jones University. Look it up if you'd like a fright.

I was in no way intending to impugn the good name of many American Christians, including the dozens I have met online. I was thinking instead in terms of numbers, of that 'greater population'. I am glad you know several of the less extreme members of the Christian family.

... I just don't think that whether one is of a certain religious faith or lack thereof is what's important when one is helping one's fellow humans. Atheism is an important part of my identity, but then again, so is jazz. I wouldn't establish a Bebop oriented charity either.

Yes. I like the quote attributed to Francis of Assisi:

"Preach the gospel at all times - if necessary, use words"

Clothing and feeding someone says more about love than a thousand words (and God, if you are religious, and man, if you're not!).

I must say I've enjoyed your participation in this forum Mr. Clingford. I hope you enjoy it too and will stay for a long time.

Thank you for your welcome.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So how about we start an organization called Atheists for Feeding Starving Religious Babies? I bet we could find a few in Africa or India.

~~ Paul

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, Joobz. Hobbits are make believe, like elves, fairies and Eskimos.

Now you're just being silly. There's a whole town full of 'em.

 

[The Atheist]

One must consider the number of atheist organizations vs. the number of non-atheist organizations. When one considers that atheists are a small minority and that their organization is limited and generally informal, especially when compared to most religions, it is not surprising that there are few "atheist charitable organizations". That is far from evidence that individual atheists are less likely to engage in philanthropy than theists.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

I would still be very interested to know details of comparative time and money spent on charity by atheists vs christians.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's exactly what I've been saying.

I would still be very interested to know details of comparative time and money spent on charity by atheists vs christians.

I would too, but that's probably going to be hard data to come by. Meanwhile, I guess Hammegk will just continue to believe that atheists are morally inferior.

 

[hammegk]

Morally inferior to what?

I didn't suggest all egotistical cheapskates are atheists.

 

[joobz]

Morally inferior to what?

I didn't suggest all egotistical cheapskates are atheists.

No. You seem to hold your major disdain towards dualists...
or maybe duelists. I haven't quite figured that out.

 

[hammegk]

I have no problem with duelists.

And I only point out the illogic of dualism.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

you're right. That was just a thought I had last night. I didn't think of the desire of being revered after death.

Although, I have to say that I'm not such a cynic. It's easy to make the "no selfless acts" claim. But I still have faith in the human condition.

Well, in the mode of Christian thought, there is such a thing as a selfless act. The best example is in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," where Huck, going against his entire culture and religion, is willing to go to Hell rather than betray his friend. Disobeying the imaginary god in the sky and putting justice above reward would be very virtuous indeed.

 

[Tricky]

Well, in the mode of Christian thought, there is such a thing as a selfless act. The best example is in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," where Huck, going against his entire culture and religion, is willing to go to Hell rather than betray his friend. Disobeying the imaginary god in the sky and putting justice above reward would be very virtuous indeed.

Yes, and he was roundly criticized for it, including by the priggish Louisa May Allcot.

Mark Twain anticipated the "crickit" problem when he first published Huckleberry Finn in 1884. In a prefatory notice he warned that persons attempting to find either motive, moral or plot in the novel would be respectively prosecuted, banished or shot. It was like a carrot farmer putting up a no-trespass sign for rabbits. The book was pounced on immediately by the upholders of the well-made novel and 19th century gentility. Most critics found it shapeless, and vulgar. "If Mr. Clemens cannot think of something better to tell our pure-minded lads and lasses," said Louisa May Alcott, "he had best stop writing for them." Such scoldings came despite Mark Twain's prepublication agreement to eliminate references to blasphemy, bad odors, dead cats, and to change the phrase "in a sweat" to "worrying."

 

[Halden]

• 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 believe that Strong Atheism requires believe that there is no God based on a lack of evidence for his existence which is not entirely rational but makes for a better stance when debating. I, however, would lean more toward the weak Atheism as I see no proof or reason to believe in a God or Gods but would be open if someone were able to prove it.

I feel similarly to strong Agnosticism to say that it is unknowable is setting limits on ourselves that maybe unnecessary. I think that weak Agnosticism is the more rational view as God/Gods existence is unknown but only because we have no evidence to prove or disprove.

 

[Beerina]

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?

And how does it differ from a "strong athiest" if you behave in every way as if there is no god anyway?

I believe there are no unicorns, either. Does that mean there never was a horselike animal that happened to have a genetic defect with a horn coming out of its forehead? No. Does that mean there are no other planets with life that might have such a similar animal? No.

So technically I would be a "weak a-unicornist"? Sorry!

Actually, the a-priori argument for God works against it in this case. I claim that concept is simply illogical, and thus impossible. Thus the standard Western concept of god describes something that cannot exist. Hence I would be a strong athiest, if a weak a-unicornist.

Note that this doesn't exclude the possibility of powerful beings ala Sagan's Contact, who could stand toe-to-toe with all the things God in the Old Testament did. But that's not a "god" in the religious sense, but merely a hyper-advanced scientific intelligence.

It's also interesting that Sagan, in the novel anyway, suggests things that only the creator of logic could do, like embed messages in the digits of PI.