Strident Atheist Atheists

[Ashwin_s]

@nwrickert

That’s why I prefer to call myself “agnostic” rather than “atheist”. I just don’t find any attraction to atheist groups. But perhaps “apatheist” would be a more accurate term than “agnostic”.

your being apathetic makes sense because you are not sure there are any answers. Its a perfectly natural response to be apathetic to a question for which one does not hope to find an answer.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

Belief involves a strong conviction that something is true even though “proof positive” is not available.

And atheism does not require such a “strong conviction”, so it is not a belief.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

atheism does not require such a “strong conviction ”, so it is not a belief.

There are various degrees to belief (strong, weak etc)…
I think you are making a non existent distinction. Perhaps you are not comfortable with recognizing your beliefs as beliefs.

[Ashwin_s]

@Dan_Eastwood:

I propose another definition for a “strident athiest”.
Someone who strongly believes that God doesn’t exist while stridently denying any belief.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

I think you are making a non existent distinction.

Well, they’re our beliefs, or lack thereof, to split.

That there is a widely held view, including among academics, that there is a difference between Strong and Weak Atheism is a well-documented fact. You may disagree with that view, but you cannot pretend that it does not exist.

The fact that the difference doesn’t make any sense to many non-atheists is no more surprising that the fact that many finer points of Christian theology don’t make much sense to many non-Christians.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

That there is a widely held view, including among academics, that there is a difference between Strong and Weak Atheism is a well-documented fact . You may disagree with that view, but you cannot pretend that it does not exist.

I am just pointing out that the position you have defined as “weak athiesm” is logically inconsistent. People believe a lot of logically inconsistent things. And academics document such beliefs. That’s beside the point.

@Tim

The fact that the difference doesn’t make any sense to many non-atheists is no more surprising that the fact that many finer points of Christian theology don’t make much sense to many non-Christians.

The difference doesn’t make sense to me because its not logically consistent.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

I am just pointing out that the position you have defined as “weak athiesm” is logically inconsistent.

You may be asserting that point, but I don’t think you have proven it as a matter of Formal Logic.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

You may be asserting that point, but I don’t think you have proven it as a matter of Formal Logic.

Why don’t you show your claim using formal logic?

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

Why don’t you show your claim using formal logic?

Because I’m not making any formal claim, I’m merely doubting that you have shown the soft atheist/agnostic atheist position to be “logically inconsistent”. The burden of proof is on you to show that this position is inconsistent as a matter of (formal) logic.

Can you, for example, prove that soft atheism/agnostic atheism entails contradictory positions?

Can you prove that it entails a demonstrably false proposition?

Etc.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

Can you, for example, prove that soft atheism/agnostic atheism entails contradictory positions?

Can you prove that it entails a demonstrably false proposition?

If you read above, i hav alread demonstrated that “Soft athiesm” as described by @T_aquaticus is the same as not coming to a conclusion on the subject. (In which case, it would be more accurate to classify his stand on God’s existence as “not able to conclude”.
In your case, you identify “Soft athiesm” with having coming to a " provisional conclusion" without “proof positive” that God doesn’t exist. That’s the same as sayng you believe God does not exist.

In Short, “soft” athiesm breaks down into either not having come to a conclusion on whether God exists (In which case the lack of belief is applied equally to all statements about God) , or a belief (albeit a “provisional” one) that God does not exist.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

1. Even if I accepted your ‘demonstration’ that it “is the same as not coming to a conclusion on the subject” (I don’t), it still does not demonstrate that soft atheism is “logically inconsistent” – that is a far higher hurdle, and a far more rigorously defined one. It is a matter of formal logic, and cannot be met without some fairly rigorous and precise argumentation.

2. Atheism is not a stand simply on the existence of (the Christian) God, it is a stand on the existence of Gods more generally. As the Wikipedia article points out, it is perfectly consistent for an atheist to be harder or softer on different theist worldviews. Speaking for myself, the ‘hardness’ of my atheism is necessarily limited by my degree of knowledge of the worldview in question. For worldviews I haven’t even heard of, I can neither actively believe or actively disbelieve to any extent at all, and may reasonably be termed what George H. Smith calls an “implicit atheist” – see Implicit and explicit atheism - Wikipedia

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

Even if I accepted your ‘demonstration’ that it “is the same as not coming to a conclusion on the subject” (I don’t), it still does not demonstrate that soft atheism is “logically inconsistent”

It only demonstrates that if soft athiesm is about lack of belief, it applies to belief in God/gods not existing as much as the opposite.
So an athiest could also say I lack belief in the idea that God does not exist.

I haven’t ever heard any athiest say the above.

Edit: Soft athiesm is a strange position. You lack belief in theism. You lack belief in “strong athiesm”… you are agnostic about agnosticism.

So it’s strange to associate this position with athiesm… it could as well be called agnostic agnosticism.

[Tim]

@Ashwin_s

You lack belief in “strong athiesm”…

No. “Strong atheism” isn’t a belief in anything, so you cannot (other than via linguistic gymnastics) “lack belief” in it.

I’ve tried to explain it to you. I’ve pointed to Wikipedia articles explaining it. At this point the issue has long-since devolved into flogging a dead horse. You don’t like the standard definitions of “atheism” and/or “agnosticism”? At this point I don’t really care. And the serious philosophers who have written about the topic probably never did.

It was clear from your initial posts on the topic that you had little idea as to how atheists see the world. It is not clear from your posts since that anything we say to you will bring understanding.

[Ashwin_s]

@Tim

No. “Strong atheism” isn’t a belief in anything, so you cannot (other than via linguistic gymnastics) “lack belief” in it.

refer your own wiki article on strong athiesm:
Explicit " positive " / " strong " / " hard " atheists assert that “At least one deity exists” is false.

How do you assert something is false without believing it is false?

Edit: The weak athiest definition is worse :
Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right ) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that “at least one deity exists” is a false statement.

How does one reject the belief that any deities exist while at the same time not assert that “atleast one deity exists” is a false statement?
Isn’t this verbal gymnastics? when one eschew belief that deities exist, you are believing that dieties do not exist.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

There’s another reason for being agnostic rather than atheist. It avoids all of these ridiculous arguments about the meaning of “atheist”.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

Ok let’s list out the options:

A. You believe your house is on fire.
B. You dont believe your house is on fire.
C. You don’t have an belief on the subject as you dont know enough.

If an athiest holds to option C on God, then he/she doesn’t lack belief. He/she just haven’t come to a conclusion on the subject.

A better example would be:

C: You believe your house is not on fire.

In your example, atheists would be both B and C, with “weak” atheists simply lacking a belief that their house is on fire, but also keeping the possibility open. “Strong” atheists would hold the position that their house is definitely not on fire.

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

Yes, that condition is described as not knowing.

No, it isn’t. It is described as not believing. Believing and knowing are two different things.

@Ashwin_s

You must have seen this in questionaires:
For example:
Pick one of the below:
Trump is a good president.
Trump is not a good president.
Dont know.

“I don’t know if Trump is a good president, but I believe he is.”

Could that be an option?

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

It only demonstrates that if soft athiesm is about lack of belief, it applies to belief in God/gods not existing as much as the opposite.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
What is Atheism? - American Atheists

[Dan_Eastwood]

Ahem.

Atheism: The We-Don't-Play-Golf Club

I thought it might be worthwhile to open a discussion for members here to ask about atheists and atheism. I am a moderator/owner of a large atheism community on Google Plus, and I think this has given me a very broad experience with people who consider themselves atheists. I will try to answer any questions as honestly and objectively as I can. Here’s a few starters: Atheism has been likened to a “club for people who don’t play golf”. (I think I learned that from @Patrick.) I describe it as a negative trait, meaning one that is lacking rather than “bad”. Atheism does not describe any qualities a person may possess. “Atheist” is itself an odd term IMO, because we do not general describe groups of people by attributes that do not apply. Ex: A-golfers, A-bowlers, A-vegetarians, A-philatelists, etc… Atheists do not “believe in nothing.” There are a lot of sub-groups that fall under the umbrella of atheism. To name a few: anti-theists (the angry bunch) anarchists agnostics agnostic…

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

In your example, atheists would be both B and C, with “weak” atheists simply lacking a belief that their house is on fire, but also keeping the possibility open. “Strong” atheists would hold the position that their house is definitely not on fire.

Let’s look at the strong athiests here. How do they hold the position that their house is definitely not on fire without belief that the house is not on fire? (belief implies being convinced something is true without definitive evidence).
Strong athiests hold a belief that the house is not on fire. This is not simply a “lack of belief” in the opposite.

As to your categorisation of weak athiests. Would you be ok with describing theists as people who “lack disbelief” provided they are open to the possibility of God not existing?

@T_aquaticus

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

You claim athiesm is simply a “rejection of the assertion that there gods”. This is not what the wiki article cited by @Tim says. I have quoted it above. It defines Strong athiesm as below :

Explicit " positive " / " strong " / " hard " atheists assert that “At least one deity exists” is false.

How does one assert something is false without believing it is false?

And lets look at definition of weak athiesm :

Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right ) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that “at least one deity exists” is a false statement.

Isn’t rejecting or eschewing belief the same as disbelief? Disbelief is the refusal to accept something as true. It is also the lack of belief.

Saying that athiesm is lack of belief and not disbelief is the same as saying theism is not belief in God/gods but lack of disbelief. It’s a nonsensical statement which is self contradictory.