‘Weak’ isn’t intended as derogatory here, but refers to the strength of the assumptions needed to justify one’s position—typically, the weaker, the better, as strong assumptions need strong justifications. A ‘weaker’ position is then one that’s more easily defensible—if you make few or no assumptions, there’s little to attack. So somewhat paradoxically, weak positions are strong, in this sense.
(This is a typical usage, by the way, in mathematics and physics—you often find results improving on earlier work by weakening the assumptions that went into a proof.)
Firstly, as a self-described agnostic it really pisses me off that pretty much every thread on atheism/agnosticism devolves rapidly into the same fucking semantic debate.
For clarity’s sake, here’s my position which, as I said, I consider to fall under the broad category of agnosticism:
Now if I could drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the OP: I’m likely one of the people the OP is talking about. I see no rational reason to believe - or evidence to suggest - that gods or a soul or an afterlife of any kind exist, but I still consider it tragic that we live brief lives on this mortal coil and then end, with whatever accumulated wisdom and experience we have gained being pointlessly lost. Note that in no way am I saying “It makes me sad that this appears to be the way things are” is an argument against it being the way things are, but nonetheless it would certainly be nice if there was a wider point and purpose to life, the universe and everything.
But is there a specific term for this viewpoint? Not as far as I know.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. I hadn’t considered that. Though I have to say that, in general, that view of “weak” and “strong” is probably not the norm for general conversations.
It is also clearly a position that falls under the category of “atheist” as well.
You are an atheist first. That is the most basic (and least interesting and descriptive) way to describe yourself. You also then go further and call yourself an agnostic.
atheist/agnostic is not an either/or proposition seeing as one could quite happily be a theist or a deist and still be agnostic.
Yes. Whether they BELIEVE in God/gods or not (some do, some don’t), agnostics think that it’s not something subject to proofs or ‘knowing’. It’s one of the things that distinguishes agnostics from atheists, who mainly ‘know’ that there is no God/gods (not getting into strong verse weak atheists).
Well, I definitely am a weak atheist then. I can’t say there IS no god. That’s unknowable. I can say I don’t believe there’s one, but I hope there is one, and I especially hope there’s an afterlife. I also sometimes hope there’s a hell when I read an especially horrible headline.
I also think it’s riculous when atheists say there’s no god, but there’s an almost a 100% chance we’re living in a computer simulation like the Matrix. That’s just ridiculous. So who made the Matrix man? And who made the maker of the Matrix? Ridiculous.
Well I read your own definition and nowhere in it did you say you believed in the existence of a god or gods. It is possible I’ve misinterpreted what you’ve said.
That’s fine, we can clear that up with a simple question.
Do you have a belief in a god or gods?
You can either answer “yes”…fine you are then not an atheist
or you can answer “no”…which again is fine and it means you *are *an atheist.
In each case you can add a “but…” after your answer which will mean you are either a theist or an atheist but wish to go further, perhaps into realms of knowledge and gnosticism/agnosticism but regardless, unless you have a belief in god or gods you are an atheist.
I dispute this. I think you’ll find the vast majority of atheists do not claim to know for sure there is no god.
It’s like this: there is a popular understanding of what atheism and agnosticism means, and the actual philosophical definition of those terms.
I once labelled myself an agnostic, because, like many people, I had the popular understanding of what the terms meant and wanted to be clear that I did not claim knowledge that there was no god. I wanted to be clear that I wasn’t one of those closed-minded atheists.
But I was never satisfied with that situation, because to the man on the street, agnostic means you’re on the fence. You think god / no god are roughly equally plausible. But that was in fact very far from my position; I actually thought god as most religions describe such an entity was way *less *plausible than the flying spaghetti monster.
So when I learned that atheism doesn’t mean claiming to know there is no God, and most atheists in fact technically allow for the remote possibility, I realized that’s where I actually fit in, and described myself as such.
It does sometimes involve getting into this conversation, but what can you do? There is no term to the man on the street that maps to agnostic atheist. So may as well try to educate people on what the terms actually mean.
And I dispute this. I don’t think they are roughly plausible, I BELIEVE there is no God or gods, but I also know that there is no proof that will definitively show this conclusively. In my experience, atheists insist that there is no God or gods while agnostics acknowledge that there is no way to prove it one way or another.
Of course, mainly my reply was tongue in cheek, since in the past I was told, quite forcefully that I am, in fact, an atheist because of my stance, so I freely acknowledge that this:
Is probably true. There is a lot of gray area, especially when we talk about weak and strong atheism and go for a more nuanced stance. I’m all for folks being able to self label as they choose.
The OP’s question, it seems to me, has less to do with how sure you are that no God exists than with the repercussions of non-belief.
Some atheists seem to think religion is a pleasant fantasy, an opium of the people, a fairy tale that makes us think life is good when it’s really awful.
There are also atheists who argue that life is wonderful and we religious people ruin it and make it ugly with our superstitions.
In short, there are atheists who believe religion makes us happy (when we shouldn’t be) and atheists who think it makes us miserable (when we shouldn’t be).
So, some atheists think we Christians would all be much happier if we abandoned our faith, while others think we’ll be far less happy but that we need to face unpleasant reality rather than console ourselves with a lie.
Or I can point out that you’re attempting to be needlessly Manichaean about it and that my original statement was about as specific and explicit as one can get. But if you prefer it in a simpler but much more imprecise form: “I believe there might be a god or gods but there’s no evidence for it or them.” Sure, for all practical purposes I lean toward the atheist side of the fence but I resent the implication that I must fall into one of two boxes as defined by you and that a more nuanced view can’t exist.
I’m sorry if different atheists have different opinions about different subjects. Maybe we should organize and form a church or something so that all atheists could reach a consensus on what we believe about various subjects-That way we could tell you the one official opinion on any/all subjects.
Read the stuff you quoted again. It talks about belief, not knowledge. It is certainly possible to believe in something you don’t know - like the Giants are going to win the pennant this year.
It is knowable (but not known) that there is a god, but not knowable that there are no gods.
I’d hope that even strong atheists would reconsider our belief if sufficient evidence for a god ever shows up. We’ve not been tested yet. We pretty much know that strong theists don’t, given how many deny contradictory knowledge (like creationists) or move the goalposts like most moderate religions.
Of course a nuanced view can exist and I’ve never suggested otherwise. That is why I suggested that being atheist (or theist for that matter) is mundane and uninteresting in and of itself. It is merely a starting point. However, unless you can state “I believe in a god or gods” you are an atheist, you can resent the existence of the two boxes as much as you like but it doesn’t prevent you being located in one.
That you leave open the possibility that there might be something is where an interesting discussion might start.
I can go one step further - I think I can prove that we cannot prove that there is no god. Imagine a god who created the universe invisibly - that is exactly the same way it would have been created without a god. Certainly possible for any god, right?
Now suppose that God has a favorite people, and makes himself quite obvious to them, but that these people reside in a galaxy beyond our event horizon - say 20 billion ly away. Also possible. So there is no way we have evidence for or against the existence of this god, and certainly cannot prove he exists.
So I think your contention of lack of proof of God’s nonexistence is provably correct.
I think there is a term for someone who claims to be able to prove that no god or gods exist. That is idiot. I’ve never seen anyone on the Dope falling into this category.