Is everyone who doesn't think that there are any gods doing the same thing? Are those who do believe just generalising from your own experiences too? I've actually been resisting the urge to point out that I'm not alone, or that lots of people believe in different gods, to avoid making an appeal to the majority fallacy.

What evidence for gods would you consider to be non-subjective?

This seems to me to be exactly what I've been saying, I've even used the phrase 'insufficient evidence'. Where we differ perhaps is that you call faith 'bridging the gap' and I see that gap as something that ought to prevent one from committing to a belief precisely because there is insufficient evidence, not to to just go ahead and believe anyway, without sufficient evidence. This is aspect of what is and isn't sufficient is crucial.

You wouldn't bridge the gap between your understanding that a long fall will kill you and your hope that if you step off into thin air that you won't fall, that you'll float instead, even though you have no good reasons to believe that. In that instance your faith would appear ridiculous, but it's no different to me from what religious people do with their gods. Not the best analogy I know but hopefully you'll see the point I'm trying to make about how and why faith is used and why I think that Faith isn't reasonable or rational, it's just wishful thinking, it's make believe.

Yes dereds, it is what you call the "strong atheist" who holds a faith-based position.

As an aside, I don't like this new terminology of "weak atheist", "strong atheist", or "agnostic atheist" because the traditional meaning of "atheist" is simply the belief that there is no god, which is different than the agnostic positron of lacking a belief in god. It just makes conversation confusing, but I guess it's here to stay.

I disagree with this presentation. (A)theism is a question of belief, (a)gnosticism is a question of knowledge and it is not inconsistent to identify as any combination of (a)gnostic and (a)theist.

Just as there is a difference between the amoralist and the immoralist and I think it is perfectly fine to define atheism as merely lacking theism.

Sure, you can have reasons to suspect something, but that's a long way from deciding that it is the case. People going from 'suspect something' to 'it's true' based on nothing but a personal decision to believe it anyway are doing something quite dishonest IMO.


Such as? What evidence for the existence of the gods could be real enough that you would call it evidence, but not sufficient to support certainty that there are gods?


They get there because they have no reason to even entertain the possibility that there are gods, anymore than they entertain that there are leprechauns. Do I need to provide evidence that there are no leprechauns? And if I did, how would I go about proving non-existence?

Your 2 statements above are contradictory.

In statement 1 you are saying "I dont understand how, if there is any evidence for X, you dont believe in X" , ie theres no such thing as insufficient evidence.

in statement 2 you are saying "Its possible for there to be insufficient evidence for X"

dereds - I understand that the meaning of the term "atheist" has been evolving, but I still prefer to go with the traditional meaning of the term (which is still the dictionary definition). And with respect to the topic of religion, "agnosticism" (the lack of knowledge) is still the most accurate term for weak atheism.

At some point, I'm sure that the looser modern definitions will become more acceptable.

What dictionary definition because I've seen both. And acceptable to who?

From wiki the definition covers both

I also think it's inconsistent to suggest you don't like the terms weak strong to then conflate agnosticism with weak atheism especially when you consider there are agnostic theists.

You are missing the point, you said

And I am pointing out that this is not true for all atheists.

Do you recall the discussion you had with zumby and OrP regarding rationalism and evidence? Lots of things count as evidence without being sufficient to constitute proof, and we accept this every day with regard to normal propositions and I don't see the difference.

Take a look back at this thread here

Do you not see the difference between the two positions?

While this may be correct, certainly there will be atheists that report a certainty in their beliefs that the evidence fails to warrant but I do not think this is true for all strong atheists, firstly because many will only be strong atheists with regard to specific accounts of god where absence of evidence may act as better evidence than elsewhere and secondly because the strong atheist is generally responding to a strong claim.

I consider myself a weak atheist simply because, as Dereds said, there's a big difference between withholding assent, and making a claim that requires evidence.

However, I don't understand how you can provide evidence of something's non-existence, especially in relation to the supernatural. If I agreed that there was evidence of god's existence, then I would have to use faith to bypass my lack of counter evidence (evidence 'against' to prove the 'for' evidence wrong) and achieve my state of lack of belief. I would simply ignore what I can't prove and believe something I want to believe. But, I don't think there's evidence of the existence of any gods, so I don't need faith.

It is bad form to conflate "evidence" with "proof", but it is worsened when you proceed to propose that not doing so is crazy. Evidence is not in itself a measurement of quality, and if you bothered to stop for 3 seconds to consider why this is, you'd surely understand it.

Fwiw; your position only makes sense if you are omniscient, in which case your atheism is probably somewhat misguided.

This is what ive always thought too. But there are some pretty smart strong atheists, some who post in here, who hold the view. So im not so sure.

Come on strong atheists defend your "faith".


They do entertain a belief. There is no God. What evidence do they have to support there view that there is no God?

Those that claim strong atheism generally do so in regard of a particular account of God. It is with regard to specific claims that they are strong atheists and are so inclined because of the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Whereas an absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence when claims are made that are empirically measurable our inability to find that empirical evidence may be evidence there isn't any.

A worldview based on physical materialism leads almost inevitably to reject most classes of god belief. If a mind requires some kind of a brain, then the idea of a super-mind existing outside of observable physical reality is just nonsense.

Does such a worldview require faith? I don't know if I'd call it that, but it does require some assumptions. It seems more axiomatic than faith-like to me though.

Id put myself in that group mostly. But when you add in the deist or cosmological god then not so much.

Not your fault, but this hurts my brain a little.

Id also say it wouldn't take faith to dismiss the whole notion based on God being ill defined.

It hurts mine reading it back.

Yeah I think it's a common enough position to be strong with regard to theist accounts and weak deist. I kinda agree with the last line but I think it's the theists burden to define their account of god and the atheists to challenge it.

Of course I understand the difference. What I might be failing to explain is that in the case of gods and anything else that might be classed as 'supernatural', I'm not even a little way down the road toward the position of god having been proved by the evidence available, I simply don't recognise anything presented as 'evidence' as being that, i.e. something that might contribute toward a proof. There isn't anything presented as evidence for gods that can't easily be explained as being something entirely different, hence the need for the (what I consider to be) mentally dishonest trick of just going ahead and believing anyway, that we call 'faith'.

Imagine a court case where the suspect is accused of murder and the 'evidence' offered by the prosecution, which they believe sufficient to prove the guilt is that the defendant was in the same city where the murder was committed at the time it was committed. Of course, the case is dismissed for lack of evidence. So was the location of the suspect 'evidence' of his guilt, or was it simply a 'fact' that was attempted to be presented as evidence (as part of a proof of guilt) when in fact it wasn't. His location wasn't evidence of murder, it was just a fact that he was there at that time.

And that's how I feel about evidence for gods, that it's not evidence at all, it's just facts presented as evidence that is entirely reliant on interpretation to be considered such.

Why do they need evidence? Do you need evidence to support your lack of belief that the FSM is real and did actually create the universe? No, what evidence is there such that you would need to entertain the idea in the first place and have to provide evidence of your own to counter it?

I'm in agreement with this that Dereds said "Whereas an absence of evidence is not equivalent to evidence of absence when claims are made that are empirically measurable our inability to find that empirical evidence may be evidence there isn't any"

My 'evidence' for there not being gods is that we have no evidence that there are gods. If forced, I would reluctantly present that fact, of there not being evidence, as my evidence.

When atheists as intelligent and informed as zumby or Original Position tell you you are wrong with regard to evidence it is worth paying attention if you wish to be considered rational. If you don't it doesn't matter.

I dont have a lack of belief in the FSM. I believe he is false. I can even show evidence and explain why i think he is not real.

Strong atheists aren't claiming lack of belief. They bite the bullet and claim belief.

Like i said if the big kids are claiming there is no God. Ok. I cant really challenge OrP and some other strong atheists. If they say they are getting there without faith im most likely wrong.


Still kind of bugs me when the creator/deist/cosmological God gets thrown into God not existing as a belief. Yup we got no good evidence...yet...maybe never...who knows...why not say idk...

I'm in danger of misrepresenting others views here but I don't think there's any real disagreement between the position you posted earlier and the strong atheists position.

They aren't claiming strong atheism of deist accounts.

Well, I'm an empiricist (with a weakness for phenomenology). Thus I don't see proof as possible outside abstraction (like math and logic). "Evidence" to me is only observations, observation falls prey to the weaknesses of interpretation and objectivity merely means "qualified consensus".

So I can't say there is no evidence for God, all I can say is that the evidence seems to be very poor. In some manner of hasty "everyday speech" this might be stated as "no evidence", but like so many others simplified expressions it is one that holds no place in more thoughtful response.

A belief system in non-belief? Interesting.

Well thanks for implying that I haven't really thought about it, and that perhaps, if I just thought about it some more, I'd see the error of my ways and agree with you?

I suspect (no pun intended) that where we differ is in our use of the word 'evidence'. For my part, a fact that doesn't actually support some type of proof is not evidence, it's just a fact being used by someone in a failed attempt to show evidence to support a proof . It may have been described as evidence during the procedure but the failure to support a conclusion of true or false has rendered in nothing more than a fact. It's labelled 'evidence' so that we know what the intention is, but if it fails to prove anything, then really it's not evidence of anything is it.

Do you believe that it is possible for there to be evidence supporting a claim that is not true?