Meh, I reread all of your posts and there is such a fine line between words and how each person interprets them ITT. Having said that I will try to illustrate my thoughts as best as possible. I have never fully contemplated this issue, but am always willing to change my mind, so please help/nit pick wherever you see fit. More thought given to it tomorrow. (consider myself a weak atheist FWIW)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
I, and most others, do not define strong atheism as being absolutely certain that a god/gods do not exist.
I believe that no gods exist. Ok I see what you're saying. We'll keep this as the standard def for now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
If you suspect that it is true that a god does not exist, you are a strong atheist.
How about replace the "suspect" with "hunch" instead? Maybe it would be more clear? In other words, I logically cannot embrace that position fully yet. The most logical position to take is the weak atheist one, despite having a personal belief/hunch/feeling that a god does not exist. I cannot do it fully since god/gods may in fact exist. That is my out. My room for error. Insurance. You cannot say it since you don't have sufficient information yet to say it.
Stuff like this happens in the science field all the time. No matter what you suspect to be true, you cannot embrace a new unproved position fully or you will get torn apart by your peers. You can give your opinion, you can give other facts, and you can do research hoping to end up supporting your position, but you cannot make the full rational/logical jump without more info. (vague I know, but that's why scientists often say probably. It's logical to do so.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
My argument is that because most supernatural claims that have been properly and thoroughly investigated have been demonstrated to have natural explanations, and that no claim of the supernatural has ever been demonstrated to be accurate, it is reasonable to conclude that all claims of the supernatural have been made up. This is strong evidence that the supernatural does not exist.
Meh, sorta true but there are many semi reasonable said and unsaid claims which cannot be struck down yet. Your conclusion comes from events on one small planet in the known universe, from humans, in a tiny span of time. While valid - simply not enough info to make the jump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
The difference is that belief is the assumption that something is true. If the question is, 'Do you believe it is raining in Chicago right now?' and you do not assume that it is true that it is raining in Chicago right now, then you do not believe it is raining in Chicago right now. This is not the same as believing that it is not raining in Chicago right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
Not believing is not assuming that something is true. That is not the same as believing it is false. Another parallel: If I flip a coin, and don't show you the result, and ask if you believe it came up heads, what will your answer be? If you say no (ie. you do not assume that it came up heads) that does not mean you have to believe that it did not come up heads.
See these might be the most important statements from you. Maybe you're wrong, I'm wrong, or we just differ.
These questions simply do not compute here because they're not a questions of belief.
Ask an avg. person if they believe in evolution and they will say yes or no.
Ask a Geneticist if they believe in evolution and they will tell you that your question doesn't make sense. It's not a question of belief. Said Geneticist has so much more knowledge of the subject that he will say the evidence is undeniable. Or overwhelming. Or it certainly has been validated by enough experiments. It's questions like "does the evidence support?" or "can evolution be verified" that should be asked to him.
As a weak atheist, I lack a belief. It is absent. I cannot support statements such as yours (I believe in no gods) because they don't make sense. It includes a belief position. The statement will not be applicable once we have enough information. I cannot take this position because it will not exist eventually.
Biggest apparent difference between your position and mine is your use of belief and the amount of information required to hold our positions.
Don't know how well it sounds or if its legitimate cause I'm getting pretty tired, but hopefully you can see how my viewpoint is different. Any response or criticism is welcomed course.