I like to think that Deorum is that Asian girl in his avatar..... is that wrong of me?

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.

It doesn't rob the sentence of all meaning, it just means that your conscious thoughts happen regardless of whether or not your body, the universe, or reality as we know it exists. If your thoughts happen, and you know they happen, then you must exist in some form.

Heh, that's Mika Tan, my second favorite porn star btw

It makes assumptions based on a lack of manifestation in reality, which is the definition of non existent.

lol that wasn't meant to be an insult at all. I've basically always considered myself a weak atheist, which you'd see if you read my posts here. Only recently am I second-guessing myself based on the apparent definition of belief. My statement was only meant to show instances where an active disbelief in personal gods might not be appropriate, but I don't think that's the case given our present knowledge. I believe in evolution, I believe that it will rain at least once in the next month, I believe that my memories have not been implanted into my brain 5 minutes ago, but I don't have a concrete belief about the origin of the universe, whether string theory is true, or how many kids dragonystic has. This, to me, is the difference strong and weak atheism, the difference between belief and absence of belief. My thoughts about the proposition of a theistic god definitely lies closer to the first column.

Well, I summarized my position above, so we can probably stop this language exercise.


And I call that having no meaning We can argue more about this if you want, but I don't think that you can meaningfully say "exist in some form" and at the same time deny reality as it exists, because "existence" is intimately tied with spacetime as we understand it.

Okay, good. Now remove the 'designer' aspect from god (remember the argument doesn't say anything about what type of designer it is, just that there is a designer). Is a god now more likely to exist than leprechauns?

Fair enough, it is a bit off topic so we should probably drop it.

You are Mika Tan to me..... you always will be.
lol

LOL, I was surprised no one (particularly you Deorum) reacted when I first posted that!

Good discussion guys. It's family time tonight, so I'll try and join in tomorrow if the thread is still alive.

Umm, if you think this you are not a weak atheist.

.

Except atheism is a term concerning belief, not certainty. I was hoping to illustrate what Deorum was unable to, the difference between not believing something is true and believing something is false. Weak atheism is the absence of belief in god and specifically does not claim that the proposition is false.

I tend to call absence of opinion/belief - agnosticism (of course it's entirely possible I'm misusing the term).

Sneaking away to make a quick post before I forget. Not sure if its been covered:

A soft atheist as described in this thread could be syllogized thus:

To believe something is likely to be true, it should be backed by reliable evidence,
There is no reliable evidence that a god exists,
Therefore it is unlikely to be true that a god exists.

I'm trying to figure out what the hard atheist would posit here to be logically consistent. I just don't know how to form the syllogism, I've tried a few formulations, but none are working for me.

Can someone frame strong atheism as a syllogism? It might help for this discussion.

IMO I feel the same way as tame_duces, but don't think it's as much of a mistake he does.


There simply is not enough information available to make the jump to 0 yet. However, there is plenty of information that gets you close to it.

To be the most accurate, you need to leave a small bit of error despite what you suspect to be true.

you just need to change the opening premise and the wording of the conclusion...

where A is the claim that there are god or gods...

If claim A is not backed by sufficient evidence, then A is false.
A is not backed by sufficient evidence...
.:. A is false.

(this is called modus ponens)

edit: the logic is correct, though i dont think i believe the initial premise, which is why im not a strong atheist. something could not be backed by sufficient evidence and still be true.

sorry, that's what I meant by making the logic work, I meant premises that worked. I think this is essentially what D has set out, but I agree it doesn't hold. Which is why weak atheism is the stronger position.

To believe that something is likely to be true, it should be backed by reliable evidence
There is reliable evidence that no supernatural claims are true
All claims of gods are supernatural claims
Therefore it is likely to be true that no gods exist

Is this what you had in mind?

I, and most others, do not define strong atheism as being absolutely certain that a god/gods do not exist.

If you suspect that it is true that a god does not exist, you are a strong atheist.

I would word it like this...

That would make no sense. God = the designer of the universe.

If you define god as the designer of the universe, then god could be nearly anything, including aliens, leprechauns, or even something completely natural. This does not address the issue ITT, as the assumption was that we were defining god as something supernatural. Your definition of god is too ill defined to be of any use. If we agree that the universe is designed (which is a fallacious assumption, but is off topic for this thread), then simply claiming 'god is whatever it is that created the universe' does not tell us anything about what it is that we are positing exists. If you want to claim that it is mice who created the universe, then yes, I believe in that god (although I do not believe that they created the universe). If you want to claim that it is a supernatural being that created the universe, then no, I do not believe in that god, and thus obviously do not believe that it created the universe.

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)

I believe that no gods exist. Ok I see what you're saying. We'll keep this as the standard def for now.

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.)

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.

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.

May I ask a serious question? When you say this, are you equally sure someday you won't exist?

Also, who's the "you" that is sure you exist? And do you mean you are sure your body exists and functions in the population of other bodies that are H. sapiens?

I've been reading some QM lately. And I'm wondering about this loss of information if you cease to exist. Since you probably won't fall into a black hole, isn't it impossible for all of you to disappear as if you never existed? All your memories and stuff, where do those go if you just stop?

Doesn't this idea of existing and then disappearing kind of contradict physics?