I believe that no gods exist. That is to say, I am convinced that the statement, 'no gods exist' is a true statement. I am equally confident in the statement 'no gods exist' as I am in the statement 'leprechauns do not exist.' If I flip a coin, the theistic position is 'I am convinced the coin came up heads,' the weak atheistic position is 'I am not convinced the coin came up heads, nor am I convinced the head came up tails.' My position is 'I am convinced the coin came up tails.' If the question is, 'Do you believe it is raining in Chicago right now?' the theistic position is 'I believe it is raining in Chicago right now,' the weak atheistic position is 'I neither believe it is raining nor do I believe it is not raining in Chicago right now' and my position is 'I believe it is not raining in Chicago right now.' I am not sure how else to phrase it; I'll think about it some to see if I can come up with a better description.

How about:

Premise: Things which exist leave objective evidence of their existence.
Premise: There is no objective evidence of the existence of a God.
Conclusion: No God exists.

I think your position is perfectly reasonable, Deorum. It does rest on certain assumptions (pretty much materialism) but that doesnt make it illogical, since everyone makes assumptions.

I think Arouet's objection would be to premise #2 there. He would not claim that there is no objective evidence, just that we do not know of any (just my projection, though, don't mean to put words in your mouth A). On the other hand, I do not have a problem with this statement, as I reject the concept of absolute certainty, which would of course mean that there is always the possibility that either premise is false. I do, however, hold each to a high enough level of confidence to stand by those statements and assume that they are true.

I agree 100%

Now where is that missing link?

I agree it does rest on the assumption that materialism is true (naturalism too). Though part of the argument itself is an argument for materialism.

Yeah I wasnt trying to persuade him - I certainly think the premises are open to challenge. I was just trying to formalise a reason to be a strong atheist from memory (It was my position pre-theism).

Evolution would by far still be the leading explanation in the absence of any fossils (but that's another topic for another thread ).

What is the caption on your avatar btw? I always wondered that

To be honest, I can't actually remember - someone posted it once in SMP. From memory it's something like:

BUNNY
He will murder you and feast upon your soul.

Hmmm... interesting view.

However...if the basis of your stance is science and science fails you.... what do you have?
Your statement is very close to the definition of faith.

Even though science has failed to connect and clearly show the evolution...it's "closer" because most of the proof is there.
Or is it?
Perhaps it proves exactly the opposite of that which you seek. If this science is more factual and reliable than stories written 2,000 years ago by people and then translated into multiple languages and interpreted by rulers and Kings.... perhaps this science is telling you that you ventured down the wrong path, grasshopper.



Science can be proven. But when it fails to make the connection... well, it was close so I'm sticking with science.


I'm not dogging on anyone's theory....just oiling the gears and hoping for adult thoughts.

Joey are you still drunk?

you are not a strong atheist, at least in my book. I'd only label a strong atheist if someone claims to know with 100% certainty that there is no god.

and i think the reason no one has answered that question is because they agree with you?

I meant there is enough evidence even if we exclude the entire fossil record such that evolution would still be the leading contender (such as DNA). The fossil record just corroborates the theory. Science has, however, predicted the existence of unknown species and where those species would have lived, after which scientists went looking in those areas and actually found fossils of the predicted species.

And my point was that if science has proven to a point via DNA that evolution is the possible answer yet failed to make the connection per the missing link... has science actually disproved that theory?

If you use a known formula that is used to perform a function and that formula fails to get you to the wanted/needed/expected conclusion... said formula disproves your hypothesis OR you've used the wrong formula.

Huh? Good stuff? Maybe?

I'm not saying whether I believe in evolution or not.... just saying that if you are going to use science as a foundation and science can't complete the equation, something isn't right if we belive so strongly that science > stories.

Hey ... Magic Johnson and Michael Irvin are almost proof enough of evolution. Look closely.

afaik the two go hand-in-hand?

The standard definitions we have been using (at least in the past few months I have been back) is that weak atheism = a lack of a belief in a god, while strong atheism = belief in no gods. Assigning a probability of 100% certainty to strong atheism not only makes the term useless IMO, but also renders the terms 'gnosticism' and 'agnosticism' useless. If everyone agrees with me, then they would all be strong atheists according to the standard definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

fyp

/thread

I'm pretty pooped after a busy day of fending my children off! But like Butcho has just said and I've been leading to, I think that when a hard atheist holds out the potential of error and the potential of future evidence changing his mind he effectively becomes the soft atheist as I've described it.

Is there any practical difference between our two claims Deorum? To me they look effectively identical.

I think the term is more useful when a hard atheist believes there is no God in the same way a theist believes there is one.

Re: Bunny's syllogism: I'm not sure if objective evidence is quite what you are looking for. Often, subject evidence is sufficient, circumstancial, etc.
The problem is one of sample size as well. We can't, if we're being reasonable, say that all claims of the supernatural have been proven to be false. All we can say is that we know of many that have. there are tons of claims out there that may not have been analyzed at all, and some which are unfalsifiable, which means they can't be proven false. All that we can say is that in our opinion theists have not made their case.

Also, soft atheism is not a diluted pascal's wager. As a soft atheist, I'm not hedging my bets and following a religion, I'm acting completely as if there is no God.

So again, D, I don't think there is a big difference between the two positions. I'm open to be shown otherwise though...

Great discussion! Wish I wasn't so tired so my thoughts aren't too focused right now!

how does it make the term useless?

surely their are some who will tell you they are 100% on this...and they definitely fall under the atheist umbrella, so what would you call them?

imo agnostic means you aren't sure if the christian (or any god being worshiped by humans) god is real or not, and you're sort of still thinking about it/examining the "evidence", etc.

I'm an atheist, not an adeist.

So what do you call people who do have a belief about god not just a lack of belief, and that belief is that god doesn't exist? I feel like there's a lot more of them than those who claim 100% certainty.

merry christmas to everyone btw.

Well said. I'll just add that if I hadn't heard anything about Chicago that day, I would take the weak atheist position of "I don't have the belief that it's raining there." Whereas if I read a weather report that morning promising sunshine, I would switch to the stronger stance of "I believe it is not raining," even though I'm aware that I could still be wrong.

but there is no weather report that tells us if there is a god or not, so i'm failing to see how we can compare the two?

what i mean is that your statement in the Chicago scenario, "I don't have the belief that it's raining there" is in now way the same as what you're calling a "soft" atheist saying "I have no belief in god"

you are as certain as you can be that is has rained in Chicago in the past, and you're just as skeptical that a god ever existed in the past as you are right now.