see logical people


Systematic(*) knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

(*) Pertaining to, based on, or in accordance with a system of classification: the systematic names of plants.

Synonyms:
1. See orderly.

2. See ****ing reality.

I can only assume (because I don't know everything) that it would take knowledge beyond our capability to know for sure (100%) whether "god-like entities" exist. To me, we are all just meaningless humans existing in this universe. We aren't much different (or any more relevant) to our universe than, say, ants or fish. We have no idea what's really out there, how big the universe is, whether or not there are any limits or borders of any kind to our universe, etc etc. Are we alone? So, when I said that, in a nut shell, I meant that you'd have to be a pretty arrogant prick with a closed mind to think that you "know" FOR SURE that gods aren't just fairy tales. What if they (or he or she or whatever) existed at some point in time? It's not like we can go out into space and scour the universe for god fossils.

And I know that what I'm saying sounds arrogant or childish.. like what the **** do I know, right? I think the point I'm trying to make is pretty simple. You can't be a judge when you don't have all the facts. You can use words like "allegedly" or a phrase such as "to the best of my knowledge". That works. It's harder to argue with that. But when you say you know something FOR SURE, you'd better be able to back it up.

And that's why there are problems or issues with some people saying they are Strong Atheists because THEY KNOW gods don't exist. That's as bad as theists who say the exact same thing (oh, they know alright.. NOT). Nobody knows.

Now here comes "the suckout" [the 2nd part of what I wanted to say]..
I think that you are correct in saying that you are a Strong Atheist. You have exclaimed that you believe, in all of your capacity, that no gods exist. You do not believe in any deities. You do not question their existence at all. For you, there is no "issue". That's fine AND more power to you. You have that right and there's no one who can prove you (and your lack of belief) wrong. That's the suckout, the kicker, the bitch of it all. You are a Strong Atheist. I can't argue with that. BUT.. how radical or extreme are you? That's where the first part of my post would come into play.

If you still don't understand me, then I'm sorry. I tried to be as articulate as my writing ability and vocabulary allow.

I can't really elaborate on a distinction you haven't even bothered to explain. And testing "supernatural" claims has nothing to do with strong atheism.

In one post you explained that your version of "god" was what most people thought of when they heard god. Newsflash; as an agnostic atheist my stance is complete rejection of all current claims of knowing god. This doesn't make me a strong atheist, it does however also make me reject strong atheism on exactly the same reasons.

I'm also extremely tired of debating with you. It seems clear that you think "strong" somehow means a harder more conclusive form of atheism. It does not. Weak atheists have a much, much better case against "supernatural" claims than strong atheists. This is because strong atheism is also ultimately a "god of the gaps" type claim.

Consider this my last post to you on this. I have no interest in parroting.

The reason why there are so few strong atheists is because religious views are widely considered something that should not be criticised in any way, and it's difficult to not see even mere admittance of strong atheism as an attack on religion. This is especially true in the US, but still in Europe too. And religious people are naturally very eager to take offense at any opportunity.

Of course when you question them, people will come up with pseudo-explanations and continue the illusion that their position is a sincere result of analysis. But the real reason why they are not strong atheists is the nagging feeling in the back of their head that people are going to get offended if they were.

As far as I can tell, religion's unique immunity to criticism is the main reason why it continunes to be as important. How exactly is even plain stupidity supposed to be rooted out if it is not allowed to be criticised?

Interesting question/thread. For all practical purposes I consider myself an atheist, as do you. I just draw the line (perhaps incorrectly) at strong atheism. I don't like the term. In fact, I don't think the word atheist should even exist at all. I don't go around calling myself an a-gremlinist, or an a-toothfairyist, etc.

I think you're right that belief comes from the assumption that something is true. But does belief come from the assumption that something is NOT true? Do I believe that my gf is not cheating on me? I'd have to say yes, but think it's quite a frivolous waste of time to start aligning axioms to form unnecessary beliefs about the world in this way. I prefer to merely assume that she isn't, until I have reason to think otherwise. Now I CAN form the belief that she IS cheating on me were I to come across any evidence to form such a belief. This wouldn't be a waste of time in my opinion, since this evidence would have a direct impact on me and my views about her.

In short, I don't concern myself with things I don't believe in. There are simply too many of them to make that practical. And I certainly don't want to go through the bother of defining myself by what I do NOT believe. I much prefer letting claims come to me and deciding whether I believe, or am a skeptic. I am highly skeptical about any claims for gods, fairies, or elves. But that's about as far as I'll go in providing myself with a label over such matters. By allowing myself to be labeled with a name that defines what I don't believe, I feel it give proposterous claims far more weight than they deserve.

In summary, if I don't have direct knowledge of something I might be a skeptic, or call myself agnostic about it. But I won't go so far as to say what I believe isn't true. If someone wants to claim something is true, they need to come up with evidence. Until then I'm a skeptic if it doesn't make sense.

This doesn't really make sense. Agnostic atheism (my view) is a way harsher stance versus revealed religion than strong atheism.

It seems a lot of people seem to (mistakenly) think the "strong" in strong atheism reflects on strength of conviction or level of outspokenness.

Interesting. I think strong atheism goes a long way towards allowing religious people to turn the tables and call OP's view every bit as religious as their own. After all, he is stating that he is *believing in something*. Whether that something is the existence of god, or non-existence of god is irrelevant and I think religious people have a point in that regard if they want to use that against him.

For me, I think it best to remain on the sidelines and simply not believe, or be skeptical of other's outrageous claims. Maybe even laugh. What I don't want to do is get tied up in defending my beliefs over things I cannot prove and have no direct knowledge of. I'll leave that to the religious.

You can call it "less credible" (a subjective opinion), as long as you don't start making objective claims like "nothing supernatural exists" using similar logic, because that would be a fallacy.

If an oil driller looks for oil at a site in Oregon and finds none, then looks in Minnesota and finds none, what does that say about the exploration it is planning in Texas? Nothing.

Right, this is why I've always told people that I'm a weak atheist. It's a more sound position, it's easier to defend, and it's less antagonistic and forceful. All that is well and good and may be a good argument for expressing myself that way in public. But what this doesn't address is what I actually think. As you said, theism refers to belief. My thinking is that even though I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, if I can believe that it will based on it doing so every previous day, I don't understand why I shouldn't be a strong atheist on the same grounds.

Name a smart atheist ?

Gotta be a trick question

I think that sums up the weak atheist position well.

Yes, and I think that's ******ed assuming we're trying to be rigorous here. I think it's foolhardy to assert such a thing given how ignorant we are about this universe.

What I am reluctant to embrace are ridiculous semantic debates. Honestly, I feel like a tool for even participating in this thread.

I don't care about 100% certainty. I just think the guy that says, "I believe god(s) does not exist" is overstepping an epistemic boundary.

Knowledge isn't the definition of strong atheism (that's gnosticism). Knowledge also does not mean absolute certainty.

I have described how extreme I am plenty of times. I put the likelihood of the existence of a god on the same level as that of leprechauns, the loch ness monster, and pixies.

Then you probably should have asked for it rather than assuming it was fallacious.

su⋅per⋅nat⋅u⋅ral /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

Again, strong atheism does not have anything to do with knowledge. It has to do with belief. As an agnostic atheist, you also reject all current claims of belief in a god. However, I am a strong atheist because I believe the opposite. And the reason I believe the opposite is because of the continued failure of anybody to be able to demonstrate that there exists anything that is not explainable by natural law. It is this consistent failure that leads me to the conclusion that anything which would fit this description does not exist.

Then you have not been paying attention. Do I need to go back and quote the dozen or so times I stated what I meant by strong atheism? It is the assumption that a god does not exist. That is it. It has nothing to do with absolute certainty, knowledge, or any sort of harder, more conclusive form of atheism. It is the ability to claim, 'I believe that no gods exist.'

Wrong. A 'god of the gaps' claim is inserting an answer into a question where the answer is not known. My position is not, 'You do not have the answer, so I believe this is the answer' but 'This probably is not the answer because in the past when we have tried to verify the existence of this type of answer it has always failed.'

Believing something is not true is itself a belief that something else is true, sure. Believing that it is not true that your girlfriend is cheating on you is to believe 'It is true that my girlfriend is not cheating on me.' And it would not be a frivolous label if billions of people believed that she were.

I can understand this. Many people do not like the label. I embrace it because I enjoy the subject, and it often sparks conversation.

What if you have direct knowledge that that something has been searched for but not found where it has been claimed to be? Would that be evidence (not necessarily conclusive) that it does not exist? What if it has been searched for over and over in a multitude of places where it has been claimed to be, and never once was any evidence found of its existence? Would you then feel safe claiming you believed it was not true?

The only people who seem to believe this is what we are talking about WRT strong atheism ITT are the people advocating against it.

I think Deo has sufficiently defined "strong" versus weak.

At least I get it.

No.

This is because we have verified the existence of oil. If we did not have such evidence, then started drilling for oil in various places and found none, it would become less likely that oil existed anywhere (including Texas).

You are extrapolating from the nonexistence of certain supernatural entities (e.g. leprechauns, pixies) to a conclusion about the existence of every supernatural entity, as if the arguments addressing the former carry over to the general case. On what basis are you doing this?

Pletho

The basis that nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist, or even be the most plausible explanation, despite a lot of research.

I am not the one who brought semantics into this. I think my position, my definitions of weak/strong atheism, gnosticism/agnosticism, absolute certainty, and my definition of supernatural have been very clear and consistent throughout this thread. So far, the only disagreement anybody has had (with the exception of tame_deuces and Concerto) have been to argue that I am trying to suggest something I am not by changing those definitions.

no1 is 100% about anything i consider myself a very strong athiest and am 99.99999999999% there is just what we see right now and that is alll that matters

That nothing with an expected quality has been demonstrated could also mean we have to keep looking. This is commonplace in science and means its existence remains an open question.

Again, you are using "plausible" in a subjective way. Anything can be "plausible" if you try hard enough.