TD, So I agree with applying skepticism equally, and the fact that we can't know if we have chipmunks in our head, philosophically speaking, but doesn't this line of reasoning end the weak/strong atheist debate, and hence would not be the view taken by many strong atheists?

If we agree that we may be brains in a vat, then surely we can't dismiss God. This to me ends the entire debate. What am I not seeing here?

We don't agree that we might be brains in vat. That's just something we don't know. "Not knowing" is not the same as "possible", "possible" implies knowledge.

Same principle as before. We apply the skepticism and requirements equally, not to a single side.

Can someone be a strong atheist with this standard of knowledge?

Who typed that? Who had that thought? Have you read HHGTTG? You sound a lot like the Ruler of the Universe and he was by all definitions a solipsist.

Do you assume that when you are doing your social psychology reading that it is all hearsay? When petting your cat, or on a date, do you consider the possibility that perhaps the cat (or the date) just appears to enjoy petting and you might be misunderstanding it because you think that purring means "like it" when it really means "please stop it you bastard!?!"

You (your mind and self) have read why Skinner was popular for a bit in psychology, right? You do know why we moved beyond strict behaviorism, right?

Empiricism requires math and logic.

"Human" not only implies existence of mind and self, it requires it.

My claim (through the absurdities) is that certain knowledge does not exist in any way or any form. When we are talking about truth (except for some boring philosophers and emo adolescents and me when I am gently teasing them), we aren't talking about perfect certainty.

(I'm under the quite human assumption that you are enjoying the conversation. I'm not intent on winning the day and your phrasing makes me feel that I might be wrong as to whether you are enjoying yourself. The point of the absurdities is that your idea that there is a Truth is not what anyone means when they state a statement is true or false.)

One can't be a strong anything under that standard. It is philosophy 101.

If you can't prove you aren't a brain in a vat then you can't make ANY statements of truth.

Are you your father's son? Are you a social psychologist? "Maybe" is the only possible answer when you might be an artichoke with implanted memories watching the life of another artichoke having a dream is a distinct possibility.

Expound please. Mostly on the first part.

If you can't make any truth statements and anything is possible, then what separates a weak/strong atheist? A strong atheist in this view must then say I believe God does not exist, but I cannot know this, and God could exist. This sounds like weak atheism.

Not to be a bore but the understanding prompts the attitude, ie, 'Religions are false'. Well and good but irrelevant to the basic proposition of mindful creation.

Again I risk a snoozefest but it goes back to Athens afaik. And yeah, it represents a refinement of the claim following rejection of elements of it. That the box is impenetrable is kind of my point - it doesn't stop being impenetrable because you describe it as such.

Yes, we get that you keep saying this because you for some reason think you are saying some tricky or important, and you're not going to let replies get in your way of demanding replies.

All I see is someone who argues that on the days he is not certain there is a knife in his kitchen drawer, he might be a bottle. I'm not completely certain how that is supposed to work, but I am reasonably sure you're not applying the same skepticism to yourself that you seem so convinced poses a problem for others.

I don't know. It isn't important to me to know. Solipsists profess to know reality, I don't.

No, I'm enjoying myself. I have no problems relying on my experiences, that's the gist of being an empiricist after all; that experience is.

You seem to think not being able to prove things makes everything possible, but in doing so you forget to consider that you can't prove that everything is possible. What goes around comes around. You can't assume I'll only apply the limitations of empiricism do my own propositions, I of course apply them whichever new and fanciful pet theory you demand I must consider as well.

I don't know what is possible. That's the point.

I agree. That has nothing to do with strong atheism though.

I didn't say it was penetrable because I described it as impenetrable. I said that I have clear human motivation for creating such an impenetrable fortress.

I'm claiming that it is a fiction. Nothing more than that.

Everyone with half a brain who has gone through adolescence knows that they can't prove anything. When we are talking, we have the caveats implicitly built into any truth statement. We don't say "I love you, even though I might be a brain in a vat and/or you might be an incredibly intelligent squid with tentacles attached to my visual centers that make me see big boobs when you wriggle just right" Might seem lazy, I guess.

No, I don't think so personally - or rather I don't know. Which is why I ascribe to weak atheism. It is important to note however, that many use empirical method to build cases. That isn't the same as being an empiricist. So I'm not claiming someone who "uses science" must agree with me, I'm merely arguing for what I happen to believe.

I can, however, build a much stronger case against revealed theism than a strong atheist. This is because I reject the possibility of knowing truth.

Well said, I completely agree with you, although I'm not sure if I agree with Brian, he seems to be saying the opposite.

Curious to see what Zumby thinks about this, I don't think he will accept this rather rigid definition of knowledge and skepticism that favours weak atheism.

So strong atheism on your account doesn't speak to it?
It seems way less airtight a case than that against revealed religion. No miracles, no immortality etc are required. I'm not sure what psychological need you can argue is fulfilled by believing in a watchmaker.

The logical conclusion then is that strong atheists don't exist, right, other than silly people? It would make no sense at all to assign anything a truth value, so there are no physicists or social psychologists either other than silly people.

Since that level (perfect knowledge aka Truth) is impossible to have, my point to td is that when we say something is true or false we aren't ever (except for silly people) saying we are certain. We are saying that we have reached a justifiable position using a combination of empirical evidence and thought (logic, math, reasoning).

If you ask me whether Harry Potter really exists you will get the answer of "no."

If you ask me whether I can prove it, of course the answer is also "no." I have what I consider strong evidence that he is just a fictional character.

Also, again, I never claimed that 'religions are false.' They are important social institutions. Not sure where you got that I had any attitude towards them either way.

You recall incorrectly. I reject the notion that deism is correct because it is exactly what is done when any theory takes it on the chin as a newer and better theory comes along (science in general, in this specific case). It is, again, just a different fictional character just this time a bit less well described.

Since we generally assume that 2+2=4 is not a matter of faith and that logic and reason are not matters of faith, we are not talking about proof when we are talking about truth. We are talking about empirical evidence and reasoning - Do we have (assuming that our empirical evidence isn't some sort of convoluted scheme to trick us) sufficient evidence to take a justifiable (assuming that reasoning works as advertised) position?

For anyone interested: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sk...t-externalism/

That was exactly my point, that when you choose to take the skeptical approach where you may have squirrels in your head, then you can't have strong atheism. If that is your baseline, then this conversation is pretty much over.

It seemed like you guys were jumping from one metaphysical model to another, and it would be easier to examining weak/strong atheism if you defined what you accept, and to stick to viewing through that lens when examining atheism.

From what you said here, it seems like you can have knowledge without certainty, or at least a reasonable perspective of the world.

We are on the same page. There isn't a justification for being a strong anything-ist by that method. That is the justification that others seem to require of us strong atheists, yet I doubt know for a fact they don't hold themselves to the same epistemological standards.

I accept reasonable justification and as such I require decent definitions, reason, and empirical data.

I only do that because it is the only workable method I know of to navigate the world.

Yep. I understand the difficulties of epistemology and move on (in real life).

I post a lot when people start rambling on about their super special epistemology that has nothing to do with what people mean when they are claiming truth of false.

Yeah that makes sense. It seems the "strength" of the claim of atheism is someway proportionate to theistic claim it denies. As most people are making a strong claim of God you seem entitled to aggregate these claims and deny them strongly.

My God doesn't do much, isn't defined particularly strongly and as such isn't epistemically accessible to the degree that stronger claims are hence the weaker denial of it?

Yes, I'm not seeing it. I can see that people would have a burning desire to say something like "If social psychologists exist, I am justified in saying there is no god" but it does seem a little rude.

But, on to more pressing matters: You would agree, would you not, that Barack Obama does not exist if your set of definitions of Barack Obama contained only fictional characters?

'False' doesn't mean 'unimportant' so I'm not sure why you're telling me that. But you understand the question. I can't force you to answer it.

You introduced the term 'deism' to the conversation, not me. I asked you about a watchmaker god, not a specific variant of the idea.

I mention the watchmaker because its existence is compatible with 'science in general'.

Zumby completely lost interest after this sequence:

1. It's easy to falsify Poseidon
2. Poseidon does not exist.

1. It's not possible to falsify Poseidon.
2. "Poseidon does not exist" is not true, only justified.

If you can't see the problem here then no amount of explaining is going to help.

Exactly. This seems to be the standard line with strong atheists. E.g. aside from what Brian and I have said in this thread, the OP of OrP's thread I quoted in post #65, there's also these from the 5 Years of RGT thread (emphasis mine):


..



Yeah, there is no empirical test that can falsify a non-interventionist god. Gods that answer intercessory prayers, live at the top of mountains etc can and have been falsified.

There is a subtle difference between falsifying the myth of Poseidon and Poseidon. The myth of Poseidon is a series of specific claims, and Poseidon is a bearer of information that some, but not necessarily all, implicitly assume contain those claims.

For Poseidon disputing the myth as a relevant criteria for falsification is very rare, I have not even heard of it. Thus falsifying Poseidon is rather trivial, as your criteria would not be in dispute. Something I actually wrote in my post.

But if we move on to the Judeo-Christian faith things are very different. Like the myth of Poseidon the Bible contains a series of very specific claims the existence of which are rarely in dispute (even though one might squabble over minor details), but unlike Poseidon the Judeo-Christian God is far more than the biblical God. Very often the myth is not even taken to be literal, and thus the falsification criteria would be disputed.

I would personally reject such notions (the hypothetical Poseidon and the non-hypothetical Judeo-Christians Gods with little to no falsifiable claims) as "not even false", not false. I have little patience for gods of the gap. I see no case for making claims of knowledge/truths about such gods, and thus I'm a weak atheist.

I'm sure you'd like to stick to the 'simple part' but as you point out, many (indeed, most) theists believe that the Judeo-Christian god is empirically supported (i.e. He answered their prayer for granny to get better from flu etc).

My contention is that gods that carry empirically falsifiable claims have been falsified and that strong atheism is justifed towards those gods (also towards logically impossible gods, but I think those are much rarer). As most people believe in gods that can have been either empirically or logically falsified it makes sense to identify broadly as strong atheist. Essentially, I'm ignoring the small percentage of people who are deists, but on the rare occasions I encounter one I'm happy to say "I'm not a strong atheist about your concept of god".

As I pointed out a couple of times now and had no response, this is no different from the way you describe yourself as a (weak) atheist even though you DO believe that some gods exist e.g. god-concepts that are something like "God is the universe" or "God is just the laws of physics, man"