Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I recall seeing this demonstrated only for cases that have the form of the lottery paradox, in which the subject of potential belief is such that the possible states of affairs are logically partitioned into classes each of which the weak atheist must deny due to a probability being less than .5.
The existence of God is not such a problem. The ...[text shortened]... ng as the weak atheist avoids assessing his beliefs about lottery problems, your claim is false.
A weak atheist, by definition, is one who does not believe in the existence of God because he thinks there is insufficient evidence to back that position; however, he does not think there is sufficient evidence for the non-existence of God. If he did, and believed that God did
not exist, then he would be a strong atheist. (I'm paraphrasing a distinction that weak atheists such as Rwingett have often made on this forum.)
In bbarr's case, I think he is a strong atheist, not a weak atheist. Now, is it the case that bbarr has not engaged in the reflection necessary to determine the criteria or is it the case that he has reflected, knows the sufficient criteria but has rejected them anyway (perhaps due to socio-psychological factors)? I have no idea - I am not his judge.
In summary, as long as the weak atheist avoids assessing his beliefs about lottery problems, your claim is false.
I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify?
In any case, the lottery class of problems is not a small issue in human lives. We take chances often (if not every day) - outweighing the potential benefits of low probability events against the high probability ones. We do it when we ask a person out, or sit for a job interview.
EDIT: Just saw bbarr's post - he is, indeed, a strong atheist.