Calling out Weak Atheists

Originally posted by paulr
agnostics say they don't know. In other words, there is insufficient evidence to prove it. I don't know about pink elephants. But it is a fine line between choosing to say i don't believe because there is insufficient proof and saying w ...[text shortened]... ything there arguments derive from history rather than philosophy

Do you really think strong atheists would claim God didn't exist in the face of evidence in favour of it? It's mute and circular, an atheist first and foremost doesn't believe in God because there's no evidence for it and only then formulates theories on why God was created by people. Is there anyone that simply stops at "There's no evidence" without taking the step of saying that religions are created by people? Only agnostics, perhaps.

Twist it as you may, I think you will be pressed to find any strong atheist that wouldn't change his beliefs in case of strong evidence in face of religion or a weak atheist that wouldn't say that Gods are imagined by men.

Ok. A good point. But i think you're putting the cart before the horse when you say that a strong (or weak arheist) starts with the evidence, finding that wanting then moves on to develop a belief that people created the idea of God.

My point is that for the strong atheist the question of evidence is irrelevant. A believer would turn to the athiest and say look at the universe...there is your evidence. The atheist may reply, 'yes, you are right, I cannot explain all of being and nothingness. But in your absence of explanation and understanding you have created God.'

That's quite enough of this for me. That's the other thing. The strong atheist no longer dwells on the question, but moves on, comfortable in their understanding about the material origins of the idea of God... happy to accept that this issue cannot be resolved through proof.

<<To the extent that commitment to P is weak, expectations that P and beliefs in P can vary independently.>>


I think the sencond sentence is false. I'd like to see an example demonstrating it.


You're right. I meant to say merely that, when commitment is weak, expectations that P need not imply beliefs in P. However, it would seem that casual beliefs in P do indeed imply expectations that P.

Originally posted by paulr
One more thing. formal logic really isn't a useful tool for discussing atheism, weak or strong. God, whether or not you believe in such an entity, manifests itself as an idea in peoples heads, and as a material force through organised religion, moral codes governing behaviour etc. Formal logic can't really say anything useful about that...in my opinion. Applying formal logic to the idea of god will leave you revolving in circles.

If gods exist, they manifest themselves in far more than just that. At least, that's what the believers generally say.

Originally posted by paulr
On the other hand, a strong athiest would say people created the idea of God. It can't be proved, disproved and there is no point basing argument on evidence of the existence or non-existence of God. They have no need of formal logic. They don't believe. If anything there arguments derive from history rather than philosophy

Either you expressed yourself poorly or you are confused.

The Strong Atheist asserts that there is no God(s). In making
the assertion, they have to support it with evidence.

The notion of asserting something as true and providing evidence
necessarily entails formal logic: If God x, then why y? If not x,
the why believe in God's y? and so on.

You said their arguments derive from history. That, in itself, entails
the use of formal logic.

The Strong Atheist, by definition, feels that it is proven that there is
no God. The Weak Atheist, by definition, feels that the Theist has
not proven that God exists, and, therefore, does not merit belief.

Analogy: Joe believes in Pink Elephants, but provides no substantial
evidence for it, except a deep fervor for PE's existence. A Strong PEist
will state and aim to prove that PEs do not exist. A Weak PEist will
state that, since Joe can provide no substantial evidence, the logical
position is to have no belief in the claim 'PEs exist.' The Weak PEist
does not, in any way, say that PE's do not exist (like the Strong PEist).

I hope this clears things up for you.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Analogy: Joe believes in Pink Elephants, but provides no substantial
evidence for it, except a deep fervor for PE's existence. A Strong PEist
will state and aim to prove that PEs do not exist. A Weak PEist will
state that, since Joe can provide no substantial evidence, the logical
position is to have no belief in the claim 'PEs exist.' The Weak PEist
does not, in any way, say that PE's do not exist (like the Strong PEist).

I believe you meant aPEists...

Originally posted by echecero
I believe you meant aPEists...

That I did. Thanks!