On a Scale of 1 to 7

Originally posted by LemonJello

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to claim it has no belief regarding God.
Doesn't want to say God doesn't exist; won't say He does.
Just doesn't have a belief.
That's like an ostrich planting its head in the sand and thinking he's found a strategy which avoids confrontation by presenting his ass to his enemy.

Right, a weak ath ...[text shortened]... a cue from your atheist friends here who actually understand these points and claim 6.9999 etc.

"...to justify his or her position, the strong atheist just needs to be able to justify his belief that God does not exist, according to the justification condition of any sane (fallibilist) analysis of knowledge."

I fear that this will lead to a dead end.

Just as in science, wherein the community of scientists in a field establishes agreed degrees of evidential support for a conclusion, which, if met by a given study, will result in community agreement that the hypothesis tested in the study has been proven to be worthy of acceptance into the body of knowledge as a basis of further studies.

But science has methodology for qualifying the scientists that make up the peer group, as well as standard methodologies for the experimental studies -- randomization, placebo controls, etc.

How are the methodologies to be established for the production/discovery of evidence, and how is the peer group to be qualified, for study of the hypotheses that deity does exist, or deity does not exist??

Can anyone think of a study that would return one unambiguous result if and only if deity exists and a different unambiguous result if and only if deity does not exist?

Originally posted by JS357
"...to justify his or her position, the strong atheist just needs to be able to justify his belief that God does not exist, according to the justification condition of any sane (fallibilist) analysis of knowledge."

I fear that this will lead to a dead end.

Just as in science, wherein the community of scientists in a field establishes agreed degrees of ev ...[text shortened]... and only if deity exists and a different unambiguous result if and only if deity does not exist?

Sorry, I don't understand the fear here. Your question is surely underdescribed, since the 'strong atheist' position I am talking about would be with respect to a specific god-conception or some specific locus of related god-conceptions. Even for persons who are known as "strong atheists", while feeling warranted to claim that certain conceptions of 'God' are not instantiated (for example, some traditional conceptions of 'God' as a personal creator, say), are not thereby implicitly or otherwise committed to a similar claim for other conceivable god-conceptions, blanketly. Also, it's certainly not the case that the evidence at issue here would need to be of the nature you imply: as a simple example, evidence for/against a particular god conception could be comprised of rational argument based on a priori considerations; or based on arguments regarding inconsistencies in putative divine attributes, or etc, etc.

By the way, this would be an unreasonable requirement:

Can anyone think of a study that would return one unambiguous result if and only if deity exists and a different unambiguous result if and only if deity does not exist?

Science does not work that way; it proceeds largely through abduction.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, I don't understand the fear here. Your question is surely underdescribed, since the 'strong atheist' position I am talking about would be with respect to a specific god-conception or some specific locus of related god-conceptions. Even for persons who are known as "strong atheists", while feeling warranted to claim that certain conceptions of 'Go ...[text shortened]... oes not exist?[/quote]

Science does not work that way; it proceeds largely through abduction.

This isn't the place to argue how science works so I will refrain.

So you don't believe there is something intrinsic to the concept of deity that undermines claims to its instantiation, such that any claim that an entity is an instantiation of deity, fails. Is this correct? IOW, some purported deities cannot be proven to be nonexistent.

I can concur even if this is not your thought, since descriptions of some deities could include "having undisprovable existence" -- that is, if it in fact did not exist, its nonexistence would be unprovable by definition. Simply making this one of the descriptors would do the trick. Strong atheism fails in such cases.

PS I believe the J/C God concept is headed in this direction.

Originally posted by JS357
This isn't the place to argue how science works so I will refrain.

So you don't believe there is something intrinsic to the concept of deity that undermines claims to its instantiation, such that any claim that an entity is an instantiation of deity, fails. Is this correct? IOW, some purported deities cannot be proven to be nonexistent.

I can concur eve ...[text shortened]... ng atheism fails in such cases.

PS I believe the J/C God concept is headed in this direction.

That very much depends on what you are calling strong atheism.

I tend to scale it like this. [with respect to the particular god concept in question]

Weak atheism, lack of belief in god.

Strong atheism, belief in the lack of god.

Gnostic atheism, claim knowledge of the lack of god.

Epistemic atheism, claim god is epistemically impossible.


Under such a scheme. [to be justified]

Weak atheism simply requires a lack of sufficient justification for belief in the god.

Strong atheism requires justification sufficient for the belief in the lack of god.

Gnostic atheism requires justification sufficient to meet your standards of knowledge,
whatever they are. [whole other debate]

Epistemic atheism requires absolute proof that the god cannot possibly exist.


Simply 'defining' that the gods non-existence is unprovable doesn't actually
negate the possibility of any of the above positions.

If your 'defined' god concept is logically impossible then it doesn't matter if you
have 'defined' it to be unprovable, it cannot exist, and thus you would be justified
in being an epistemic atheist. [with respect to that god]

You can define a god to have whatever properties you like, to be as hard [impossible]
to detect as you like. But the more detailed your definition and the more complex the
entity you are defining, then the less probable that entity is a priori.
And thus without any evidence to overcome that low [infinitesimal] initial probability it is
perfectly justifiable to believe that that god is not instantiated in reality, or even claim to
know that the god is not instantiated.



EDIT: As a side note, under this scheme the weak and strong atheist are also agnostic
with respect to the question of this gods existence as neither claims to know it doesn't
exist.

As a further note, there are variations of degrees of agnosticism as well.
Some merely claim to not know if gods exist.
Others claim it's impossible to know if gods exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
First. Bull.

Second, that doesn't make it true.

You say "An atheist says..."

And what an atheist says, most inclusively, is "I don't have a belief that god doesn't exist."

To hold a belief that P, is to think the P is true. [with varying degrees of certainty]

To hold a belief that ~P, is to think that P is not true. [with varying degrees o ...[text shortened]... what the requirements actually are.

And that is determined BY atheists, and not anyone else.

When you plug your ears and hold your breath--- I know you're not going to believe this--- this doesn't make your position any stronger.
When you continue to say the same thing over and over but the thing you're saying isn't grounded in reality, this does more to erode the strength of your position than if you'd said it once and then left it alone.

You are so fixated on the idea that atheism is a lack of belief, you want it to be just that soooooo bad, but it doesn't change the fact the ENTIRE WORLD defines atheism as a rejection of God.
Q. What does it take to be in the atheist club?
A. A rejection of the local god(s), a rejection of the notion of the divine.
Congratulations, googlfudge, because you have rejected the local god(s) and/or the notion of the divine, you are a charter (or, if your faith is weak, temporary) member of the atheist club.
We get it... do you?

To hold a belief that P, is to think the P is true. [with varying degrees of certainty]
Horse crap.
Phrase it another way:
To believe that P, is to believe that P is true. [ummm, kinda]
Is there some hidden message, some code of which you are privately aware which no one else has access to?
If a person doesn't believe something is true, they don't believe it: they reject it--- even if it is true.
If a person believes something is true, they (drum roll, please) believe it: they accept it--- even if it isn't true.
There are no degrees of certainty if a person holds something to be true necessary beyond just enough to believe, or just enough to reject it.
This isn't falling in or out of love.
You either accept/believe or reject/disbelieve.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
When you plug your ears and hold your breath--- I know you're not going to believe this--- this doesn't make your position any stronger.
When you continue to say the same thing over and over but the thing you're saying isn't grounded in reality, this does more to erode the strength of your position than if you'd said it once and then left it alone.

You ...[text shortened]... ject it.
This isn't falling in or out of love.
You either accept/believe or reject/disbelieve.

Words cannot describe how thick you are.

I'm done discussing this with you.

You are incapable of rational or reasonable discourse.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to claim it has no belief regarding God.
Doesn't want to say God doesn't exist; won't say He does.
Just doesn't have a belief.
That's like an ostrich planting its head in the sand and thinking he's found a strategy which avoids confrontation by presenting his ass to his enemy.

Right, a weak ath ...[text shortened]... a cue from your atheist friends here who actually understand these points and claim 6.9999 etc.

For the last time, I said that it is virtually never the case that the evidence is such that we will have epistemic certainty.
...
My claim leaves it open-ended that there may be some issues for which we can have epistemic certainty (this would be a contentious issue though).
By all means, please: name some of these issues.

Your evidence does not logically entail that the Easter Bunny does not exist; there is no contradiction in the state of affairs where you have all that evidence and yet you are in fact mistaken in your belief that the Easter Bunny does not exist. In short, you do not have grounds for belief sufficient to guarantee with certainty that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
You say crap like this and then wonder why I said you're committed to the idea that anything thought up has a chance of being true.

So what would you consider to be sufficient grounds to guarantee with certainty that the EB does not exist--- if the list of items I outlined is not enough.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Words cannot describe how thick you are.

I'm done discussing this with you.

You are incapable of rational or reasonable discourse.

You wouldn't know rational or reasonable discourse if it hit you in the back of the head.
You are so beholden to your club's secret handshake, you simply cannot fathom how the rest of the world sees you as the hipster doofus you are.

EDIT: Keep those thumbs going!

Originally posted by JS357
This isn't the place to argue how science works so I will refrain.

So you don't believe there is something intrinsic to the concept of deity that undermines claims to its instantiation, such that any claim that an entity is an instantiation of deity, fails. Is this correct? IOW, some purported deities cannot be proven to be nonexistent.

I can concur eve ...[text shortened]... ng atheism fails in such cases.

PS I believe the J/C God concept is headed in this direction.

So you don't believe there is something intrinsic to the concept of deity that undermines claims to its instantiation, such that any claim that an entity is an instantiation of deity, fails. Is this correct?

Yes, correct.

I can concur even if this is not your thought, since descriptions of some deities could include "having undisprovable existence" -- that is, if it in fact did not exist, its nonexistence would be unprovable by definition. Simply making this one of the descriptors would do the trick. Strong atheism fails in such cases.

I would broadly agree that we could probably come up with god-conceptions that would be immune from falsification through any sort of rational effort. However, I don't agree that this example you give works as such. No entity could have the property of "undisprovable existence" because existence is not a predicate. Strong atheism is the proper stance against this god-conception, which is internally notionally incoherent in its definition. This is a good example of the sort of evidence I mentioned before regarding rational argument having to do with inconsistent putative attributes. On the other hand, perhaps you just mean that a theist may postulate some god about which he makes the further claim that this god's existence is undisprovable (not meaning to actually attribute existence as a predicate). But, in lack of some actual argument why it cannot be shown that this god does not exist, this is just question-begging on the part of this theist.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]For the last time, I said that it is virtually never the case that the evidence is such that we will have epistemic certainty.
...
My claim leaves it open-ended that there may be some issues for which we can have epistemic certainty (this would be a contentious issue though).
By all means, please: name some of these issues.

Your evidence do ...[text shortened]... ntee with certainty that the EB does not exist--- if the list of items I outlined is not enough.

By all means, please: name some of these issues.

Well, they would be such things as consideration of instances of belief regarding propositions that are either self-evident, evident to the senses, or "incorrigible" to the intellect, as examples. Self-evident propositions would be those for which merely understanding the proposition is putatively sufficient for apprehending its truth. Some examples persons may give for this would be things like mathematical truths, analytical truths, or logically necessary truths, etc. A proposition that is evident to the senses is a perceptual one whose truth is putatively determined through the employing of some sense. "There is a tree before me" would be a putative example. Incorrigible beliefs, on the other hand, are those, putatively, for which it is not possible both for S to hold the belief and for that belief to be false. "It seems to me that I see a tree before me" or "I am appeared greenly to" would be examples. For such cases as the ones I mention here (throw in something like the Cogito too), it would be contentious whether or not they involve epistemic certainty. Are these cases anything like the consideration of whether or not some concept like 'God' or the 'Easter Bunny' is instantiated? No, not in any relevant sense. Do you understand now?

You say crap like this and then wonder why I said you're committed to the idea that anything thought up has a chance of being true.

Am I committed to the idea that a square circle has a chance of being instantiated? No I am not. Do I know with epistemic certainty that a square circle cannot exist? Well, that could probably be included in the list of contentious cases.

Do me a favor and quit redescribing my views in grotesque fashions. Seriously, I have never seen you either (1) playing so dumb or (2) exhibiting such crappy reading comprehension as in this thread.

So what would you consider to be sufficient grounds to guarantee with certainty that the EB does not exist--- if the list of items I outlined is not enough.

Take a long think over the list of cases that I said are contentious...and then you tell me.

EDIT: By the way, have you given up your silly line of argument that to be consistent an atheist needs to answer 7? I see nothing more coming from you on that front.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That very much depends on what you are calling strong atheism.

I tend to scale it like this. [with respect to the particular god concept in question]

Weak atheism, lack of belief in god.

Strong atheism, belief in the lack of god.

Gnostic atheism, claim knowledge of the lack of god.

Epistemic atheism, claim god is epistemically impossible. ...[text shortened]... merely claim to not know if gods exist.
Others claim it's impossible to know if gods exist.[/i]

General agreement. One item:

"Weak atheism, lack of belief in god."

"Weak atheism simply requires a lack of sufficient justification for belief in the god."

I think WA simply requires awareness that one lacks belief in the god. (This to exclude unaware babies.)

Until some physicist can prove that the Big Bang was simply some spectacular quantum event that needed not a prior precipitating event, how could you really answer anything besides 4.0?

I'm more receptive to the idea that certain accounts of God's existence may be presumably more or less (im)probable, but not with regards to the idea of some sort of "higher being."

Originally posted by wittywonka
Until some physicist can prove that the Big Bang was simply some spectacular quantum event that needed not a prior precipitating event, how could you really answer anything besides 4.0?

I'm more receptive to the idea that certain accounts of God's existence may be presumably more or less (im)probable, but not with regards to the idea of some sort of "higher being."

That may be your view that every event is due to a prior precipitating event, but why are you committed to the idea that it is due to a "being"?

Originally posted by googlefudge
That very much depends on what you are calling strong atheism.

I tend to scale it like this. [with respect to the particular god concept in question]

Weak atheism, lack of belief in god.

Strong atheism, belief in the lack of god.

Gnostic atheism, claim knowledge of the lack of god.

Epistemic atheism, claim god is epistemically impossible. ...[text shortened]... merely claim to not know if gods exist.
Others claim it's impossible to know if gods exist.[/i]

“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation

Toss the labels. God Is: Accept and Believe it or Reject it and Believe He doesn't exist. Dawkins Doubt Scale Revised: 0 or 1.

Originally posted by JS357
General agreement. One item:

"Weak atheism, lack of belief in god."

"Weak atheism simply requires a lack of sufficient justification for belief in the god."

I think WA simply requires awareness that one lacks belief in the god. (This to exclude unaware babies.)

I am explicitly not excluding unaware babies.

So I need no such terms and see no need or point in such a term.