Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's take it even slower still, since super-slo-mo looks so damn cool.
The various categories and sub-categories do more to obfuscate the matter than clarify. When it comes to the issue of the claims of the divine--- or anything, really--- one either believes or not; one accepts or rejects a thing as true.
Weak atheism is a cop-out.
It wants to ...[text shortened]... spect to plausibility of occurrence.
Checkmate, weak/strong atheists-agnostics-nincompoops.
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 atheist lacks belief that God exists but would stop short of claiming that God does not exist, presumably because he or she feels that there is insufficient evidence to warrant such a claim. This of course would be exactly the right stance if it happens to be the case that both (1) there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief that God exists and (2) there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief that God does not exist. So, if you want to show that weak atheism is not the proper stance, you need to show that (1) or (2) does not hold. You know, present an actual argument for once. The only thing that is a lame cop-out here is the way you deride the weak atheist's position without presenting any actual evidence against the position to be taken seriously.
Strong atheism is weak atheism with balls.
It says (emphatically) their disbelief is based on their belief that God doesn't exist.
It's the indefensible position you speak about when you invoke epistemic probability: apparently you labor under the misconception that nothing can be known with certainty.
That being said, there is one aspect which is true in some of what you wrote.
Namely, the weakness of the strong atheistic position is its inability to pass the burden of proof test.
Like the weak atheist, the strong atheist lacks belief in God. But, unlike the weak atheist, the strong atheist will make the positive claim that God does not exist and presumably claim to know that God does not exist on the basis of whatever evidence at his disposal. The claim to know P does not need to be grounded on a claim to certainty, either psychological certainty or epistemic certainty; and certainty is not required for knowledge. This is fallibilism, and it is the only sane stance on this matter. And, again, you just cannot read or else lack the respect to take the time to try to read carefully what others put forth: I never stated here that nothing can be known with certainty. I stated that virtually nothing ever is, and it's no different for the strong atheist: he knows God does not exist on the basis of overwhelming, but not perfect, evidence. The "weakness of the strong atheistic position" as you have described it is fantasy: 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. Again, that you would dismiss out of hand the strong atheist position without any regard to discussion related to the actual evidence for or against it, just shows that you are lacking in the objectivity that would allow you to consider such matters responsibly.
According to the idea that you represent, we know nothing can be known with certainty.
In fact, you know with certainty that nothing can really be known with certainty.
Well, crap. That's kind of a problem, isn't it?
Again, your reading comprehension blows. I did not claim that we know nothing can be known with certainty -- let alone that we know with certainty that nothing can be known with certainty. Try getting with the program.
For the last time, I said that it is virtually never the case that the evidence is such that we will have epistemic certainty. Are you hard of reading? Or do you not understand what 'virtually' means? 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). But those cases that are highly contentious in that regard are not the sort like whether or not some 'God' or 'Easter Bunny' concept is instantiated.
Seriously, try actually reading and sticking to what others are saying. I am not the only one here who finds your poor reading and inaccurate redescriptions annoying. So, again, try getting with the program. I try to be careful not to misrepresent what others are saying in debates, and I find it disrespectful when one is so cavalier about this sort of thing as to be as shameless as you are now being.
But it gets worse.
You're also committed to the idea that anything thought up might have a chance at being true.
Talk about your open-mindedness!
Wow, here we go again. No, I am not committed to that, and nothing I have said here would commit me to anything like that.
However, the objective/reasonable person actually possesses a standard against which they can measure their beliefs.
Not sure what you mean. But, of course, if one says 6.9 on the question of God's existence, this is prima facie consistent with his being objective and reasonable in his reading of the evidence: after all, the evidence will not recommend 7 but could recommend something close to 7. So we would need to delve deeper to the actual details of the evidential basis if you want to pick at his position further. Alas, this is the point where your intellect seems to take a holiday.
In contrast, when you say 7 on the issue of the easter bunny, we do not need to delve deeply at all to see that you are being to some extent irresponsible in your reading of the evidence. For an inquiry of that sort, you clearly do not have epistemic certainty. Even given all the evidence you have on the subject, it is still quite logically consistent that you both have all that evidence and yet that the Easter Bunny does in fact exist. 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. So you should not be claiming 7. Take a cue from your atheist friends here who actually understand these points and claim 6.9999 etc.
On a Scale of 1 to 7
23 Jan '14 15:12
Back to Top