05 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat I think is relevant is that we each understand the terms we are using, in order to have a meaningful discussion of “content.” I think rwingett has defined the terms “weak atheist” and “strong atheist” sufficiently to understand their meaning (with perhaps ATY’s addendum). Everything else I wrote was wildly tongue-in-cheek. My apology to Nordlys was for shamelessly “hijacking” her valid question.
Since you have come out to play, I might as well ask - do you think there is no difference / the difference is irrelevant?
Your argument seemed to be solely with rwingett’s characterization of strong atheism as a “subset” of atheism generally. My point is that giving it another label neither changes the content of the “strong atheist’s” position, nor challenges rwingett’s claim that that position does not represent the majority of atheists. Rwingett might be quite willing to carve them out of the camp altogether (given his frequent charges that theists tend to use “strong atheism” as a strawman)—except that the terms are in common usage. I see nothing inherently wrong with the terms, and I think rwingett’s meaning was clear, whether the word “subset” is strictly correct or not.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdAnd yet I can't deny that this type of cherry picking motivates me to be accurate and also to rearrange some of the mess that are usually my thoughts, which tend to fly in multiple directions at the same time.
What I think is relevant is that we each understand the terms we are using, in order to have a meaningful discussion of “content.” I think rwingett has defined the terms “weak atheist” and “strong atheist” sufficiently to understand their meaning (with perhaps ATY’s addendum). Everything else I wrote was wildly tongue-in-cheek. My apology to Nordlys was f ...[text shortened]... think rwingett’s meaning was clear, whether the word “subset” is strictly correct or not.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYes, I have to admit both that, and that my antics here contributed to neither to clarity nor content... 😛
And yet I can't deny that this type of cherry picking motivates me to be accurate and also to rearrange some of the mess that are usually my thoughts, which tend to fly in multiple directions at the same time.
05 Sep 06
Fools, the whole lot of you.
The only reason there is any confusion is because RWillis has tricked you into accepting his false premsise, that weak atheists don't assert or maintain a belief about God. They most certainly do. RWillis has always been confused on this point, even though I have always corrected him, and now he is spreading his confusion.
Please do not continue to fall for it.
Anybody who deliberates and finds that there is insufficient evidence to indicate God's existence believes God does not exist. That's just what belief means in an evidence-based epistemology, which is what the weak atheist claims to adhere to.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI said exactly that. Along with the corollary that most agnostics are therefore politically correct hypocrites.
Fools, the whole lot of you.
The only reason there is any confusion is because RWillis has tricked you into accepting his false premsise, that weak atheists don't assert or maintain a belief about God. They most certainly do. RWillis has always been confused on this point, even though I have always corrected him, and now he is spreading his conf ...[text shortened]... means in an evidence-based epistemology, which is what the weak atheist claims to adhere to.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaYou must not have done it sufficiently invectively for me to take notice.
I said exactly that.
Anytime RWillis parades out his tired old "I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe that God does not exist," he needs to be roundly mocked and chastized. Embarrassment is his only hope of coming to grips with this elementary error.
05 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSuppose there exists two opaque bags, each containing monochomatic balls. It is given that most balls in one bag are white, and most balls in the other black.
Fools, the whole lot of you.
The only reason there is any confusion is because RWillis has tricked you into accepting his false premsise, that weak atheists don't assert or maintain a belief about God. They most certainly do. RWillis has always been confused on this point, even though I have always corrected him, and now he is spreading his conf means in an evidence-based epistemology, which is what the weak atheist claims to adhere to.
One bag is given to you. You pull out a several balls. They are all white. So you probably have the bag containing mostly white balls. You certainly consider this possibility more likely than the alternative.
Question: Do you now *believe* that you have the bag containing the white balls?
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOf course.
Suppose there exists two opaque bags, each containing monochomatic balls. It is given that most balls in one bag are white, and most balls in the other black.
One bag is given to you. You pull out a several balls. They are all white. So you probably have the bag with mostly white calls. You certainly consider this more likely that the alternative.
Question: Do you now *believe* that you have the bag containing the white balls?
05 Sep 06
4 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIf the available evidence in favor of some proposition P weighs heavier than the evidence against P, I believe that P is true. (That's just what belief means to me. I find that all competing notions of belief are phenomenologically flawed, but that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as the weak atheist asserts the same evidence-based epistemology that I do.)
So, you wouldn't just suspect it, you'd believe it?
So yes, in your example, I believe I hold the white bag, which is equivalent to saying that I have assessed the evidence to indicate that more likely than not, I hold the white bag.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo, do you never suspect something is true without also believing it?
If the available evidence in favor of some proposition P weighs heavier than the evidence against P, I believe that P is true. That's just what belief means to me.
So yes, in your example, I believe I hold the white bag, which is equivalent to saying that I have assessed the evidence to indicate that more likely than not, I hold the white bag.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThe main reason for the theist in asserting that all atheism is “strong atheism” seems to be to claim an equal burden of proof. I somehow don’t see that if someone claims that there is a unicorn in my refrigerator, that I am required to accept such an equal burden.
I said exactly that. Along with the corollary that most agnostics are therefore politically correct hypocrites.
________________________________
The Refrigerator Argument
A: “There’s a unicorn in your refrigerator.”
B: “No there isn’t.”
A: “Yes there is.”
B: “Isn’t.”
A: “Is.”
B: “Isn’t.”
A: “Just go look.”
B: Goes and looks; comes back. “Nope, none there.”
A: “Well, he won’t show himself while the door’s open...”
__________________________________
Now, B’s reply here is cast in a strong form: “No, there isn’t.” Sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Would it be your position, Dr. S. (and Playnka, too) that in the case of “God,” such absence of evidence justifies the position of strong atheism? How many times should the atheist be required to “look in the refrigerator” in order for her position to be justifed?
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI don't know what you refer to by suspect in relation to some proposition P.
So, do you never suspect something is true without also believing it?
If it means acknolwedging that P is possible, then no, I can suspect P without believing P.
It if means acknowledging that P has some evidence in its favor, then no, I can suspect P without believing P.
Is there something else you mean by suspect in relation to a proposition?
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI assert that weak atheism denies God's existence. Thus, the only sensible distinction I accept between weak atheism and strong atheism is that strong atheism denies God's existence with certainty. Strong atheism is clearly not justified by any finite number of looks into the proverbial refrigerator.
Would it be your position, Dr. S. (and Playnka, too) that in the case of “God,” such absence of evidence justifies the position of strong atheism?