Weak Atheism

[pikatore]

In this thread I will present the ideology behind weak atheism, and defend it, since I've been reading too many posts in posting your religion, where people (who also wrongly define agnosticism) say that there is no such thing as weak atheism.

I will present two examples to further my argument.

Before I do, I would like to point out that weak atheism is based on a logical principle, that is, a positive assertion is assumed to be false until proven true - innocent until proven guilty, if you will. It is this logical principle that is used in many aspects of the academic world, and I incorporate into my theological stance.

First example.

Person A: I believe that unicorns exist.
Person B: I don't.
Person A: You are wrong. They exist.
Person B: Prove it. Then I'll believe that they exist. Until then, I will assume that they don't.

THAT is where logic dictates that proof should be shown to affirm the positive claim.

Unfortunately, a common path taken by theists:

Person A: Well, you can't prove that they don't exist. Your claim isn't any more valid than mine, because you can't prove it doesn't to me any more than I can prove it does to you.

And that's where they stop.

Now if we were to be technical, I will say that while I don't believe that unicorns exist, I am simply, using rationale and logical processes, ASSUMING that they don't, until I see proof that they do. I don't claim that unicorns definitely 100% FOR SURE DON'T EXIST, but it would be silly and useless to say that theres a chance. Secondly, a supernatural element is involved in the claim, which further places doubt in my mind of such a thing, although it is minor, and pretty much irrelevant, such theists can say thier god exists in a metaphyiscal form.

That whole idea, I apply to the claim that a god (or gods) exist, because the person(s) that claim it cannot prove it in any way, shape or form, which I find to not meet the criteria for a convincing argument (CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE).

The second example, which is known as Russel's Teapot. Forgive me, I'll quote the whole passage:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

That speaks for itself, showing how the burden of proof should be rightly placed on theists.

THAT is weak atheism.

[pam699]

HEY BEFORE WE GO ON YOU HAVE TO PROVE TO THINGS

1)that logic is an epistemic condition to discover truth
2)that logic is an epistemic condition to discuss god- since quatum mechamics has shown normal logic is not an epistemic condition to discuss the mircro world so normal logic mat not be the right logic to discuss god
before we go any where u must prove these two points

[pikatore]

Quote by: pam699 HEY BEFORE WE GO ON YOU HAVE TO PROVE TO THINGS 1)that logic is an epistemic condition to discover truth 2)that logic is an epistemic condition to discuss god- since quatum mechamics has shown normal logic is not an epistemic condition to discuss the mircro world so normal logic mat not be the right logic to discuss god before we go any where u must prove these two points

This isn't quantum mechanics or another universe, mate, its theology. I am perfectly within reasonable bounds for using logic to discern my theological stance. Theology and philosophy both interconnect, and philosophy has it's foundations in logic, not fairytales.

If you are saying it may not be the right thing to do to commit reasonable and logical means to come to a conclusion about a god, then that really blows all potential of arguing about the subject out of the water.

And by the way, if it must be so, I will make a premise of this thread be that logic can be used to litmus test the existence of a god.

[pam699]

quote
I am perfectly within reasonable bounds for using logic to discern my theological stance.

I will make a premise of this thread be that logic can be used to litmus test the existence of a god.

so prove it first then we can move on with your arguments

[pikatore]

Quote by: pam699 so prove it first then we can move on with your arguments

No, that's the premise of the thread, and to be honest, the premise of pretty much any thread.

I'm getting irritated by this, I want someone to debate my points, not take a jab at the logical validity of my whole post. If you stil disagree on that basis, start a new thread on it. I want someone to argue my points.

[pam699]

ok sorry i will post no more
and enjoy looking at your replies

[pikatore]

thankyou

[Jack]

If you're saying that weak atheism refuses to accept the god premise without logical reason and scientific evidence, and in the absence of those defaults to the position that gods do not exist, what's the difference between that and what's commonly called strong atheism?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Pikatore Secondly, a supernatural element is involved in the claim, which further places doubt in my mind of such a thing, although it is minor, and pretty much irrelevant, such theists can say thier god exists in a metaphyiscal form.

Incomplete.

Let's address the issue with the honesty it deserves; supernatural claims are impossible at face value. They are assumed as valid by theists & agnostics based on an argument from ignorance (which you detailed nicely).

"When I release this baseball from my hand, it will fall upwards into the sky and eventually fly off into space." We know this statement is false.

"Gravitus, the god of gravity will make it so when I release this baseball from my hand, it will fall upwards into the sky and eventually fly off into space." What's changed here? I've offered an explanation, but it's not a satisfactory one. It's logical, but not based on sound logic because Gravitus, the god of gravity, isn't proven.

Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.

Thus, your objection to the supernatural is flawed in that it isn't strong enough. Do not let theists hang their arguments upon skyhooks.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Isherwood If you're saying that weak atheism refuses to accept the god premise without logical reason and scientific evidence, and in the absence of those defaults to the position that gods do not exist, what's the difference between that and what's commonly called strong atheism?

Because strong atheists actively deny the existence of a god, and whilst a lack of evidence may be part of the reason, they go into much more complicated arguments, like the omnipotence paradox: the concept of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?", those kinds of things.

weak atheism is a lot simpler than that, and doesn't go into heavy philosophy like strong atheism does.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Zhavric Incomplete. Let's address the issue with the honesty it deserves; supernatural claims are impossible at face value. They are assumed as valid by theists & agnostics based on an argument from ignorance (which you detailed nicely). "When I release this baseball from my hand, it will fall upwards into the sky and eventually fly off into space." We know this statement is false. "Gravitus, the god of gravity will make it so when I release this baseball from my hand, it will fall upwards into the sky and eventually fly off into space." What's changed here? I've offered an explanation, but it's not a satisfactory one. It's logical, but not based on sound logic because Gravitus, the god of gravity, isn't proven. Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof. Thus, your objection to the supernatural is flawed in that it isn't strong enough. Do not let theists hang their arguments upon skyhooks.

I meant to say that while I can simply reject a claim based on it's supernatural nature, that can't be used as a failsafe method on theism, such many theists go into metaphysics and other stuff, which technically isn't supernatural.

[Jack]

many theists go into metaphysics and other stuff, which technically isn't supernatural.

The terms aren't synonymous, but they are similar in kind. They both rely on concepts that science has no way of qualifying and that haven't even been shown to exist outside the imagination. When you have to appeal to "proofs" that are beyond natural laws and known physics, you're into the realm of faith. Faith is proof of nothing.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Isherwood The terms aren't synonymous, but they are similar in kind. They both rely on concepts that science has no way of qualifying and that haven't even been shown to exist outside the imagination. When you have to appeal to "proofs" that are beyond natural laws and known physics, you're into the realm of faith. Faith is proof of nothing.

agreed.

[pikatore]

it's kind of funny how no theist has even tried to respond to my OP. hmm.. ill wait a bit longer

[Zhavric]

Quote by: pikatore agreed.

If you agree, then you're not a weak atheist

[Slevin57]

My friend is a Weak Atheist as well. I take the most neutral fence sitting position possible. non-theism. I believe the question of whether God exists to be meaningless.

All the scientific evidence in the world will not be enough to get rid of the idea of God. Even if you did prove definitivly to all Athiests weak and stron alike, that there is No God, I honestly dont' belive it would phase theistic people.

They have all been going on a very long time without any proof of existence.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Zhavric If you agree, then you're not a weak atheist

?! how so??

[Kamehameha34]

"There is a god" is a claim.
"There is no god" is it's contrapositive.

The rules of logic apply to both claims. If you say that the lack of evidence against god is not proof for god, then you would be correct. But, you fail to consider that the lack of evidence for god does not equate to evidence against god.

Claims don't default to false in the absence of evidence. They start out as unknown.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Jack]

"There is a god" is a claim. "There is no god" is it's contrapositive.

Yet there is a POV that maintains that the positive claim that there is a god is so unsupported as to be nonsensical. It doesn't make a positive claim that there are no gods, it says that no evidence has been presented to prove the claim that gods exist. This is my atheistic stance. I cannot claim something doesn't exist when that something hasn't even been shown to be anything more than the work of human imagination.

Claims don't default to false in the absence of evidence. They start out as unknown.

In most cases only for those who are afraid to rely on logic and common sense.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The rules of logic apply to both claims. If you say that the lack of evidence against god is not proof for god, then you would be correct. But, you fail to consider that the lack of evidence for god does not equate to evidence against god.

I agree. weak atheism doesn't actively deny the existence of a god. it is simply a skeptical stance that uses logical method to come to the conclusion that there isn't a god, PURELY based on a lack of evidence. same thing applies to unicorns. address my actual OP please.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Claims don't default to false in the absence of evidence. They start out as unknown.

If every new unsupported claim defaulted to unknown, human civilisation would not have advanced as far as it had today. In fact, scientific method would be rendered useless.

It is totally, completely, utterly useless to default an unsupported claim to unknown. It is far more productive to make an assumption that a said claim is false in complete lack of conclusive evidence.