Atheism Poll

[Drew_2017]

I would be mildly curious about how you arrived at all this, but not enough to ask you about it.  For weak atheists there is nothing to defend.  Most strong atheists are willing to defend their position.  I won't say I'm convinced by the arguments, however.

The theist and weak atheist have much in common, neither denies God exists. For many weak atheists its a debating tactic more than an actual position so they can pretend they don't have a dog in this hunt. 

[SGOS]

The theist and weak atheist have much in common, neither denies God exists.

It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.
 

For many weak atheists its a debating tactic more than an actual position so they can pretend they don't have a dog in this hunt. 

Truths about self than can only be known by the self.  However, speaking for myself, weak atheists most definitely do have a dog in the hunt, but it's just not YOUR hunt (the "prove god does not exist" hunt).  Weak atheists are plenty capable of finding lots of debate points with theists.  They seldom shy from confrontation.  Weak atheist arguments are centered around testing the claims of theists, but finding no credible evidence for a god.  They are not searching for evidence of NOT god, which is (so I've been told) logically absurd.

[Hydra009]

What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit?

The same evidence you claim is in favor of your God.  Both arguments are equally stupid of course, yet you hold one as the height of wisdom and the other as nonsense because one backs a conclusion you already hold and one does not.

[Unbeliever]

It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

[Baruch]

It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

For some no god means ...
0. Nihilism - there is nothing
1. Materialism - there is something material (Descartes and Gassendi)
2. Physicalism - there is something physical (Newton and Coulomb)
3. Naturalism - there is something natural (Linnaeus and Darwin)
4. Psychologism - this is my position, it means no conventional religion god, it is all in one's head

I consider existence and non-existence, order and disorder, life and non-life, consciousness and unconsciousness to be axiomatic ... with self consciousness at the top (see Descartes).

[Mike Cl]

It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god. 

[Baruch]

How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god.

Covered in #3 above or #2.  #3 doesn't imply physical reductionism.  So depends on what you mean by force.

[Mike Cl]

Covered in #3 above or #2.  #3 doesn't imply physical reductionism.  So depends on what you mean by force.

You and I must have posted at the same time--did not read your post until after I had posted.  Anyway, it does depend upon what I mean by force.  That's the problem with trying to define god(s).  We end up with two sides, on that focuses upon belief and the other that focuses upon empirical proof.  The two don't mix well.  I don't know if we can come to a definition that is acceptable to everybody.

[SGOS]

How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god. 

That's really the whole point about theistic denial of anything that is the handiwork of God.  The creation debate is about god.  Existence is about God.  You try to label the creation without calling it God, and they will be invading the forum like a Mongol hoard as soon as they realize it was a trick to take God out of creation all along.

[fencerider]

let them take god out of creation... it's not like we're gonna miss him

[Unbeliever]

[trdsf]

It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.

I prefer to file 'god' in the same bin as phlogiston and luminiferous æther -- a theory of reality that has been superseded by better knowledge, and barring the discovery of evidence for it, a theory no longer worth taking seriously in the first place.  So I feel perfectly comfortable making the positive statement 'there is no god' in precisely the same way I can say there is no phlogiston, caloric, or luminiferous æther.  I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns, Santa and the Tooth Fairy.  And if I told you I though the jury was still out on phlogiston, you'd think I was barking mad -- or at least not to be trusted on matters of science.

I mean, CERN doesn't double-check that the luminiferous æther theory is still a failure before using Special and/or General Relativity, and no one expects them to.

If that makes me a 'strong atheist', I accept the label, but I reject the idea that I come to my conclusion in the same manner theists come to theirs, or adhere to it out of 'faith'.  Give me a something testable that passes skeptical inquiry, and I will be happy to say there may be a god or gods.  Until then, I don't have to.

[SGOS]

I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns...

For roughly the first half of my life, I was THAT guy who felt it WAS incumbent on me.  I was trained to believe the consequences of doubt were dire, and that knowing there was a god was a matter of utmost importance.  If there really was a god, at least the Bible god, that would be true too; It would be a matter of utmost importance.  I was unable to understand that from any other perspective because it was hammered into my brain beginning at a time far back when I first remember being conscious enough to grasp a thought.

I consider myself a weak atheist because I have never found God.  And that's about it.  During my quest, I never once entertained the idea of proving there was no god.  I'd like to think at a young age, I understood that logically you couldn't prove a negative, but to be honest, I don't think I was that smart.  Although, to prove God did not exist would have sufficed, because my only need was to answer the existence question one way or the other.  But my quest was always directed at finding god, in nature, my heart, the back of my brain, or wherever.  It was never an attempt to conclude that there was no god.  That is weak atheism to me, and that's where I eventually let it end.

I have no need to pursue the quest any longer, and no need to drive a final nail in God's coffin.  After 40 or so years, the search became meaningless.  God cannot be found by any method that really settles the question, and I carry on without bothering with the irrelevance of a god.  No, I actually don't think there is a god.  The pedants can argue over whether that is weak or strong atheism, but the issue is far too irrelevant for me to concern myself with any longer.

Like you, it would be like devoting my life to searching for leprechauns and unicorns.  If someone challenges me to prove God does not exist, I just mutter, "fuck off," and talk about his shit for a while, so as not to be antisocial.  Is there a god?  I just don't care.  It's impossible to even engage in an intelligent conversation about it, at least with a believer.

[Baruch]

I prefer to file 'god' in the same bin as phlogiston and luminiferous æther -- a theory of reality that has been superseded by better knowledge, and barring the discovery of evidence for it, a theory no longer worth taking seriously in the first place.  So I feel perfectly comfortable making the positive statement 'there is no god' in precisely the same way I can say there is no phlogiston, caloric, or luminiferous æther.  I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns, Santa and the Tooth Fairy.  And if I told you I though the jury was still out on phlogiston, you'd think I was barking mad -- or at least not to be trusted on matters of science.

I mean, CERN doesn't double-check that the luminiferous æther theory is still a failure before using Special and/or General Relativity, and no one expects them to.

If that makes me a 'strong atheist', I accept the label, but I reject the idea that I come to my conclusion in the same manner theists come to theirs, or adhere to it out of 'faith'.  Give me a something testable that passes skeptical inquiry, and I will be happy to say there may be a god or gods.  Until then, I don't have to.

How soon we forget about the recent brouhaha about a potential violation of C as the speed limit of light.  Turns out the experimental setup was ... screwed up.  But it could turn out to be true, that Einstein is wrong.  Niels Bohr said so any change he got.

[Baruch]

For roughly the first half of my life, I was THAT guy who felt it WAS incumbent on me.  I was trained to believe the consequences of doubt were dire, and that knowing there was a god was a matter of utmost importance.  If there really was a god, at least the Bible god, that would be true too; It would be a matter of utmost importance.  I was unable to understand that from any other perspective because it was hammered into my brain beginning at a time far back when I first remember being conscious enough to grasp a thought.

I consider myself a weak atheist because I have never found God.  And that's about it.  During my quest, I never once entertained the idea of proving there was no god.  I'd like to think at a young age, I understood that logically you couldn't prove a negative, but to be honest, I don't think I was that smart.  Although, to prove God did not exist would have sufficed, because my only need was to answer the existence question one way or the other.  But my quest was always directed at finding god, in nature, my heart, the back of my brain, or wherever.  It was never an attempt to conclude that there was no god.  That is weak atheism to me, and that's where I eventually let it end.

I have no need to pursue the quest any longer, and no need to drive a final nail in God's coffin.  After 40 or so years, the search became meaningless.  God cannot be found by any method that really settles the question, and I carry on without bothering with the irrelevance of a god.  No, I actually don't think there is a god.  The pedants can argue over whether that is weak or strong atheism, but the issue is far to irrelevant for me to concern myself with any longer.

Like you, it would be like devoting my life to searching for leprechauns and unicorns.  If someone challenges me to prove God does not exist, I just mutter, "fuck off," and talk about his shit for a while, so as not to be antisocial.  Is there a god?  I just don't care.  It's impossible to even engage in an intelligent conversation about it, at least with a believer.

If only you had gotten to see The Search for the Holy Grail by Monty Python, at a younger age.  You could have gotten your hands on the holy hand grenade of Antioch, and blown your doubts away!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Gregorian Chant prevents the need for radiation suits which weren't invented yet.