Weak Atheism. What a joke.

baumgarten said:
Mention something that is completely new to me and I will at first have no belief whatsoever regarding it. No opinion at all. Ignorance implies, and constitutes, lack of belief.

Therefore I say that one who is ignorant of the concept of a god does indeed lack belief in any god. However, one who describes himself as an atheist must, by knowing the meaning of the term, know of the concept of a god, and therefore partake of an active disbelief, regardless of the level of vehemence or ambivalence surrounding it.
Click to expand...

baumgarten is correct here. Any belief-type position necessarily implies an epistemological one.
 
Syzygys said:
Sure there is. Basicly it is a person who doesn't give a shit on the subject.
From Wikipedia, and I am done with this semantics war:

"Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, without the belief in the non-existence of deities. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one deity."
Click to expand...
Wikipedia? WTF?
Wikipedia is already being dealt with regarding their topics on atheism. Using mickeymouseterminology.
We already discussed all of this. Do you not know how to read?
 
Lix,

Wrong. A-theist is the claim that God does not exist. Nothing else. Hence the "A". There is no such thing as lack of a belief.
Click to expand...
But I've already proved you wrong on that. Did you not follow the blue shirt dialog?
 
Seriously Cool Skill, I think you need to take a breather. Sit down for a moment and reflect on the worthlessness of your current crusade.

Perhaps I differ to many atheists here, but I do not personally care how you would try and define my lack of belief in gods, or belief in the lack of gods.

I think what is perhaps a tad more pertinent is that you offer something that might change the minds of those with a lack of belief, or belief in the lack of, by presenting them with something a tad more substantial than how you would personally define a specific word.

The fact of the matter is that it is all semantics. Tomayto, tomarto...

I have seen some in debate that try to crush the beliefs, or lack thereof, of atheists by using reasonable arguments. Yours is not one such example. Funnily enough those that do try and debate against atheists tend to resort to poor science to try and do it, but at least they put some effort in. I notice you said: "what a joke" in your thread title, and yet the only real joke here is a person making two threads purely to express his absolute hostility over the usage of a word.

Although it's probably been said a couple of times, I shall also say it incase it passed you by:

"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours" - S. Roberts

I'll also be the first, (I think), to say that yes.. I do not believe in the existence of your god, or zeus, apollo, abellio, tiamat, marduk, yhwh, etc etc and so on - much like I do not believe in flying invisible bananas that spit acid and boogey to Aerosmith. Provide me evidence for any of these and I will certainly be willing to change my beliefs. Until such time you can call me an atheist, strong atheist, asshole, idiot or whatever other names you frequently come up with and it doesn't actually change anything or add value to anything.
 
lixluke said:
Was that those who claim to be "weak atheists do not fall under atheism". That is all that I am saying.
Click to expand...
Yes. I know. I already responded. I diagrammed it for you and was even willing to give you the point in order to allow the argument to progress. All for naught it appears.

Show me exactly how your hole in the brain got #1 from any of my posts.
Click to expand...
My bad.

I thought you might actually have had a point and was interpreting phrases such as, ""I don't believe in God" is not atheism at all. There is no such thing as "weak atheism"" as criticism of the position as well as the terminology.

Everything that needs be said about your argument has already been said and then again. There's nothing more I can say that baumgarten, glaucon, Cris, and SnakeLord haven't already tried to re-explain to you in the last hour and all your whining demands and personal insults can't defeat their solid points.

~Raithere
 
Failing all that, just apply this meaning:

Atheist n A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.

:D
 
cool skill said:
Wrong. This has already been addressed in the "lack of belief" thread.
Click to expand...
Oh. Well now that you've said it, I'm convinced.

Sorry cool skill, but you're in a philosophy forum. Just saying "wrong" or asking me to look it up won't cut it. The essence of philosophical dialogue is the constant scrutinization of the logical foundation of our beliefs. Socrates would ignore you if you tried backing up your propositions without this spirit of inquiry, and so will I. We'll talk when you have reason.
 
SnakeLord said:
Provide me evidence for any of these and I will certainly be willing to change my beliefs.
Click to expand...
Do you not know how to read? Where did anybody say anything about changing beliefs?
You obviously do not know how to read, and have no clue what this thread is about. You clearly do not even know what an atheist is.
 
Do you not know how to read?
Click to expand...

You obviously do not know how to read, and have no clue what this thread is about
Click to expand...

You clearly do not even know what an atheist is
Click to expand...

Most certainly some quality arguments right there. I'd almost feel honoured if you hadn't said exactly the same thing to everyone else. Of course when it comes down to reality, the only person that even agrees with you is you - and it would seem that the above quotes just go to show that you have nothing left to offer. Better luck next time.
 
SkinWalker said:
And then there is the notion of agnostic-atheist, which Cool Skill has, in the past, said he cannot understand.

The only intellectually viable standpoint is that of agnostic-atheist. All others are either deluded or haven't actually applied reason to the issue.
Click to expand...
Here! Here!

I have been in absentia for a couple of days and come back to this wonderful thread! :D
It has been an absolute joy to read pages 1, 2, 10 and 11 (and I can't really be bothered with the middle, as I'm sure they cover much the same ground) - and I have never had such a laugh at this time of day before. Many thanks, all of you.

For my tuppence-worth of input:
It makes no odds what ex-Cool-Skill thinks of the English language and how words are derived - his is just a view - which happens to be wrong.
"Weak atheism" is a legitimate (and dare I say it only entirely viable standpoint) philosophical position whether he considers it such or not.
He is merely putting his own labels on people - which happen to differ from the world at large.
Let us all be content in our own understanding (or in some cases, lack of...) and move along - nothing to see here. :)
 
If we say an atheist simply lacks belief in the existence of god...
The same person must lack belief in the non-existence of god..

If belief is held in either side of the equation, then a belief in the other side must automatically follow. Therefore we could equally define an atheist as lacking belief that god does not exist..

so given these definitions an athesit (weak atheist) should respond with "I dont believe that" to either of these questions;

Do you believe god exists? "I dont believe that"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont believe that"

Just playing with words I know, but this does follow, does it not?
 
It's hardly playing with words.
That is the "weak atheist" position.
It is certainly my position.

The Strong atheist would answer "No" and then "Yes" to your two questions as they have a belief in the non-existence of God.
 
Sarkus said:
It's hardly playing with words.
That is the "weak atheist" position.
It is certainly my position.

The Strong atheist would answer "No" and then "Yes" to your two questions as they have a belief in the non-existence of God.
Click to expand...

Then an agnostic would say
Do you believe god exists? "I dont know that"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont know that"

Could I go on and say the above would be a weak agnostic; a strong agnostic would say;
Do you believe god exists? "I dont know that and it can never be known"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont know that and it can never be known "

Then an atheistic-agnostic (as someone stated they were);
Do you believe god exists? "I don’t believe that and it can never be known"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I don’t believe that and it can never be known"

Of course we then have the agnostic-theist;
Do you believe god exists? "I dont know that / it can never be known, but I do believe it"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont know / it can never be known, that but I do not believe it"

The Gnostic;
Do you believe god exists? "I either know that or it can be known"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I either know that or it can be known"

And lastly the Gnostic-theist (weak);
Do you believe god exists? "I do believe that and it can be known"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont believe that but it can be known "

And Gnostic-theist (strong);
Do you believe god exists? "I do believe that and I have personal knowledge of it "
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont believe that and I have personal knowledge of it"

Agree??
 
Last edited:
Light Travelling said:
Then an agnostic would say
Do you believe god exists? "I dont know that"
Do you believe god does not exist? "I dont know that"
Click to expand...

There are 2 things you're mixing... (a)gnosticism and (a)theism.

Whether you believe in God or not is your (a)theistic stance.
Your (a)gnostic stance is your take on the knowledge, available or otherwise, with regard to God.

So really there are only 6 stances:
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist
Gnostic Strong Atheist
Agnostic Strong Atheist
Gnostic Weak Atheist
Agnostic Weak Atheist

(BTW - Gnosticism is apparently also a separate concept to the meaning you/I are using it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism - but as I think I know what you mean I will continue to use it with your understanding).

Anyhoo, the way I see it:
Gnostic Theist - Has a belief in God and has absolute knowledge of God's existence.
Agnostic Theist - Has a belief in God - but holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.
Gnostic Strong Atheist - Has belief in non-existence of God - and has absolute knowledge of his non-existence.
Agnostic Strong Atheist - Has belief in non-existence of God but holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.
Gnostic Weak Atheist - Has no belief in existence or non-existence of God - but holds that knowledge of God is possible.
Agnostic Weak Atheist - Has no belief in existence of non-existence of God - and holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.

Gnostic Theists are generally viewed as delusional - due to their inability to provide evidence to support their claims of knowledge.
Agnostic Theists are generally considered irrational - as they admit there is not the knowledge but believe anyway - maybe as a result of Pascal's Wager.
Gnostic Strong Atheists are in the same boat as Gnostic Theists - they have yet to provide evidence of non-existence - and it is usually assumed futile to try.
Agnostic Strong Atheists at least realise the lack of knowledge - yet believe - which is irrational.
Gnostic Weak Atheists is where you believe there is, or will be, sufficient evidence etc but you just can't make up your mind.
Agnostic Weak Atheist is where you don't think there is the knowledge - and thus have no belief either way. A rational position.

Which I guess is what you have stated.
So maybe it would have been easier just to say: Yes ;)

I know I have used certain narrow definitions of Agnosticism / Gnosticism etc - but it is only to get across the distinction. A clearer understanding of Agnosticism will give you a clearer differentiation between the categories.
 
SnakeLord said:
Most certainly some quality arguments right there. I'd almost feel honoured if you hadn't said exactly the same thing to everyone else. Of course when it comes down to reality, the only person that even agrees with you is you - and it would seem that the above quotes just go to show that you have nothing left to offer. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...
It is you that has nothing to offer. I'm not the one running around using mickeymouseterminology.
 
Sarkus said:
"Weak atheism" is a legitimate (and dare I say it only entirely viable standpoint) philosophical position whether
Click to expand...
Stop crying. It has already been fully proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Weak atheism and all other similar mickeymouseterminology is meaningless.


Sarkus said:
Gnostic Theist - Has a belief in God and has absolute knowledge of God's existence.
Agnostic Theist - Has a belief in God - but holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.
Gnostic Strong Atheist - Has belief in non-existence of God - and has absolute knowledge of his non-existence.
Agnostic Strong Atheist - Has belief in non-existence of God but holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.
Gnostic Weak Atheist - Has no belief in existence or non-existence of God - but holds that knowledge of God is possible.
Agnostic Weak Atheist - Has no belief in existence of non-existence of God - and holds that absolute knowledge of God is impossible etc.
Click to expand...
What a load of kindergarten baloonee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top