Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[minotza]

This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way..

Strong Atheism as defined by Dawkins belief scale (shown in this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830) says "Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God."
I think its safe to say that Strong Atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion (based on the assumption it makes) and may as well be considered a religion itself.

I've been exploring a lot of youtube clips lately of news channel and talk show interviews with atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and various others and I've come to the conclusion that theists when structuring their arguments (usually) argue on the premise that all atheists are what Dawkins defines as Strong Atheists. This makes the theists look better then they are to the masses, because in reality its just two religions arguing with each other. I think that in order to show how religion is irrational atheism cannot be viewed in this way. I'm not saying that anyone is actually a Strong Atheist here (to be so is to be irrational and illogical I think), but whether we like it or not that is how the atheistic community is commonly viewed by theists. I think this mostly just stems from lack of understanding on the theists part..but the point I'm trying to make is why is Strong Atheism even mentioned at all? I think all atheistic principles go against Strong Atheism.

My second dilemma:
What is the real difference between a Weak Atheist and a De-facto Atheist in Dawkins belief scale?
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

It seems to me as Dawkins is saying that a Weak Atheist does not let his view point affect his life where as a De-facto Atheist does, and that that is the only difference, since:
 "I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical" = "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable [strike:3ld52dl9]and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there[/strike:3ld52dl9]." These two statements are equal, right?

But whether or not you let your viewpoint affect your life says nothing about the correctness of said viewpoint...right? If that's true..why does Dawkins make that distinction? Should atheism ever be a statement about how you live your life, or just about your objective perceptions and observations about life?

My third dilemma:

Wouldn't a Pure Agnostic logically make the next step and become a Weak Atheist?
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

As a pure agnostic you accept that gods existence and non existence have the same probability - which makes perfect sense to me, but the thing is your dealing with probability..so jumping from Pure Agnostic to Weak Atheist would make sense due to the objective things we know about our universe..right?

Thanks for reading, I hope this generates some stimulating discussion  

[The Magic Pudding]

99.99% pure is enough for gold it seems.
0.01% probability is overestimating the chance for a god, it certainly is for the Abrahamist variety.

[minotza]

Which of my questions are you referring to?

[The Magic Pudding]

Strong Atheism as defined by Dawkins belief scale (shown in this thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830) says "Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God."
I think its safe to say that Strong Atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion (based on the assumption it makes) and may as well be considered a religion itself.

I think the 100% figure involves a bit of a leap, not a very big one though.  Maybe it's just a simplification, the extremely small chance may be seen as an irrelevant distraction.
I don't think strong atheism is anywhere near as ridiculous as religion.  Have you heard of Ark Park?

[minotza]

Strong Atheism as defined by Dawkins belief scale (shown in this thread <a class="linkification-ext" href="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830" title="Linkification: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830">http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830</a>) says "Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God."
I think its safe to say that Strong Atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion (based on the assumption it makes) and may as well be considered a religion itself.

I think the 100% figure involves a bit of a leap, not a very big one though.  Maybe it's just a simplification, the extremely small chance may be seen as an irrelevant distraction.
I don't think strong atheism is anywhere near as ridiculous as religion.  Have you heard of Ark Park?

You must agree it is impossible to have 100% certainty that god exists right? Just as the inverse is true, we cannot have 100% certainty that he does not exist.

With that said, taking either of those sides is equally irrational. We certainly have justified reasons for believing that he doesn't exist, yet we have absolutely no reasons to completely rule out his existence, and to do so is just as irrational as claiming his existence. Why can't you say the extremely small chance FOR god is just a distraction to test the faithful and that he really does just exist? Strong atheism is not as ridiculous as modern day religion when you're talking about the things it brings about...but you must agree that the assumption that god exists is just as illogical and irrational as the assumption that he does not...right? In the end, Strong Atheism is just another religion preaching an unprovable claim: That god most certainly does not exist. That just begs the question of..."well how do you know?" and "prove it!"

[Thumpalumpacus]

However, 99% certainty that there is no god is much more reasonable than 99% certainty that there is such a god.

[LegendarySandwich]

When in regards to the Abrahamic gods, it's not irrational to be a strong atheist, as they are contradictory both externally and internally, and therefore cannot logically exist (the same is true for any other god that is contradictory). When in regards to any god in general, it is a bit irrational to claim that there's no chance at all that one exists, as we can't possibly know that for certain. It's not a religion, though. Just like weak atheism, strong atheism is a statement, not a philosophy or dogma.

[Existentialist]

However, 99% certainty that there is no god is much more reasonable than 99% certainty that there is such a god.

Any quoting of percentages implies a probability estimate.  It is not possible to estimate the probability of anything without data.  But there is no data.  

I don't use the strong / weak comparisons nor the agnostic / gnostic subdivisions of atheism that a lot of people are so keen on.  I call myself 'an atheist - I say god doesn't exist'.  Most people get it.

This stance is about what it means, not how I arrived at the stance.  What it means is partly about how much I want to avoid inherited assumptions from the judeo-christian philosophical regime, of which I think rationalism is a major component.  By this I mean the authoritarianism of the priest saying, 'Don't argue with me, because the book says I'm right'.  The book is outside yourself.  The rationalist will say, 'don't argue with me, because the evidence says I'm right'.  They're both very similar - it's a case of 'don't think you can decide what's right - defer to an outside force.'  So they are very similar and a lot of the same authoritarian behaviours repeat themselves in both religious believers and those who will not take any stance without 'evidence'.  

I prefer a philosophical position that lets the subject determine what's right.  Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist, makes no allowance for the remotest thought that god might exist, and if he does, it puts him in his proper place: largely an irrelevance.  (Although I would not describe this as apatheism - which is really just pigeonholing people for the sake of dismissing them).

[minotza]

However, 99% certainty that there is no god is much more reasonable than 99% certainty that there is such a god.

That's not necessarily true is it? Doesn't the reasonableness depend on what is giving you that 99% certainty?

When in regards to the Abrahamic gods, it's not irrational to be a strong atheist, as they are contradictory both externally and internally, and therefore cannot logically exist (the same is true for any other god that is contradictory). When in regards to any god in general, it is a bit irrational to claim that there's no chance at all that one exists, as we can't possibly know that for certain. It's not a religion, though. Just like weak atheism, strong atheism is a statement, not a philosophy or dogma.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, could you show an example or something?

Isn't strong atheism a claim of unknowable knowledge?
Isn't a claim of unknowable knowledge irrational in any situation?

This stance is about what it means, not how I arrived at the stance.  What it means is partly about how much I want to avoid inherited assumptions from the judeo-christian philosophical regime, of which I think rationalism is a major component.  By this I mean the authoritarianism of the priest saying, 'Don't argue with me, because the book says I'm right'.  The book is outside yourself.  The rationalist will say, 'don't argue with me, because the evidence says I'm right'.  They're both very similar - it's a case of 'don't think you can decide what's right - defer to an outside force.'  So they are very similar and a lot of the same authoritarian behaviours repeat themselves in both religious believers and those who will not take any stance without 'evidence'.  

I prefer a philosophical position that lets the subject determine what's right.  Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist, makes no allowance for the remotest thought that god might exist, and if he does, it puts him in his proper place: largely an irrelevance.  (Although I would not describe this as apatheism - which is really just pigeonholing people for the sake of dismissing them).

"Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist, makes no allowance for the remotest thought that god might exist"- Your describing Strong Atheism there though..right? Because, that is a claim of unknowable knowledge..right?

"and if he does, it puts him in his proper place: largely an irrelevance" Isn't that also just a claim of unknowable knowledge?

Basically what I'm trying to say is that an "atheist" should never claim to know something with 100% certainty (Strong Atheist) as a religious person would with God. Because then he is making the SAME mistake as the religious person..right? Am I wrong in thinking this way?

[Existentialist]

"Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist, makes no allowance for the remotest thought that god might exist"- Your describing Strong Atheism there though..right? Because, that is a claim of unknowable knowledge..right?

I don't use the term Strong Atheism, and I've not said anything about knowledge, I'm talking about taking a stand and basing how I look at life on that stand.  

"and if he does, it puts him in his proper place: largely an irrelevance" Isn't that also just a claim of unknowable knowledge?

First, I said if.  Then, if he does exist, the atheist makes no allowance for god, because the atheist has based all his personality on god not existing.  

Basically what I'm trying to say is that an "atheist" should never claim to know something with 100% certainty (Strong Atheist) as a religious person would with God. Because then he is making the SAME mistake as the religious person..right? Am I wrong in thinking this way?

An atheist shouldn't use terms like never, they evoke thoughts of eternity - a very debatable concept, rather a religious one.  No, I do not think the way you describe.  I tend to think the use of knowledge, or absence of, is a replication of the christian concept of knowing god.   We should decide for ourselves what we think, regardless of what we know.  Truth is a very slippery concept, the idea that it can be relied upon even at the most basic level is a very insecure basis on which to build one's approach to life.

[LegendarySandwich]

I'm not sure what your first sentence means, could you show an example or something?

Sure. The problem of evil, for example. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (or at the very least, a good guy), then, logically, evil and imperfection shouldn't exist. Theists try to make excuses and rationalize the existence of evil, but they always come up short.

Then, there are contradictions in the Bible (and undoubtedly other holy books such as the Koran) -- like where God says the he answers all prayers, which he clearly doesn't -- that throw into question the truth of the entire book. If one part is provably wrong/contradictory, then how do you do that anything the book says is right?

Isn't strong atheism a claim of unknowable knowledge?

In regards to any and all gods, yes. In regards to specific gods that can be disproven, no.

Isn't a claim of unknowable knowledge irrational in any situation?

Probably.

Existentialist seems to hold a...weird position regarding this. I think he's a little nuts, myself.

[Existentialist]

Existentialist seems to hold a...weird position regarding this. I think he's a little nuts, myself.

I prioritise the subjective, that's all.  And I don't suggest others are insane.  Not even a little bit.

[terranus]

My thoughts are this: I don't know whether there is a creator or not, but really, it's not that idea that bothers me so much. It's the people worship him/her/it and the religions they have created that I have beef with.

So I'm not really sure what that would classify me as.

[The Magic Pudding]

We certainly have justified reasons for believing that he doesn't exist, yet we have absolutely no reasons to completely rule out his existence, and to do so is just as irrational as claiming his existence.

When is this infinitesimal chance of a god going to make a difference to my decision making?
Maybe it is more efficient to declare the likelihood as zero, if I designed a robot I would give it a zero value for god.

You must agree it is impossible to have 100% certainty that god exists right?

I'm not sure it's possible to be 100% sure of anything.  
Other people do a bit of rounding up, doesn't bother me all that much.

In the end, Strong Atheism is just another religion preaching an unprovable claim: That god most certainly does not exist.

I don't see why strong atheism has to be classed as a religion, not by any definition I would use anyway.
Some atheists may put some hope in science, but I don't equate this with a theists belief in the supernatural.
I don't like  the use of "just another religion"  it's use often seems disingenuous, a few shared characteristics don't make one thing another thing.

[minotza]

Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist, makes no allowance for the remotest thought that god might exist"

Your describing Strong Atheism there though..right? Because, that is a claim of unknowable knowledge..right?

I don't use the term Strong Atheism, and I've not said anything about knowledge, I'm talking about taking a stand and basing how I look at life on that stand.

"Atheism, by which I mean the position that god doesn't exist" = Strong Atheism = a claim about knowledge (whether or not its unknowable, but in this case it is unknowable)

"and if he does, it puts him in his proper place: largely an irrelevance" Isn't that also just a claim of unknowable knowledge?

First, I said if.  Then, if he does exist, the atheist makes no allowance for god, because the atheist has based all his personality on god not existing.

What relevance does your use of the word "if" have on my argument, exactly?
Here you are implying that because an atheist has "based his personality on god not existing" that belief in god's existence is not allowable, even if he does exist? Who cares if you based "all your personality on god not existing?" Does that mean you should ignore knowledge and rationality if faced with evidence and proof that god exists? That just makes no sense at all.  
 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that an "atheist" should never claim to know something with 100% certainty (Strong Atheist) as a religious person would with God. Because then he is making the SAME mistake as the religious person..right? Am I wrong in thinking this way?

An atheist shouldn't use terms like never, they evoke thoughts of eternity - a very debatable concept, rather a religious one.  No, I do not think the way you describe.  I tend to think the use of knowledge, or absence of, is a replication of the christian concept of knowing god.   We should decide for ourselves what we think, regardless of what we know.  Truth is a very slippery concept, the idea that it can be relied upon even at the most basic level is a very insecure basis on which to build one's approach to life.

Isn't truth by definition not a slippery concept at all, and the best kind of way to approach one's life?

"We should decide for ourselves what we think, regardless of what we know"

Not if what you know rationally and logically goes against what you think. That's just stubbornness for stubbornness's sake.

Isn't strong atheism a claim of unknowable knowledge?

In regards to any and all gods, yes. In regards to specific gods that can be disproven, no.

"any and all gods" = "specific gods that can be disproven" ....right? And besides, what god can be disproved?

Isn't a claim of unknowable knowledge irrational in any situation?

Probably.

Why is your answer probably, and not, yes or no?
Even if your answer is "probably" wouldn't it then logically follow that being a Strong Atheist is irrational?

We certainly have justified reasons for believing that he doesn't exist, yet we have absolutely no reasons to completely rule out his existence, and to do so is just as irrational as claiming his existence.

When is this infinitesimal chance of a god going to make a difference to my decision making?

Does knowing the answer to that change anything? I'm not sure I understand the relevance of my answer to that question.

Maybe it is more efficient to declare the likelihood as zero, if I designed a robot I would give it a zero value for god.

Just as its more efficient to assume that flushing a toilet won't set off a bomb and kill you..that way we don't have to check every for a bomb every time. But just because something is useful/efficient doesn't make it right does it? The toilet could have easily been rigged with an explosive and killed you.

You must agree it is impossible to have 100% certainty that god exists right?

I'm not sure it's possible to be 100% sure of anything.  
Other people do a bit of rounding up, doesn't bother me all that much.

Let me re-phrase: You must agree that, based on our current knowledge, it is impossible to have 100% certainty that god exists in the same way it is impossible to have 100% certainty that he doesn't..right?

In the end, Strong Atheism is just another religion preaching an unprovable claim: That god most certainly does not exist.

I don't see why strong atheism has to be classed as a religion, not by any definition I would use anyway.
Some atheists may put some hope in science, but I don't equate this with a theists belief in the supernatural.
I don't like  the use of "just another religion"  it's use often seems disingenuous, a few shared characteristics don't make one thing another thing.

Yeah, I was not correct in calling it a religion. What I was trying to say that its just a platform which claims an unknowable knowledge, just as any religion does.