Strong and weak atheism make a clear distinction between rejecting a belief in god [practical behaviour as if god doesnt exist, even though he just might] and asserting the belief that god doesn't exist [an ideological claim that claims the god is knowable and that he doesnt exist]. I want to try and reconcile the two and say that the difference is a matter of probability - to the knowability of god and his existence. High knowability [gnostism] gives rise to strong a/theist while the opposite leads to weak a/theist. Belief in belief is another plane independent of these two. I use below a slightly modified former post of mine. God, if omnipotent, is under no obligation to do anything his omnipotence makes him capable of doing. So omnipotence couldn't rule out agnositism, and the choice in belief can be therefore independant of the "contradiction". On the other hand, this doen't leave the situation 50-50. The point that if god is omnipotent he should make himself observable is not an absolute measure of god's presence, but its a good probabilistic weight against the claim of theism. Theists sometimes miss out that the stand of atheism is not a belief claim or a denial of god because its a probablity claim. No sensible atheist would say that god doesn't exist for sure, because the prime reason as well as the main alternative to theism is science [though the two could coexist and do so for about 7-9% of the scientific elite]. One could therefore only make a claim of probability [as required by scientism], like the existence of god being as likely as...say....spagetti monster, pink unicorn, celestial teapot, bigfoot, santa, etc. but a claim of absolute atheism [strong atheism] is a faith claim, its a claim similiar to saying you know exactly how many heads or tails will come up in 10K flips. Weak atheism is akin to saying that the exact number is unknowable [until flipped] and till then based on weighting of the coin and motion of the hand, etc, a probability of around 45-55% can be ascertained. The claim to existence of god is similiar, but the coin is weighted - by observations, philosophy and the sciences. The yes side is losing the weight and the no side is being reinforced by science and philosophy, thereby shifting the probability, [IMPO] to somewhere around 85-95%. Like Zeno's paradox, we would never call it an even 100, it will always be 99.something, like it is today for the animal spirit that warns warblers when a cat approaches [fictitious example animism in tribal people]. Which is where the scientific methods of modelling and theorising come in, and the naturalist model is maintained as the only one, given its theories are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a fitting and parsimonious explaination - like coincidence, placebo, baises, etc. And that is how [IMO] atheists resolve their rejection of the belief in God, something they cannot be certain about, only so much sure.
A probability, based on, resting securely on, another, deeper, layer of probability, exasperates the odds that the concluded measurement is farther from the true mark. --keith1
Not a good statement to make after you voted that not only do you believe god to be knowable [gnostic] but also that you know him well enought to be a strong theist. Care to resolve the contradiction, pls?
Agreed, but the entire reason we resort to probability is that the true mark is not specifiable.However off the probability is, it surely isnt so off that we cannot take stands on beliefs based on it. We can say that because we can agree on some basic laws of rational informal logic - like parsimony and baises, which have, in the last few centuries, been pushing the odds towards no.
Knock yourself out, because that what you're doing...knocking yourself out of contention. I will not join you in your archaic methodology. If you're going to stand on ancient methodology, then lets go all the way back...let's climb back up in the trees and check each other's scalp hair for bugs.
God is a human construct and exist only in the minds of man. Question: Does it matter who's God you are talking about? Or for this topic and poll will any God do? If I were to believe in one God, but not your God, does that make me part theist and part atheist? Not to worry, I haven't seen any proof of any God for myself or anybody else. I'm not an atheist because I don't believe in a God, but because I don't believe any evidence or proof of God will ever be found by any human.
Any god will do - a personal god that is. Naturalistic pantheism/ panentheism/ spinosim, deism and non deity faiths/philosophy religions dont count.
How did I knock myself out of contention? And how is my claim to probability an archaic one? Btw, all the way back would take us to unicellular life in ancient ponds... or an alien lab!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. I mis-voted. I am a agnostic theist. I believe in one God, in fact he speaks to me, but I have no way authentisizing his voice minor keeping his word and seeing where his will takes me, so I still do not know, therefore I am agnostic, as we all are. I consider my self a un-penetrable faithful, that is all. I am fire, not the sticks and stones. Science is the stick, and knowledge is the stone. They come together and they will come up with faith, assume this to be true. However, they did not produce faith, it always was, they just didn't see it.
Gimme a break. You know I am an atheist for only over a month and am still resolving and reformulating my thinking, right? These discussions and all of you guys with your feedback are very helpful in that regard. So either make a sensible counterargument or dont make any at all, please, you are not helping or making a useful contribution here.
in Ancient History there is a god , a far more advanced being I just don't " believe " in this " god "
No. No offense, but faith is a cloak, a veil of cloth used as a blind for stupid, weak people. Its left there only because it is protected by taboo. If I ever become a theist again, it will never be due to faith - only due to observational confirmation of God's existence - a personal experience or a discovery in which the existence of god is the only and most parsimonious answer. If you are a theist because you observed god or concluded his existence in your thinking, I have no problems with the basis of your theism. But if you are a theist because you were told about god and told to have faith in him, what they did was put a thought in your brain and put a rock on it - a rock you are never supposed to move far enough that that thought may be fully examined and strengthened or discarded - and it is this and this only that I take issue to.
