This is mostly correct. Agnosticism can be strong (we cannot know) or weak (I don’t know and I don’t care). Strong atheism is the least common of the four positions as far as I’m aware.Actually, the way I’ve heard atheists and agnostics put it (and it’s only fair to let them define their own positions) is that there are actually three positions:
Agnosticism: God may exist, or he may not exist, but we cannot possibly know.
Weak atheism: I lack belief in the existence of God, but I make no claims about his existence.
Strong atheism: I believe that God does not exist.
1 John 4:8Whether it is a fact is what we are discussing.
A strong Athiest doesn’t “believe” God doesn’t exist. They may use those words, but it’s usually because some bright spark will alway’s say to them, that they can’t ‘prove’ it therefore they don’t “know”. So they say they don’t believe.Actually, the way I’ve heard atheists and agnostics put it (and it’s only fair to let them define their own positions) is that there are actually three positions:
Agnosticism: God may exist, or he may not exist, but we cannot possibly know.
Weak atheism: I lack belief in the existence of God, but I make no claims about his existence.
Strong atheism: I believe that God does not exist.
And the “strong theist” might even say the same.A strong Athiest doesn’t “believe” God doesn’t exist. They may use those words, but it’s usually because some bright spark will alway’s say to them, that they can’t ‘prove’ it therefore they don’t “know”. So they say they don’t believe.
And in the bible, the only verse that bothers to confront atheism goes something like, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’.” To the Catholic, the universe couldn’t not have God.There is only one option.
Pascal’s Wager is insulting to Christians and nontheists.Ever heard of a little thing called Pascal’s Wager? At its essence is the idea that the consequences of choosing not to believe in God and then finding out after death that He exists after all, are infinitely worse than the consequences of choosing not to believe in Him and finding out after death that He doesn’t.
Sigh…I’ve never found a believer thats chosen to accept that it’s not a belief.And the “strong theist” might even say the same.
And in the bible, the only verse that bothers to confront atheism goes something like, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’.” To the Catholic, the universe couldn’t not have God.
My point is it’s the same thing. Call it “just the facts” if you want, but it’s most certainly a belief, just like any other.
I totally agree. It’s a seductive idea, but totally unworkable on multiple counts.Pascal’s Wager is insulting to Christians and nontheists.
No, I believe that Santa doesn’t exist, but I can’t possibly know. I would need to know everything to know that Santa doesn’t exist. The “of course Santa doesn’t exist” is well-accepted, but truth is not a democracy.Sigh…I’ve never found a believer thats chosen to accept that it’s not a belief.
Go with the Santa analogy. No one 'believes" Santa doesn’t exist. he just doesn’t.
Yes, I’m saying that Christians and Theists often feel the same way.I’m not saying you need to “agree” with athiesm, but calling it a belief isn’t going to help you to understand where athiests come from. No wonder so many athiests get angry, when believers can’t even accept how they feel.
Okay, you believe he doesn’t exist. I know he doesn’t.No, I believe that Santa doesn’t exist, but I can’t possibly know. I would need to know everything to know that Santa doesn’t exist. The “of course Santa doesn’t exist” is well-accepted, but truth is not a democracy.
Okay?Yes, I’m saying that Christians and Theists often feel the same way.
And as I said, if you want to understand, you can only do so, by accepting that athiesm isn’t about belief. It’s lack of. I really don’t mind too much if you don’t understand, because it affects you more than me and I can’t change that.But it’s interesting, that so many people need it to be about belief, when it’s not. Why?The fact of the matter is that strong atheism fits the definition of a belief without even a little fudging.
Nope. :nope:*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.
Interesting. If I might ask, how much of Aquinas have you read? The one article of the Summa on the “five ways”? Or more broadly his discussion of God’s being and attributes in subsequent sections (or in other works)? I’m not asking for a checklist, just saying that I think Aquinas’s most important contributions are in fleshing out what we mean when we say “God.” Without understanding that, you won’t really have a grasp of why the five ways are persuasive.I’ve also read Aquinas, but I don’t think that the arguments work.
I’m following Aristotle/Aquinas here. Simplicity that has explanatory power is simplicity to which more complex things can be “reduced”–i.e., in terms of which more complex things can be explained. This may be an overly crude metaphor, but imagine a wall that rests on a hundred small pillars, which in turn rest on one long stone foundation. Take away the foundation and you have a “simpler” structure in the sense that there is one fewer stone. But that stone provided a base for the entire structure.This is a really interesting line of thought. What kind of simplicity do you think I should be looking for? What kind of simplicity gives us greater explanatory power?
Of course I am. It’s all in Aquinas!I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Are you equating God with Being?
Wait a minute. The Trinity is not ascertainable by reason alone, nor is it an “attribute” of God.If so, what keeps the atheist from agreeing that Being exists but denying that Being has the attributes traditionally ascribed to God - goodness, omniscience, omnipotence, being Three Persons in One, etc.?
-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).
Ah the “M” word for moral. It always comes up one way or another.Conclusion: Atheism is the rational position.
God isnt an object in the universe. The universe is an object in God.-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).
Atheism is the belief that God does not exist (correct me if I’m wrong), so doesnt that mean atheism is a belief? Or in other words, an opinion?Sigh…I’ve never found a believer thats chosen to accept that it’s not a belief.
I’m not saying you need to “agree” with athiesm, but calling it a belief isn’t going to help you to understand where athiests come from.
* [Can You Prove God Exists?](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm)
* [Argument from Design](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/design.htm)
* [Argument from First Cause](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm)
* [Argument from Conscience](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm)
* [Argument from History](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/history.htm)
* [Argument from Pascal's Wager](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm)
* [Argument from Desire](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm)
* [The Divinity of Christ](http://peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm)If belief is an opinion on the way things are (rather than religion), does that mean atheists lack opinion?And as I said, if you want to understand, you can only do so, by accepting that athiesm isn’t about belief. It’s lack of. I really don’t mind too much if you don’t understand, because it affects you more than me and I can’t change that.But it’s interesting, that so many people need it to be about belief, when it’s not. Why?