How is "strong atheism" tenable?

[Tokos]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

[Dyakovo]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position?

I agree, although I prefer the term implicit atheism.

For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism.

It differs greatly from agnosticism in that agnosticism is not a statement about belief, its a statement about knowledge.

Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

It does, but then strong atheism is a religious belief itself.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position?

For me, yes.

For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism.

Any form of atheism is a statement about belief while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge. Weak (implicit) atheism: the lack of belief in a god(s). Agnosticism: The statement that either we don't have enough information to make a decision or we can never know.

Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

It does...

[Meridiani Planum]

Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

That's not necessarily a drawback. Logical positivism is for most intents and purposes a dead philosophy.

[Bottle]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

Given that nobody has ever even managed to DEFINE 'god' in a comprehensive, complete, and objective manner for me, I think strong atheism is as tenable as strong lack of belief in magical invisible 2000-ton centaurs who live on the moon.

[Peepelonia]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

Given that nobody has ever even managed to DEFINE 'god' in a comprehensive, complete, and objective manner for me, I think strong atheism is as tenable as strong lack of belief in magical invisible 2000-ton centaurs who live on the moon.

What is meant by 'tenable'?

Strong Atieism is as unreasonable as theism, yet theisim lives, so I guess it is tenable, not reasonble, but tenable sure.

[West Failure]

Atheism is not a belief that there is no God but a lack of belief that there are Gods. A lack of a belief in something is not the same a belief in the lack of something.

[The Tofu Islands]

I agree, although I prefer the term implicit atheism.

There is a slight difference I think... from what I recall of the definitions, it’s possible to be a weak atheist while still being an explicit atheist (if you consciously choose not to believe in any gods).

Atheism is not a belief that there is no God but a lack of belief that there are Gods. A lack of a belief in something is not the same a belief in the lack of something.

Strong atheism is the specific belief that there are no gods, rather then simply lack of belief. As such, it isn’t really a reasonable position, unlike weak atheism (simple lack of belief).

And, to the OP: agnosticism is different.

[Fassitude]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

By the same "logic", how is strong a-unicornism "tenable"? String a-teapotism? Strong a-Herr Rappakalja-who-lives-in-my-ear-and-whom-only-I-can-hearism? (And I tell you, if you are "agnostic" or "weakly" a-Herr Rappakaljist and actually give my claims of his existence even a credence in the possibility of their falsifiability, then you're an idiot.)

You see, "agnosticism" and "weak atheism" are stupid because they actually lead to the moronic position that one has to give credibility and "consider" any cockamamie thing anyone could ever imagine. The null hypothesis is the basic position of a realist, and scientific, world view for a reason. It is up to those who claim to prove what they claim, and until they can prove them because they've come up with a falsifiable method, their claims are to be assumed false. Religion is a stupendously imbecilic phenomenon and claims made under it are an insult to the intelligence ("magic" and "salvation" and "sin" and "afterlife" and "deities" and "supernatural" and "spiritual energies" and "chakras" and all the rest - poppycock) and therefore require extraordinary proofs because they fly in the face of the entire nature of the natural and rational world.

The special thing about religion, though, is that it is defined as unprovable, as beyond a rational method of inquiry and thinking. The people who indulge in this inanity will thus, per their own accord and doing and definitions, never be able to prove their gobbledegook. In fact, to them the more ridiculous and unprovable and crazy something is, the better! Because "faith" is the delusion that believing in all this nonsense *because* it is nonsense and unprovable and beyond any sort of rational thinking, methodology and sanity, is a "good thing" - a virtue - the crazier the thing they can delude themselves to believe in, the more zealous and "devoted" and "passionate" they are as religionists, and the more "faith" they have, the better they think of their ramblings!

So, no, strong atheism is not "untenable" at all. It is basically the only intellectually honest position. We are all atheist to something - even religionists are "atheist" to the brands of crazy they don't follow. Not following any brand of crazy that cannot be proven because it is defined as unproven and that is considered to be a "better idea" the more unprovable and crazy it is, is the only rational thing to do.

[Hydesland]

By the same "logic", how is strong a-unicornism "tenable"? String a-teapotism? Strong a-Herr Rappakalja-who-lives-in-my-ear-and-whom-only-I-can-hearism?

They aren't, technically, but you're deliberately using terrible comparisons. Plausibility isn't that black and white, if the majority of the population of the earth started claiming that they saw, or experienced in some way a unicorn, then outright asserting that a unicorn does not exist for certain would be considerably more illogical.

You see, "agnosticism" and "weak atheism" are stupid because they actually lead to the moronic position that one has to give credibility and "consider" any cockamamie thing anyone could ever imagine.

No it doesn't.

The null hypothesis is the basic position of a realist, and scientific, world view for a reason.

The null hypothesis is nothing more than a useful way to analyse data, there is absolutely nothing objectively correct about it. The null hypothesis, even if it is failed to be rejected, the FIRST thing you are taught as a statistician, is that it isn't then proven beyond doubt to be true, just that there is no good reason to reject it. Kind of like.... agnosticism.

So, no, strong atheism is not "untenable" at all. It is basically the only intellectually honest position.

Since there is pretty much not a single shred of objective backing for it, then logically, empirically, and objectively, it is absolutely not tenable in any sense of the word. Even many of the most prominent atheists and atheistic philosophers admit this.

[Tokos]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

Given that nobody has ever even managed to DEFINE 'god' in a comprehensive, complete, and objective manner for me, I think strong atheism is as tenable as strong lack of belief in magical invisible 2000-ton centaurs who live on the moon.

Oo, I remember you.

Good point, but let's go with the philosopher's God, the Deist "creator of everything" God, basically defined as "not atheism". I certainly don't want to go near Pascal's Wager. Celestial teapots and invisible unicorns suit arguments against individual gods like Zeus, Thor, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

[Gift-of-god]

Given that nobody has ever even managed to DEFINE 'god' in a comprehensive, complete, and objective manner for me, I think strong atheism is as tenable as strong lack of belief in magical invisible 2000-ton centaurs who live on the moon.

So, strong atheism is tenable for certain models of god. For example, if we define god as a herd of 5 million pink 2000-ton centaurs in Kansas, we could easily go to Kansas and verify the lack of god. In other words, any model of god that makes testable claims can be disproved.

Another way is to show how something logically contradicts itself. For example, the classic model of the Christian god is both separate from the material world and infinite. But this is a contradiction because if god is separate from creation, then there must be some boundary between god and creation, while an infinite thing is unbounded by definition.

So, the point you make about defining god clearly is very important. I am a strong atheist about particular models of god, but a theist about my own model. Like every other theist. There should be an <irony> smiley.

[Ifreann]

BREAKING NEWS: Sometimes people aren't logical.

[Tahar Joblis]

The null hypothesis is nothing more than a useful way to analyse data, there is absolutely nothing objectively correct about it. The null hypothesis, even if it is failed to be rejected, the FIRST thing you are taught as a statistician, is that it isn't then proven beyond doubt to be true, just that there is no good reason to reject it. Kind of like.... agnosticism.

"Beyond doubt" isn't necessary for belief. It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to believe there is no god while not claiming to know there is no god.

One could look at the world, see evil, see the failure of prayers, see terrible inconsistency in how god(s) are described, et cetera, and come perfectly reasonably to the belief that there is no god.

Belief does not, and never has, required genuine logical proof. It is no great difficulty to believe something to be untrue; the atheist who decides to say god does not exist is exercising the same faculty as the theist who decides that some particular god exists. Something is being taken on faith, yes; but at the same time, both probably consider there to be substantial supporting evidence.

[Ashmoria]

Surely weak atheism is the only logically tenable atheist position? For that matter it doesn't seem to differ from agnosticism. Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

what is logical positivism that it must not be violated?

no. really. what is logical positivism?

"god" is such an undefined and illogical concept on its own that i dont see any particular problem with strongly opting out of it.

[The chrisman union]

When will people realize that whether God exists makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to humanity? Even if right here, right now, God was proven or disproved, we will have gained nothing other than the annoyance of a few atheists/theists. The disproving/proving of God won't solve world hunger, world peace or garden gnomes. Please, focus on something that'll actually benefit humanity!

[Free Soviets]

no. really. what is logical positivism?

a major philosophical line of thought from the early decades of the 20th century, most famous for its central idea of the verification principle. to put that roughly how ayer put it:

a sentence is factually significant if, and only if, we know how to verify the proposition it purports to express - that is, if we know what observations would lead us to accept the proposition as true or reject it as false.


it should be noted that the vp ran into a slight problem when applied to itself. and now you understand a string of random comments in various threads between me and BWO going back for years - welcome to the club!

[Hydesland]

"Beyond doubt" isn't necessary for belief. It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to believe there is no god while not claiming to know there is no god.

Yes but being aware that you don't know IS agnosticism, which is what fass was attacking. So that's irrelevant to my point.

[Ashmoria]

no. really. what is logical positivism?

a major philosophical line of thought from the early decades of the 20th century, most famous for its central idea of the verification principle. to put that roughly how ayer put it:

a sentence is factually significant if, and only if, we know how to verify the proposition it purports to express - that is, if we know what observations would lead us to accept the proposition as true or reject it as false.


it should be noted that the vp ran into a slight problem when applied to itself. and now you understand a string of random comments in various threads between me and BWO going back for years - welcome to the club!

can i claim that since the question of the existence of god --or the assertion that god does/might exist fails this test spectacularly, that it is also untenable?

not that im sure what "tenable" means either.

[Fassitude]

They aren't, technically,

Then I refer you to my comment in the parentheses, which explains why I stopped reading your post right there.

[New Kereptica]

Is google really that hard?

: capable of being held, maintained, or defended

[Peepelonia]

Atheism is not a belief that there is no God but a lack of belief that there are Gods. A lack of a belief in something is not the same a belief in the lack of something.

Go look up 'Strong athieism'

[WITCHA]

When will people realize that whether God exists makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to humanity? Even if right here, right now, God was proven or disproved, we will have gained nothing other than the annoyance of a few atheists/theists. The disproving/proving of God won't solve world hunger, world peace or garden gnomes. Please, focus on something that'll actually benefit humanity!

What has garden gnomes got to do with God ?

[Soheran]

Strong atheism would seem to violate logical positivism.

So? Logical positivism is not necessarily true. On its terms, we can't talk about the existence of anything at all, except maybe direct experiences.

[Hydesland]

Then I refer you to my comment in the parentheses, which explains why I stopped reading your post right there.

Ah yes, 'you're an idiot'. That explains everything so perfectly well. But I guess that's all you have left, since there's no way you could possibly defend such illogical idea that it's simultaneously possible to hold a tenable proposition on the nature of the existence of God whilst admitting yourself that such a proposition is unfalsifiable.