Is there an argument For atheism

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what this strong/weak atheist stuff is about, but there are two definitions for each word.

Atheist:
Vernacular: Someone who believes there is no god.
Technical (and obsolete): Someone who is without the belief that a god exists.

By the second definition, babies, and even hamsters are atheist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I would replace your "technical" definition with this one:

Weak Athiest: Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.

Not only is this definition not "obsolete" as you say, but it is evidently gaining in popularity as being part of the vernacular. Furthermore, babies, hamsters, and those who have never heard of the concept of "God" do not fall into that category. They do not take a position on the subject because they have no awareness of it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference between that, and the vernacular definition I provided?

[PairTheBoard]

Having considered the discussion and revised my old definitions of Theist, Atheist, and Agnostic to include my version of "weak atheist" which is evidently becomeing part of the vernacular

Weak Athiest: Someone who takes the position that they do not have a belief that God exists.

I'll comment on what I think the original idea of the OP is. That somehow, atheism is the default position and no argument for it is therefore necessary.

I think the default position is that of someone who has never heard of or personally come up with the concept of "God". This person takes no position on the issue because he is unaware of the issue. He must first be made aware of the issue and then decide which position he wants to take on it. Therefore, arguments For Atheism should be directed toward this type of default, neutral position.

I think a good analogy would be this. I hear a news report that a UFO has just crashed somewhere outside of Moscow and Alien bodies have been found at the crash site. Prior to hearing this news I had no opinion on the issue. I neither believed nor disbelieved that such a thing had happened. I was entirely unaware of the issue. Now that I've become aware of the issue, you can give your arguements to me for why I should either believe it true or believe it false. Prior to making such considerations my default position would probably be one of healthy scepticism. But I doubt I would immediately take the single sided position that I have no belief that the thing occured. My default two sided position would be that I have not formed a belief one way or the other. Of course, I would probably be quickly swayed from this default position to one that leans one way or the other, due to factors immediately apparent to me. But those factors are really part of the argument For and Against. Their existence does not change the two sided nature of my original neutral default position.

PairTheBoard

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what this strong/weak atheist stuff is about, but there are two definitions for each word.

Atheist:
Vernacular: Someone who believes there is no god.
Technical (and obsolete): Someone who is without the belief that a god exists.

By the second definition, babies, and even hamsters are atheist.

Agnostic:
Technical: Someone who believes it is impossible to know if god exists.
Vernacular: Someone who just isn't sure.




These arguments often get much more complicated than they should because people don't accept that words have multiple usages / definitions.

It's just like the question, "Is poker a sport?". The only correct answer to this question is, "It depends on which definition you are using".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I understand that the public at-large sees atheist and agnostic in very vague lights. However, for the purposes of a higher-level discussion, I think it's important for us to actually be specific and know what we're talking about. It is just a bit more complex than your post makes it...my definitions for these words are primarily textual, as opposed to either vernacular or the Webster's meaning of the words. The more important texts on the subject do a better job of defining the different arrays of atheism/agnosticism than the dictionary or Everyman does...and it actually does get even more complex than I describe, as well.

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]

So it looks to me that the agnostic doesn not make a statement about "belief" while the weak atheist does. Weak atheism therefore takes a position non only on God, but on the concept of "belief". The agnostic takes no position on what it might mean to "believe" or where he stands on that issue.

How's that?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The agnostic can believe whatever he wants and still be agnostic, because agnosticism in and of itself is not about what you believe, it's about what you KNOW. You can believe in god while admitting that "knowing" for sure is either currently or permanently unknowable. Personally, I believe in aliens...but I certainly have no hard proof to be able to positively "know" that they exist.

Weak atheists simply have a lack of belief in god...and what they're saying is, "I think the information I have is sufficient, and the information I have leads me to not believe in god, but not all the way to positively believing there is no god (usually because the weak atheist admits that while their sphere of information is sufficient for them, that it could possibly be incomplete)."

The positions may seem similar on the surface, but there is enough of a difference between the two that philosophers and theologians have given them their own separate titles. What drives the difference is in what each term deals with...theism or atheism deals with belief and/or non-belief while agnosticism deals with knowledge and knowability...the terms really aren't mutually exclusive, either. I consider myself both a weak atheist and a strong agnostic. The evidence I have leads me to not believe in god...and based on the laws of physics and nature, I believe ascertaining positively whether or not god exists is unknowable to finite beings like humans (and I certainly don't grant that non-finite beings exist at all).

[Jetboy2]

Sure there's an argument for atheism.

I'm an atheist.

I was born into a christian family in the U.S. and taught to pray, and worship, and whatever. And thus, god would take care of things. As far as I can tell, none of it ever paid off. Good and bad things continued to happen, regardless of my prayers and worship.

As I grew older I learned about biology, physics, chemistry, math, etc.... Now, that paid off!

The realization is that I can change things with my knowledge of math and science. On the other hand, I can pray to Shiva, Jesus, a pantheon of pagan gods or whatever...and nothing changes.

Say I have 2 samples of sterile petri dishes. I innoculate one sample with spores and pray over the other sample. Somehow, the innoculated sample grows things and the other one doesn't. You'd think that god would help out a bit...

So, I'm an atheist. Maybe there is a god, but besides initiating the BigBang, it didn't do anything else. Maybe it just wants to see what happens?

JB2

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
The realization is that I can change things with my knowledge of math and science. On the other hand, I can pray to Shiva, Jesus, a pantheon of pagan gods or whatever...and nothing changes.


[/ QUOTE ]

While math and science are useful for "changing things" I think a lot of believers will say they have found prayer to be useful in changing themselves.

PairTheBoard

[Jetboy2]

Ok. I randomly chose the god, Enki. (Searched "gods" on wikipedia, closed my eyes and selected one) Prayed that the cube on my desk will hover in the air.

Give me a good example as to how I will be "different".

On the other hand, I picked up the same cube, let it go, IT DIDN'T HOVER, it dropped to the floor....exactly like science predicted.

Go figure? Atheist or theist?

P.S. The cube on my desk might "hover", but it surely would not be as a result of me praying. If, the cube "hovers", I will re-evaluate my position of atheism.

P.P.S. I may have chosen the wrong god/goddess? There are so many....if I had to choose, I'd pick Ganesha.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
P.P.S. I may have chosen the wrong god/goddess?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you may have chosen the wrong prayer. It also helps to have a "belief" in the God you're praying to.

PairTheBoard

[Jetboy2]

Let's go! Make the cube on my desk get up and hover!

You can't do that?

So, why can't Christians, Jews, and Muslims get along? Apparently, you all believe in the same god; yet, you all just want to fight and kill each other over semantic differences. Your god is REALLY stupid to have allowed this to happen.

The Hindus have god choices....whatever...

Let's say, I am a Hindu in India...I write some computer code. I post it on a server (somewhere) and then a Muslim in Dubai makes changes. A Jew in Israel picks then picks it up for QA, makes changes, re-posts it on another server (somewhere). And then a Christian in the U.S compiles the computer code. Now, some multi-national company markets the whole thing as Gizmo-XyZ which allows all of the above to further make attempts to destroy one another.

Hilarious, or at least it would be if it were not so tragic.

JB2

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between that, and the vernacular definition I provided?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I believe there is no god.

2) I do not have a belief that God exists.

These are different statements. Look closely.