|
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
I didn't go into it in-depth, there was a brief derail in the "To those that believe in Jesus Christ" thread awhile back - so it's probably easier if I just summarize it here.
Weak atheism is a disbelief (or a lack of belief as some like to call it) in the existence of god. It's essentially related to the 'until proof is produced, one shouldn't believe in something' principle. The nice thing about weak atheism is the fact that it doesn't carry the burden of proof - as theism and strong atheism do. I'm going to use a fictional deity to illustrate my point here. Imagine that someone came up to you and asserted that the Invisible Pink Unicorn existed, ruled the universe, and was going to send everyone to hell who didn't accept him/her as their saviour. A weak atheist would at this time have a lack of belief in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and before believing in it's existence, would need proof. They don't outrightly assert that it cannot exist, merely that until proof is produced, believing in it is neither rational nor reasonable. Although the example is undoubtedly pretty damn stupid, I think that it still stands, heh.
A strong atheist on the other hand, generally hold that gods cannot, do not and never have existed. Strong atheism makes the affirmative claim that no gods exist - full stop. Just as theism carries a burden of proof, I believe that strong atheism also carries this burden, as strong atheists are making an affirmative claim, just as theists do.
Now, that being said - there are variations and crossovers. As I mentioned in my last post, people can be weak atheists with regards to certain gods, or even to gods in general, but be strong atheists when it comes to specific deity(s) - as I am. I believe that the Christian god as defined by and portrayed in the bible does not exist, period. The same goes for the Muslim god, the Jewish god, the Hindu gods and so forth. However, I don't extend this belief to gods in general, but rather lack belief in them until such time as proof of their existence is produced. 
It might seem that the two are in fact similar, and in a way, that's true. Both strong an weak atheists, when it comes down to it, don't believe in god. The distinction becomes more important when it comes to debating religion and the ideaof god in general, as the burden of proof idea is generally hashed over. I know that's not the best explanation, but if you were as tired as I am at the moment, you wouldn't make much sense either.  |
If you are actually in Australia, I can't imagine you are hardly as tired as I am. I'm in Central US where is now coming up on 7am and I have not slept yet (from the night before)...
(to the point, however)
yeah, I had a feeling that is what you meant. For me, the definition of a "common weak atheist" is too close to being an Agnostic to be worthy of true atheism. This I see reemphasized in what is listed as definition 1b. on dictionary.com "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." In those definitions, they define both Agnosticism and Atheism as including either a disbelief and/or a denial of any deity. Although similarly regarded terms, my personal feeling towards the differences between the two are very important.
To me, Atheism is a belief. But, because it is a belief in the lack of something, it is defined as disbelief.
On the other hand, Agnosticism is more a skepticism or doubt, no matter how grounded in research it may be in this case. The dictionary also defines it as saying it is impossible to know if a God exists. That is not enough of a full definition for me though. The problem is that in attempts to exclude Atheists from Agnostics, the definition actually includes many so-called Theists. You can BELIEVE in something without feeling it is possible to know it actually exists. That is basically the definition of faith. Someone could merely watch Contact with Jodie Foster to realize that premise. Intellectuals have an easy task of suggesting that people are stupid for believing in something that can't adequately prove. Almost everything is relative to humans in this world we have constructed for ourselves, though, and it becomes difficult to prove anything beyond our own accepted paradigms.
On a personal note, I almost have a problem reading explanations and definitions of such things because it automatically seems to limit my own stances because it refers to me as a "Theist" because I am Roman Catholic. I don't like the way that seems to put me in a little defined box that I don't feel I belong in. Suggesting that I disagree with various points of Christianity, on principle, and do not attend mass regularly allows others to pass me off as a "non-practicing Catholic" who therefore has no business in such discussions on faith, believes or Theology. I'd like to think that I actually have MORE of a place in such discussions than those who have chosen to follow blindly. This seems quite humorous to me anyway, since they are the same people that listened so intently when I used to "read at mass" as a Lector. Because of my own beliefs in that personal faith trumps convential beliefs, many seek to ex-communicate people like myself (John Kerry, anyone?) ...but others might take the complete opposite and consider me almost as a prophet (as long as I die young and tragically of course)
...this discussion on here has been interrupted offline by a discussion on Prime Rate and the projected movements in the middle term (3-5 years) ....so hopefully no one thinks I actually wish to be a "Theological Prophet" but rather, an Economic one!
___________________
"All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem." --Martin Luther King, Jr.
----------------------------------
CTA #20
|
