Special Consideration for More Categories of Non-Belief...
Offline I've been thinking about this for some time and I've finally come to a coherent set of points I want to address. I've noticed that the current categories and terms ascribed to Atheist positions no longer hold true in all instances. I feel it is necessary that Atheist positions be specifically stated in terms of the claims or non-claims, evidence and reasoning that go into their formation. Or, I'd like a list of all the possible positions that can be held on the matter of the nonexistence of a god or gods. I'm trying my best to clarify the different positions that I've seen by listing them. If I'm getting something wrong (duplicating, equivocating, or I'm just plain incorrect) here I want to be told and any definitions that I'm not nailing must be adjusted. (Some of the terms are invented.)
Weak Atheism - the position that does not designate it possible to know the truth value of the existence of gods but admits it is unlikely that gods exist and thus reject theism.
Strong Atheism - the position that designates the truth value of the existence of gods false and thus rejects theism.
God Incoherency Atheism - the position that the concepts related to the term god and its synonyms are incoherent and necessarily cannot exist and thus rejects theism.
Impossibility Atheism - the position that it is as practically impossible that gods exist as it is for any other unfalsifiable thing to exist (ex. the Invisible Pink Unicorn).
Improbability Atheism - the position that the existence of gods is at least as improbable as the existence of any other unfalsifiable thing (ex. the Invisible Pink Unicorn).
Are there any possible positions that I'm missing? Are there any problems with any of these definitions? Is there any other way for an Atheist position to be defined? Are all of these valid positions? Are any of them necessarily invalid? Can any of these definitions be combined with others in order to form an Atheist positions (like God Incoherency and Impossibility?). Any and all useful input would be wonderful to have. I'm not attached to any of these in any way, I'm just speculating about what I've observed. (Personally, I'd like to know of a valid way to define my Atheism that doesn't merely hold to the old tune of non-belief -I feel there's more to it than that.)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
- Login to post comments
"We are GOD Atheism", just as jesus philosophy was saying untill the gov/church took it and fucked it all up as the "greed beast" always does ....
jesus = atheist !
Atheism Books.
Is this because I asked for useful input?
yes ... no joke ....
I may be splitting hairs, but I think a distinction can be drawn between not designating it possible, and designating it impossible, to know/comprehend/experience a thing. In the latter case, this is what I understand agnosticism to refer to; and in the former, I think 'atheism' itself is technically sufficient, but not widely understood as this definition.
Some make the claim that strong atheism is impossible. I agree with this to the extent that a god remains undefined, for how could such a non-thing be ruled out specifically? It would leave checking every haystack to make sure there are no needles in them, with no assurance that a 'needle' is even a concept. Where gods are defined though, I agree with what some say (I think todangst among them), that the gods as defined are either internally contradictory, unsubstantiated, or only defined negatively, making them reasonable to reject outright.
I think ignosticism and theological noncognativism overlap here.
I don't get this one.
Cool. It assumes qualifiers like intelligence, but I think it's valid to most god-claims.
Thanks magilum! I knew I was onto something with a few of those definitions. It helps to have my observations substantiated in this fashion. I don't exactly get Impossibility Atheism either, to be perfectly honest. I especially appreciate the distinctions you draw with ignosticism and theological noncognativism. I was searching for those terms and I knew they were of importance, but I couldn't find or remember them specifically.
With Strong Atheism, do you think some people are lumped in as Strong Atheists (Dawkins, Todangst) when they're actually giving sufficient reason not to consider the possibility of existence in the first place (as in Improbability Atheism and theological noncognativism)?
Also, I didn't touch on this specifically, but a fairy is slightly better defined than a god (or is it?) and, like Thor, people outright have non-belief as to their existence. I can't think of any specific reason why people outright have non-belief in them except that, in so far as the way people know about them, they're known to be made up. Is the only thing that separates fairies and Thor from the belief in the existence of current gods a belief that they're not made up? Is it good enough for an Atheist to simply assert that they are made up in the same way as fairies, or even to have evidence that they're made up, in order to substantiate the Atheist position?
I don't want to start another discussion, but I am wondering about this kind of Atheism, the kind where proof to the contrary is offered, even though it's not necessarily the responsibility of the Atheist.
And what about moderates who don't believe the bible is the word of god or even necessarily true in every aspect? Doesn't that mean that they don't believe? Why do they persist in their belief even though they deny (perhaps not wholly) the only thing that's supposed to ((or can (Ha!)) substantiate it?
I realize, of course, that even though the Bible can be shown to be, and is believed to be by many Christians, a book of stories, that somehow doesn't deflate their god belief. Every holy book is the same way, even if people believe they are divine word. What reason do Christians submit for having their belief that are supposed to be rational/acceptable? Well, we all know the answer, there has never been any reason.
I'm still just speculating and I'd really like more input as to my OP. This is a secondary consideration for now, but let's tag Evidence Atheism onto the OP, unofficially, for now. I want to present a pretty list by the time this thread is thoroughly discussed.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Thomathy - what's the objective of this exercise? My first reaction is that you've identified the different possible paths to atheism, but...so what? Is it a way to classify the different arguments against theism?
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Yes, essentially and to get a list of valid reasons for non-belief. I also think it's helpful to identify all the 'paths' to Atheism because, obviously, Atheists don't agree on what is a valid reason for non-belief and don't necessarily incorporate all the most valid reasons into their own non-belief. A list of this sort can help people identify what their position is and what other positions are available and also totally valid.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
If it helps, I'll tell you exactly what my position is. There are actually several separate beliefs that I hold. I'll list and explain each of them.
1. I believe that all of the gods that have been described are nonexistent. This is often described as strong atheism, but it's not. I believe that they do not exist because in all cases, they have been described in either contradictory or incoherent terms, and therefore cannot logically exist.
2. I believe that "supernatural" is an incoherent term, and any god concept that is described as supernatural is necessarily incoherent, and nonexistent.
3. I believe that a natural god with any omni property is logically impossible and therefore nonexistent.
4. I believe that it is impossible to know all possible definitions of "god." It is therefore impossible to say with certainty that there is no god.
Many would see my position as strong atheism, but in reality, I'm still technically a weak atheist because I recognize the limits of my knowledge, and I know that it's possible that I may be proven wrong on any point. Without knowing every possible meaning of the statement, "God exists," I cannot say with certainty that it does not.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism