Atheists: what kind of atheist are you?

Question

Just a quick poll on this non-religious holiday:

So, in which category do you picture yourself?

A) Strong Atheist
Beleive that God does not exist.

B) Weak Atheist
Does not hold any beliefs towards the concept of God. Think that the existence or non-existence of God is meaningless.

C) Agnostic
God may or may not exist. In either case, it is impossible to prove. Humanity does not have the necessary tools to reveal the existence of God or its non-existence.

(The difference between B and C is that C is open to discuss the issue in a scientific fashion [excluding creationism].)

I go with C). I think people who are believers or fit in the A) category are fools, since neither is based on logic, but on personnal beliefs. Strong atheists can easily fool people, because they use the same thinking as B, but instead of approaching the question with a scientific and open mind, they start with the premise "God does not exists", the same way beleivers start with "God exists".

>>Barbara
You would fit in the B category, because you base your opinion on rational observation. Not all atheists do that: some simply decide to be "atheists" out of rebellion or out of cheer scepticism (people who will always deny evidence, no matter what. The fact that they are right does not change that they are basically wrong. It's like getting the right answer to a math question, but with the wrong reasoning.)

>>Nature Boy
Beleive it or not, you fit in the B section, not A. Because your reasonning is "why should I botter with the question?". Per exemple, if someone pretending to hold a unicorn horn, someone from A would grab it and toss it away; while B would put it under a microscope, then decide if it's true or not...

Answer 1

Gwen,

First, I admire the fact that you are cognizant of the various distinctions within atheism. Most people who call themselves atheists, and those who adhere to a religious system, seldom understand that atheism is not a monolithic category, but there is in fact a spectrum of beliefs with respect to how we disbelieve in God.

I categorize myself as a strong atheist, which is also known by other names in philosophical circles such as explicit atheist and positive atheist. How, you might be wondering, can a person who is open to scientific rationalism, consider themselves strong atheists? After all, doesn’t the assertion that “God does not exist” imply omniscient knowledge about the universe – the fundamental requirement for a person to claim a universal negative?

This is true, only if the concept in question is internal consistent, not self-contradictory, or contradictory to what we know to be true. Yet, the notion of God, as enumerated by mainline theists as an entity who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, perfectly good and transcendences space and time is in fact contradictory to known facts and is internally inconsistent. For if such an entity existed, evil could not exist. Furthermore, a deity of such power and benevolent intent would have created a world that doesn’t have such a gross amount of inefficiency in it. Much of the universe, after all, is wasteful. Much of the biological and chemical processes on this earth are also wasteful. In terms of internal inconsistencies, the characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence actually contradict one another. For if a being is omnipotent, then he can do anything including do something that he can’t be aware of, which means he can’t be omniscient. If he is limited to only being able to do something that he can be aware of, then he is not omnipotent. You also have probably heard the old conundrum, that if God is omnipotent, he can create a stone so heavy that he can’t lift it. As you can see, the infinitude of God is nonsensical. God thus, lacks internal coherence – a prerequisite to all truth claims.

What about the charge that we must prove a universal negative in order to deny the existence e of God absolutely. I don’t think this holds water. As an example, if a scientist told you that our atmosphere was made out of 100 % poisonous cyanide gas, you would be well within your right to disbelieve him, because the existence of that amount of gas in the atmosphere would yield results quite different from the one we have today in the world. Put simply the world could not be hospitable to life. You would not have to use empirical means to disprove his theory, for his premise that our entire atmosphere is made up of a lethal substance would contradict what we know about the world. The same goes for God, as he is normally construed. Hence, strong, explicit, or positive atheists have some justification for their belief, based on the way God is commonly defined.

Secondly it should be noted that agnosticism is a subset of weak, implicit, or negative atheism, and not a separate category from it. Agnostics believe, based on our limited perception of the universe, that we cannot know whether God exists or doesn’t. So agnostics are WITHOUT belief due to the epistemological uncertainties surrounding the God question. Yet being WITHOUT belief, means absence of belief, and is therefore a form of atheism. Remember atheism, when broken down into its components means without (A) belief in God (theism), not being against belief in God, just as being asexual means being without sex characteristics, not being AGAINST sex. Hence, the common usage of the term agnosticism, as a distinct term from atheism, is a false dichotomy. George Smith, in his seminal work “Atheism: The Case Against God” more aptly goes into these distinctions. I highly recommend you read his work. It is probably the definitive book on atheism for laypeople.

Finally, as men like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have stated repeatedly, agnosticism is really a copout of sorts. After all we cannot disprove the magical flying spaghetti monster, the unicorn, Zeus, Poseidon, or Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot. Yet, no respectable person would say that we have to be agnostics with regards to any of these because we cannot absolutely prove that they do not exist.

I like to quote Bertrand Russell directly on this point:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

In conclusion, I think that being a strong, explicit, or positive atheist is an intellectually respectable position to hold. There is no need to prove a universal negative in order to maintain this stance. There is plenty of contradiction with the commonly espoused notion of God (and I only wrote briefly about such contradictions – look to philosophers such as Michael Martin in his book “Atheism: A Philosophical Justification”, Quentin Smith, George Smith, Theodore Drange, Kai Nelson, Victor Stenger and others for more elaborate defenses of strong atheism based on God’s contradictory nature). Furthermore, if the standard of having to prove a universal negative is upheld, then we would have to grant the plausibility of a host of absurd notions, that no one entertains or considers themselves agnostic about.

Answer 2

I'm "officially" an agnostic atheist (or strong agnostic, or weak atheist, depending on who's doing the defining) - I don't think we can possibly know if a god exists, but I do not believe it is likely that one does. I don't really like to label myself though, as I think it's ludicrous that there's a label for NOT being something. I'm also not a fireman or a doctor, and I'm a-Santa Clausist and a-unicornist. I very much identify with Secular Humanism. There are also parts of rationalism that I agree with (most, I suppose). I only really know about postmodernism as an artistic and literary movement--but applying those principles to philosophy without reading much on it I think I can safely say I'm not postmodernist...do we need a label for that too?

Answer 3

A
Your logic is faulty.
"Man cannot even create a worm but he thinks he can create a god" De Montaigne

Answer 4

Strong atheist or weak atheist?
The very definition of an atheist means we do not believe in any deities. There is no weak or strong associated with it.

Answer 5

Well technically strong atheism is the belief that no gods exist, which is fundamentally different to the belief that God does not exist. God, with a capital G, is the name given to a specific god worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims. One can not believe in God but still believe in one or more gods.

Anyway I consider myself a strong atheist. You might say that's illogical as there is no evidence for the nonexistence of gods. But such solipsistic logic is absolutely meaningless. For the word 'belief' to have any practical meaning whatsoever you need to set some sort of standard of proof short of absolute knowledge. Most people would have no problem saying that they are certain the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Gods are just as absurd and just as unsupported.
And strong atheism is not unscientific. Science is based on the axiomatic premise that logic is valid and that the supernatural is therefore impossible by definition. While science would require belief in gods if sufficient evidence were presented, the very phrase 'evidence for the existence of gods' is a contradiction.

Answer 6

A sexy atheist

Answer 7

Really, it's impossible to really KNOW that something like God does NOT exist. That said, it's far more logical to be an agnostic than an atheist. Your "B" and "C" options make the most sense and I agree with your summations.

I always say that I admit it's possible there IS a God but I realize that believers cannot do the same about non-existence.

I think therefore that it's highly illogical to believe there is ONE possibility in regard to the existence/non-existence question.

Answer 8

It is your right to believe what you choose to term type A atheists are fools, but I wouldn't. Even type A atheists will look at empirical evidence if it is presented.

In over 2000 years there has been no empirical evidence to show any deity exists, therefore I draw the logical conclusion given the period of time and the history that has passed that deities do not exist - I'm your type A. However, hand me valid evidence to examine and I will reassess that.

It is your business if you wish to judge me, however I disagree with your assessment.

Answer 9

I think you forgot one...

(D) None of the Above.

I'm an athiest but i can't fit myself into anyof those category. If I was part of an organized group who followed one belief, then I would be part of a religious organization.

Answer 10

I really don't think there's a difference in the 3 choices. If you don't believe in god, you don't believe in god.

If you confront a rational person with verifiable proof that god exists (as unlikely as that is), a rational person will change their mind and believe in god. I don't think that "softens" their atheism or makes them agnostic. It's all the same to me.