05 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerStrong atheism is a minority subset of atheism. An atheist could be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. The fact that some muddleheaded atheists will define themselves as strong atheists does not mean atheism is synonymous with strong atheism. Quite the opposite. As a vast majority of knowledgable atheists would define themselves as weak atheists, that definition should generally hold sway. If someone states thay they're an atheist, it should be assumed they're a weak atheist unless specifically stated otherwise.
Then strong atheism, properly speaking, is not atheism.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettThus spoke Zarathustra.
Strong atheism is a minority subset of atheism. An atheist could be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. The fact that some muddleheaded atheists will define themselves as strong atheists does not mean atheism is synonymous with strong atheism. Quite the opposite. As a vast majority of knowledgable atheists would define themselves as weak atheists, that defi ...[text shortened]... an atheist, it should be assumed they're a weak atheist unless specifically stated otherwise.
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf atheism implies a lack of belief and strong atheism implies the existence of belief (in the non-existence of God), then strong atheism cannot be a subset of atheism.
Strong atheism is a minority subset of atheism. An atheist could be a strong atheist or a weak atheist. The fact that some muddleheaded atheists will define themselves as strong atheists does not mean atheism is synonymous with strong atheism. Quite the opposite. As a vast majority of knowledgable atheists would define themselves as weak atheists, that defi an atheist, it should be assumed they're a weak atheist unless specifically stated otherwise.
That's just logic, no?
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerAn atheist could be either. Because there is a rogue faction that disagrees with the general definition doesn't mean they can't both be labeled as atheists. That is why I say weak atheism should 'generally be assumed' or 'generally hold sway', because it could be otherwise.
If atheism implies a lack of belief and strong atheism implies the existence of belief (in the non-existence of God), then strong atheism cannot be a subset of atheism.
That's just logic, no?
If you find out someone is a christian, you cannot assume they're a Catholic. Catholicism is a subset of christianity. There are many subsets of christianity, many of which hold contradictory beliefs. That doesn't prevent them from being broadly labeled as christians.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingettThis isn't about "rogue factions". If a set has a defining characteristic A, then another set with a defining characteristic ~A (or B that implies ~A) logically cannot be a subset of the first set.
An atheist could be either. Because there is a rogue faction that disagrees with the general definition doesn't mean they can't both be labeled as atheists. That is why I say weak atheism should 'generally be assumed' or 'generally hold sway', because it could be otherwise.
If you find out someone is a christian, you cannot assume they're a Catholic. Ca ...[text shortened]... ntradictory beliefs. That doesn't prevent them from being broadly labeled as christians.
Here's what you said on page 2:
Atheism has no beliefs to be held. It certainly isn't a system of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of belief. An absence of belief is the opposite of faith.
Strong "atheism", on the other hand does have a belief to be held. Ergo, it cannot be a subset of atheism (despite what the name suggests).
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe set is not confined to A.
This isn't about "rogue factions". If a set has a defining characteristic A, then another set with a defining characteristic ~A (or B that implies ~A) logically cannot be a subset of the first set.
Here's what you said on page 2:
Atheism has no beliefs to be held. It certainly isn't a system of beliefs. Atheism is the absence of belief lief to be held. Ergo, it cannot be a subset of atheism (despite what the name suggests).
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Well, we have in the past seen debates on here about who is (and what defines) a “True Christian” (TM)—often to the confusion of non-Christians. So I suppose a debate over who is (and what defines) a “True Atheist” (TM) is overdue.
Since I think rwingett’s definition of an atheist is the most appropriate (as well as the majority) one, I suggest that we re-label the so-called “strong atheists” with some terminology that clearly indicates their heresy—how about “anti-theist”?—and separation from True Atheists. When a theist asserts to a True Atheist that s/he has a “belief that there is not a God,” the True Atheist can reply: “Oh, no. You mean the anti-theists. I’m not one of them.”
It will likely take some time—as the anti-theists are likely to object (as well as many theists who wish to sew confusion, or don’t want to have their old “strong atheist” arguments leveled only at a small group of anti-theists). But in the end it may result in sufficient clarity as to diminish these word-quibbles.
Christians could perhaps oblige by using the word “orthodox” to refer only to the communion of Eastern Orthodox Churches who recognize the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and only those seven councils...
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdI would think that the term "anti-theist" would be inappropriate because that would have to imply something like "against God" (e.g. a real Satan-worshipper, for instance).
Well, we have in the past seen debates on here about who is (and what defines) a “True Christian” (TM)—often to the confusion of non-Christians. So I suppose a debate over who is (and what defines) a “True Atheist” (TM) is overdue.
Since I think rwingett’s definition of an atheist is the most appropriate (as well as the majority) one, I suggest that we r ...[text shortened]... dox Churches who recognize the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and only those seven councils...
Also, the word '[Eastern] Orthodox' (as a proper noun or referent) already refers to what you want, so there's no need to limit the adjective "orthodox" (which has a broader scope, including in non-religious domains).
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by NordlysAgnostics are confused schismatics who have doubts about their doubts that there is a god—then they have doubts about those doubts and so on...
In your opinion / using your set of definitions, what's the difference between (weak) atheism and agnosticism?
There are so-called “strong agnostics” who really, really doubt that they have doubts about the existence of god, while insisting that doubt is the only reasonable stance; and so-called “weak agnostics” who aren’t really sure if they have doubts about their doubts or not—in other words, their doubt about their doubt is...doubtful. “Strong agnostics” are more subject to an infinite regression of doubt, whereas “weak agnostics” have recourse to a simple shrug.
Sorry, Nordlys. I shouldn’t have come out to play today. 😳 I’ll go now (closes door softly behind himself).
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by rwingett"Rogue faction?" Who are you kidding? Like there is an orthodoxy to atheism? What's next: doctrinal statements and/or creeds?
An atheist could be either. Because there is a rogue faction that disagrees with the general definition doesn't mean they can't both be labeled as atheists. That is why I say weak atheism should 'generally be assumed' or 'generally hold sway', because it could be otherwise.
If you find out someone is a christian, you cannot assume they're a Catholic. Ca ...[text shortened]... ntradictory beliefs. That doesn't prevent them from being broadly labeled as christians.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by vistesdSince you have come out to play, I might as well ask - do you think there is no difference / the difference is irrelevant?
Agnostics are confused schismatics who have doubts about their doubts that there is a god—then they have doubts about those doubts and so on...
There are so-called “strong agnostics” who really, really doubt that they have doubts about the existence of god, while insisting that doubt is the only reasonable stance; and so-called “weak agnostics” who aren’t ...[text shortened]... I shouldn’t have come out to play today. 😳 I’ll go now (closes door softly behind himself).