Strong Atheism, or Weak Atheism?

I see...can someone explain to me in a basic language what is a stem cell? I've been hearing a lot about it, but can't really understand what is the stirr about.
 
Walter said:
I see...can someone explain to me in a basic language what is a stem cell? I've been hearing a lot about it, but can't really understand what is the stirr about.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Stem cells are primal cells common to all multi-cellular organisms that retain the ability to renew themselves through cell division and can differentiate into a wide range of specialized cell types.
Click to expand...

As stem cells can be readily grown and transformed into specialised cells with characteristics consistent with cells of various tissues such as muscles or nerves through cell culture, their use in medical therapies has been proposed. In particular, embryonic cell lines, autologous embryonic stem cells generated through therapeutic cloning, and highly plastic adult stem cells from the umbilical cord blood or bone marrow are touted as promising candidates.
Click to expand...

There exists a widespread controversy over stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning and tantamount to the instrumentalization of a potential human being. Contrarily, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential, and that the embryos used for research are only those slated for destruction anyway. The ensuing debate has prompted authorities around the world to seek regulatory frameworks and highlighted the fact that stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.
Click to expand...

Controversy over stem cell research

---

Many paralells are drawn with the Abortion debate:
Many pro-life individuals believe that personhood begins at conception rather than at birth or at some point in-between. This perspective is historically derived from the Christian and Islamic tradition and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo kills a human being. Any purposeful destruction is considered ethically and morally wrong. Such an act is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others through scientific advancement or, in the case of abortion, by ending the hardship of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, as such benefits come at the expense of the life of what they consider a person. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are also opposed by some pro-life people based on a belief that life is sacred and must be protected even against the wishes of people who want to end their own lives.
Click to expand...
 
When you cut stem cells up they turn into sorceror's brooms.
 
DaMaN said:
So I guess I would say that I don't believe in a god, but I believe that is is possible there is some sort of god (though probably not of the biblical kind). Or is that contradictory?
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's entirely reasonable to grant something possibility and not put an ounce of belief to it.

I could say that a burgling midget with reindeer antlers will rob your house. It's certainly possible, but you'd be entirely justified in not believing a word I say.
 
To clear things up:

Strong atheists: All atheists who accept as true the proposition, "god does not exist".
Weak atheists: All non-theists who are not strong atheists. (The word "god" can refer either to all deities, or a limited subset of deities. Hence an individual could be a weak atheist with regard to deities in general, but a strong atheist with regard to the Christian God.) Since many self-described agnostics consciously distinguish their stance from that of atheists, the validity of this categorisation may be disputed.
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism): The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) are unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism): The view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

(from wiki)
 
Wow, it turns out I'm closer to a Strong Agnostic than an Atheist :D

-Angry Lawyer
 
Angry Lawyer said:
Wow, it turns out I'm closer to a Strong Agnostic than an Atheist :D

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

Welcome to the club! :D

Absinthe said:
Not at all. It's entirely reasonable to grant something possibility and not put an ounce of belief to it.

I could say that a burgling midget with reindeer antlers will rob your house. It's certainly possible, but you'd be entirely justified in not believing a word I say.
Click to expand...

I believe.
 
Strong atheist - if there's a top end of the scale, I'm there.
 
For. Me. None. Of. The. Above. Applies. but i dunno wether that's off-topic, but, yeah, why not start a thread about lutheran texans. ey? ;P

It's entirely reasonable to grant something possibility and not put an ounce of belief to it.
Click to expand...
//edit: Er, I remember watching...well, that film you know, w/ demons and angels and stuff...Oh yes, now it comes to my mind, Constantine. Yeah, it applies to ^above since the protagonist knows God exists, but shares no trust, ergo believe into him. I kinda disagree w/ the arche noah not having existed tho, as far as I can recall they found remains of a ship somewhere in turkey maybe? But the point was, it was on top of the mountains. Or some mountain...Well, a "devine force", to call it like that, should have been able to at least cause some femine or catastrophic change to the land, not allowing any dry place to rest, know I'm sayin'? So, unless that was all bullshit
and just introduced to the world for some "cover-up" a higher force never existed, I'd doubt it. Simply put, I also doubt that the bible could exist without a historical source behind it. You mustn't listen to everything what people say, and what-have-you reasons there are against an existance of a devine force but when I read the bible it just gives me the feeling I don't have to know wether a god exists, because neverending faith and love and such will be rewarded some day. So, concidering you shared a faith and actually realize, that believing is unequal to scientific proofs (some believe the wtc was blown up, they don't know in a scientific sense!) and thereby searching for god excludes trying to find some sort of god-code in the world.
Finally, believing into something might seem stupid in our fear-driven world, people being scared of extinction of their existence and suddenly people knocking on your door "hello, we'd like to talk with you about god" XD
but finally, it just lessens saddnes in your life and a believe never hurts. Er, unless you start blowing up yourself because of it :S Also, it just amazes me how miracles can be disputed as natural phenomena, but however
this doesn't lessen a believe due to scientific knowledge replacing the latter: You know, isn't it a miracle though, knowing that a persecuted population of Jews could walk through the red sea, because maybe two tsunamis faced one another, and return to the other side safely.? it resembles a miracle anyway, wish it to be know, that if there was two tsunamis it's already too improbable to happen without some sort of given purpose?!
 
I'm a strong atheist. I actively believe that there is no God. I would not deny the existence of one given evidence, but as none has been presented, I don't see any reason to even consider the idea that a God exists, and that reasoning, when coupled with the fact that I see no purpose or foundation for a God to exist anyway, results in my strong belief that there is no God, which will not change.

Honestly, I believe that even most people who think they believe in God don't... when you think about God as an abstract concept, like almost everyone does, it's easy to 'have faith' and believe quite strongly. However, when you begin to look at God as what he is truely represented to be, as a tangible being, existing in our world as much as you or I or the crazy panhandler at the highway intersection, the ludicrousness of the entire idea begins to make itself apparent.
 
I find it strange that people say religion lessens unhappiness in life when the three great monotheistic religions of our time (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are all so preoccupied with sin and guilt.

It's also baffling that people can talk about the improbability of certain natural phenomena as evidence of a supreme being when that very being is infinitely more improbable himself! It need not be said there there is zero evidence for the parting of the Red Sea.
 
I'm not sure, sometimes I'm in a strong mood and other times I'm in a weak mood.
 
It need not be said there there is zero evidence for the parting of the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

Well, of course you are right about that. However, I remember watching a documentary on the History Channel (not the best source of information, I know) that was saying the Red Sea mentioned in the Bible actually refers to the "Sea of Reeds" in Egypt, where there is a large "sea" of reeds near it's border and where the soil is a reddish color hence the nickname "Red Sea." I'll have to go look that up to see if I have the information right, but that's what I remember from it.
 
Absinthe said:
I find it strange that people say religion lessens unhappiness in life when the three great monotheistic religions of our time (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) are all so preoccupied with sin and guilt.

It's also baffling that people can talk about the improbability of certain natural phenomena as evidence of a supreme being when that very being is infinitely more improbable himself! It need not be said there there is zero evidence for the parting of the Red Sea.
Click to expand...

That second sentence stumps me, too. Often, some of the less debate-minded theists I've argued with have used humanity's existence as evidence for God's existence, e.g. "How could we have come around if we weren't created, we're too complex etc". I'm borrowing your exact words here, Absinthe, because I am likewise baffled by how they could possibly think that's a valid argument. The existence of a supreme being is even more unlikely and random than the existence of humanity itself. It's just raising it to another level, at which point it just keeps repeating itself. That's THE classic example of people using religion to explain things they can't comprehend.
 
W4d5Y said:
Er, I remember watching...well, that film you know, w/ demons and angels and stuff...Oh yes, now it comes to my mind, Constantine. Yeah, it applies to ^above since the protagonist knows God exists, but shares no trust, ergo believe into him. I kinda disagree w/ the arche noah not having existed tho, as far as I can recall they found remains of a ship somewhere in turkey maybe? But the point was, it was on top of the mountains. Or some mountain...Well, a "devine force", to call it like that, should have been able to at least cause some femine or catastrophic change to the land, not allowing any dry place to rest, know I'm sayin'? So, unless that was all bullshit
and just introduced to the world for some "cover-up" a higher force never existed, I'd doubt it. Simply put, I also doubt that the bible could exist without a historical source behind it. You mustn't listen to everything what people say, and what-have-you reasons there are against an existance of a devine force but when I read the bible it just gives me the feeling I don't have to know wether a god exists, because neverending faith and love and such will be rewarded some day. So, concidering you shared a faith and actually realize, that believing is unequal to scientific proofs (some believe the wtc was blown up, they don't know in a scientific sense!) and thereby searching for god excludes trying to find some sort of god-code in the world.
Finally, believing into something might seem stupid in our fear-driven world, people being scared of extinction of their existence and suddenly people knocking on your door "hello, we'd like to talk with you about god" XD
but finally, it just lessens saddnes in your life and a believe never hurts. Er, unless you start blowing up yourself because of it :S Also, it just amazes me how miracles can be disputed as natural phenomena, but however
this doesn't lessen a believe due to scientific knowledge replacing the latter: You know, isn't it a miracle though, knowing that a persecuted population of Jews could walk through the red sea, because maybe two tsunamis faced one another, and return to the other side safely.? it resembles a miracle anyway, wish it to be know, that if there was two tsunamis it's already too improbable to happen without some sort of given purpose?!
Click to expand...

What the pills you been popping; that's nigh incomprehensible.

As far as I can tell though, you are saying:

-The bible is good because it teaches you not to think, and will reward you for thinking less.
-In pursuit of not thinking, you accept that Noah's ark was found "somewhere on TV".
-Furthermore you believe wholeheartedly that Moses shot tidal waves out his mind.
-It doesn't matter that the above three points are loopy because faith never hurts anyone... unless it does.

Well, I'm convinced.
 
W4d5Y, we are not saying that faith itself is a bad thing... but it can certainly facilitate extremely negative actions, like intolerance and war.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
What the pills you been popping; that's nigh incomprehensible.

As far as I can tell though, you are saying:

-The bible is good because it teaches you not to think, and will reward you for thinking less.
-In pursuit of not thinking, you accept that Noah's ark was found "somewhere on TV".
-Furthermore you believe wholeheartedly that Moses shot tidal waves out his mind.
-It doesn't matter that the above three points are loopy because faith never hurts anyone... unless it does.

Well, I'm convinced.
Click to expand...

I seriously cannot stop laughing. lmfao @ "Moses shot tidal waves out his mind"

W4d5Y said:
You know, isn't it a miracle though, knowing that a persecuted population of Jews could walk through the red sea, because maybe two tsunamis faced one another, and return to the other side safely.?
Click to expand...

Two tsunamis facing each other ????
 
No, no, that is entirely possible.

All you need are for two earthquakes to take place on either side of the red sea in the right locations so that the area that moses stood in front of and prepared to cross would just so happen to be directly inbetween both epicenters, and the water would be sucked aside long enough for he and his thousands of followers to run approximately 200 kilometers across the sea before the twin walls of water smash into them a minute later at maybe a hundred kph.

See? It makes total sense if you assume that the Israelites were running at approximately twelve thousand kilometers per hour.

(Or around 7500 miles per hour for you non-metric folks)

Ennui said:
W4d5Y, we are not saying that faith itself is a bad thing... but it can certainly facilitate extremely negative actions, like intolerance and war.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that faith itself is a bad thing, so nurr. :p
 
Mechagodzilla said:
No, no, that is entirely possible.

All you need are for two earthquakes to take place on either side of the red sea in the right locations so that the area that moses stood in front of and prepared to cross would just so happen to be directly inbetween both epicenters, and the water would be sucked aside long enough for he and his thousands of followers to run approximately 200 kilometers across the sea before the twin walls of water smash into them a minute later at maybe a hundred kph.

See? It makes total sense if you assume that the Israelites were running at approximately twelve thousand kilometers per hour.
Click to expand...

FAITH IN T3H LORD JEZUZ CHRI57 CAN M4KE U IN2 DA FLASH11!1!11!!!!11111!!!

Or Yahweh, possibly.
 
I just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. What a fantastically awesome book.

I also plan on reading some Sam Harris too, but ive got to plough through 1100 pages of The Stand first...
 
Mechagodzilla said:
I'm saying that faith itself is a bad thing, so nurr. :p
Click to expand...
Oh, well I should have said "I" not "we", but I agree with you on every other point so it doesn't hardly matter.

gick said:
I just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. What a fantastically awesome book.

I also plan on reading some Sam Harris too, but ive got to plough through 1100 pages of The Stand first...
Click to expand...
The Stand is awesome.
 
Ennui said:
Honestly, I believe that even most people who think they believe in God don't... when you think about God as an abstract concept, like almost everyone does, it's easy to 'have faith' and believe quite strongly. However, when you begin to look at God as what he is truely represented to be, as a tangible being, existing in our world as much as you or I or the crazy panhandler at the highway intersection, the ludicrousness of the entire idea begins to make itself apparent.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I was raised Catholic, and then one day I just realized that I didn't actually believe any of it. I still have friends who say they believe, even though they "hate church" and everything about it. If anyone has ever been to a church, they can attest to the fact that it's pretty much just people repeating what a priest says so they can somehow reach salvation.
 
I think that religion could be a wonderful thing if people weren't so ill-suited to everything that it requires. People in this day and age (and forever have been, as far as I know) are too overwhelmingly insincere and superficial, not intentionally, and not just externally, but internally as well, for religion to really mean anything to most people. They've just convinced themselves it has, like building a little altar on top of the locked box of faith to pretend that there's something there when it's just as dormant as it's ever been.

My abstraction in this moment is pretty heavy so I doubt anyone understands what I'm trying to say but that's how I feel about it.
 
Ennui said:
I think that religion could be a wonderful thing if people weren't so ill-suited to everything that it requires. People in this day and age (and forever have been, as far as I know) are too overwhelmingly insincere and superficial, not intentionally, and not just externally, but internally as well, for religion to really mean anything to most people. They've just convinced themselves it has, like building a little altar on top of the locked box of faith to pretend that there's something there when it's just as dormant as it's ever been.

My abstraction in this moment is pretty heavy so I doubt anyone understands what I'm trying to say but that's how I feel about it.
Click to expand...

To play the devil's advocate, I know plenty of religious people who are at least generally casual, and a lot less strict about the requirments that the given religion has.
 
I can't make sense of what you just said so I get the impression you don't follow me.
 
Ennui said:
I can't make sense of what you just said so I get the impression you don't follow me.
Click to expand...

I got the impression that you were implying that most religious people are too strict about their beliefs, and too superficial about them. I was saying that while that may be true, I can also name plenty of "believers" who are extremely casual about their beliefs.

But yeah, a big reason for my lack of faith is observing so many religious people act as if they need to literally alter themselves just to obtain something that has no evidence built to it.
 
Stupid terms. Way too many people who a "strong atheist" would catergorize as a "weak atheist" would take offense to the term.

I definately support the people who say "Neither, I'm agnostic," rather than the people who say "That's weak atheism, duh."

Seems to me "strong atheists" probably invented the term to include more people under the banner of "atheism."
 
For what it's worth, Ennui, I think I understood what you were saying completely.
 
Qhartb said:
Seems to me "strong atheists" probably invented the term to include more people under the banner of "atheism."
Click to expand...

No, the term was made because it makes sense. Well, to a degree. Strong atheists are implicitly weak atheists as well, so the terminology is only slightly misleading.

If people don't want to make the distinctions between the many kinds of atheists that exist, then they are the ones adding to the existing confusion. And if people refuse to call themselves atheists even when they fit the criteria, then that is a problem on their end.

In conclusion: Stop being ignorant. Why would anybody take offense to being called an atheist any way? Wait, scratch that question. Of course people would, but they shouldn't.
 
Absinthe said:
If people don't want to make the distinctions between the many kinds of atheists that exist, then they are the ones adding to the existing confusion. And if people refuse to call themselves atheists even when they fit the criteria, then that is a problem on their end.
Click to expand...

Of course different kinds of atheists exist. All sorts of monotheists and polytheists exist too. And agnostics. I wasn't denying that subcatergories exist, only that the subcatergories listed are more inclusive that the catergory itself. Which means that they're not subcatergories.

How does it add to existing confusion to object to otherwise clear boundaries being unnecessarily blurred? In what way does "no god -> atheism; one god -> monotheism; many gods -> polytheism" fail? Because it's not all inclusive? Well, not everyone needs to be in one of those 3 catergories.
 
I think that Agnosticism and "weak athiesm" are essentially the same thing.
 
It's simple enough for people to say either "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist". The only reason people have bothered using agnosticism as a comparable term is because of prejudice against atheism.

No, I'm not asking people to explain their theistic views down to the tiniest detail and specification. But the terms being discussed are not stupid. The topic affords a level of clarity that I hope people would at least keep in mind when it comes to such issues in the real world. And to simply brush all this aside because "oh, it's too convoluted" is asinine.

Call yourself an agnostic if you want to, but don't pretend this shit doesn't matter.
 
Absinthe said:
It's simple enough for people to say either "I'm a theist" or "I'm an atheist". The only reason people have bothered using agnosticism as a comparable term is because of prejudice against atheism.
Click to expand...

It is simple enough to say what you are. If you believe in a god, say "I'm a theist." If you believe in no god, say "I'm an atheist." If neither of these apply to you, don't say either of them.

And you certainly shouldn't let someone else tell you what you are just because you didn't say anything.
 
Let me make this very clear for you.

If you believe in a god, you are a theist.
If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.

Atheism, at its core, is absence of theism. It includes both those who believe gods don't exist as well as those who merely have no belief in them. If I call you an atheist, it's because that is what you are. And any offense you take to the term is a product of your own unwillingness to look at yourself honestly.

It is impossible for neither theism or atheism to apply to you. You are either one or the other. Even mentally handicapped individuals with no ability to grasp the concepts invariably fall into one of the categories. That people are so irrationaly bugged from being called atheists is not an indication of "strong atheists" trying to covertly recruit people to their ranks. It is an indication of the deep-rooted prejudices society has developed against them.
 
Absinthe said:
If you believe in a god, you are a theist.
If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.
Click to expand...

That, my friend, is false.

"atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings" - Random House Unabridged Dictionary

"atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" - Houghton Mifflin Company

"atheist - someone who denies the existence of god" - WordNet

... and these are all the definitions on Dictionary.com; I'm not filtering out those that don't serve my purposes.

Note that one who has no beliefs is not disbelieving nor is he denying. He simply has no beliefs.

And I wasn't suggesting that one would be offended for being called an atheist because of "deep rooted prejudices", as you suggest. I was suggesting that one would take offense because someone else was being insistent with a false statement about one's beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Munro
The Meaning of Half-Life
Replies
0
Views
1K
Munro
Munro
Back
Top