The Spiritual and/or Religious beliefs of an Atheist

Hi Frank Apisa,

Both can be of equal burden except that one might argue on a few modest points for no god

1) Which is the more extraordinary claim god yes or god no?

2) The amount of effort put in to demonstrate god's existence has been immense and to no avail.

3) There is no express justification for the presence of god.

And although I am arguing myself out of a position, I must recognize that given it's virtually impossible to prove a negative (in a situation like this) it might actually be more difficult to prove god does not exist than to prove god does exist - given sufficient resources to track down a god.

I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

A bit more on Asimov and Atheism. It would appear that Asimov is what one might call a "weak atheist". Asimov does not suggest his perspective is hard core Atheistic by strict definition. He says

Asimov wrote:

I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.

Quote:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

Does anyone here want to make an argument that the premise for being a weak Atheist has the same level of justifiability as does the premise for a firm belief in god?

I would make the argument that being a "weak atheist" is simply being an agnostic...without the guts to acknowledge that one is an agnostic.

Frank wrote:

I would make the argument that being a "weak atheist" is simply being an agnostic...without the guts to acknowledge that one is an agnostic.

Someone, on one of the threads, postulated that being an atheist does not necessarily deny the possibility of the existence of a god. It is simply living one's life, "without God." That makes a lot of sense to me. By that
meaning, I would define myself as an atheistic agnostic= I live my life without God, but am not unilaterally dismissing the possibility that there might be one.

Frank- You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-toh, but basically we are saying the same thing!

His rationalization of his belief amounts to rationalization of belief - nothing more, nothing less, nothing other, having no more merit than any other belief-based, otherwise afoundational, essentially superstitional rationalization of any other belief set.

That sure strikes me as a comfort-zone position; he unambiguously says he feels any exploration of the question is a waste of time, an implicationally futile excersize in which he chooses not to participate.

I would make the argument that being a "weak atheist" is simply being an agnostic...without the guts to acknowledge that one is an agnostic.

I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I would make the argument that being a "weak atheist" is simply being an agnostic...without the guts to acknowledge that one is an agnostic.

Asimov's claims are somewhat the reverse as he says to the effect that he now has the guts to say he is an Atheist (weak or strong as one see fit to ascribe from this interview).

Asimov wrote:

I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.