Re: the weak argument of atheism
The clarification of some definitions would help this discussion, because there are two different ways to define atheism. Weak atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and strong atheism is the belief that a god doesn't exist.
A weak atheist lacks belief in a god for the same reason that any rational person lacks belief in unicorns, leprechauns, and flying whales: there is no evidence. Someone who doesn't believe in talking toasters is not required produce a systematic study proving their nonexistence. Similarly, a weak atheist is not required to support his position with any arguments of his own. The most he can do is show that the arguments supporting the existence of a god are flawed. Refuting theistic arguments does not prove the nonexistence of god, but the weak atheist is not attempting to do this anyways.
A strong atheist, on the other hand, must make an argument that a god doesn't exist. There are many different ways to define 'god', so a strong atheist's evidence might only disprove a particular subset of the gods. For example, a god that created each individual species of organisms cannot exist, because it is known that all organisms evololved gradually through an unintelligent process. Someone who is a strong atheist with respect to one god might be a weak atheist with respect to others.
Also, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism simply rejects the idea that it can be known whether a god exists or not. There is nothing contradictory about calling oneself 'an agnostic atheist'. Concerning a god that simply created the universe but left no other trace of himself, it would seem logical to adopt the agnostic position.
I see nothing weak about strong or weak atheism.
Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!
As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.
- What distinguishes humans is social learning — and teaching.
- Crucial to learning and teaching is the value of free expression.
- And we need political leaders who support environments of social peace and cooperation.
We're talking Ghost in the Shell type of stuff.
Maybe you watched Ghost in the Shell and maybe afterwards you and your friend had a conversation about whether or not you would opt in for some bionic upgrades if that was possible - like a liver that could let you drink unlimitedly or an eye that could give you superhuman vision. And maybe you had differing opinions but you concluded that it's irrelevant because the time to make such choices is far in the future. Well, it turns out, it's two years away.
Tragedy in art, from Ancient Greece to Breaking Bad, resists all our efforts to tie reality up in a neat bow, to draw some edifying lesson from it. Instead it confronts us with our own limitations, leaving us scrabbling in the rubble of certainty to figure out what's next.
- Why democracy has been unpopular with philosophers
- Tragedy's reminder that the past isn't finished with us
- …and why we need art in the first place
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.