You got a problem with strong atheism, take it outside, punk.
Watch it! If you keep talking like that I'm going to have to
summon Richard Dawkins, and then you'll know pain!
Not only is it not "logically indefensible", it's relatively easy to defend. I would contend that were it not for the cultural respect that we give religious ideas no matter how nutty, most atheists would call themselves strong atheists since most genuinely are strong atheists.
Respectfully disagree.
For a start, you can drop this "universal negative" stuff. 100% certainty is yet another carry-over from the theists and it isn't something that anyone applies to any other area, but they toss it in to confuse you into thinking
I am in the biz of statistically designed experiments, I don't believe in anything 100%. But indeed I think the religious have a bit of a "chink in the armor" if they see a claim that is, by definition, a universal negative statement.
I liked Dawkin's explanation of it in
The God Delusion because it really does show that, as you say, no one ever believes anything 100% without question. But if we tell the theists that we simply accept the claim
positively then we open it up to criticism on this point.
I certainly understand your point. And as I said this is a variant of atheism. You are probably right, without any sort of "strict formalism" many atheists certainly make that claim.
I tend to prefer to limit the debate to "Weak Atheism" since I
know that can be defended no matter how "nit-picky" the theist. (Sorry my time spent with a philosophy major made me realize if I wanted to stand a chance in the debates over God's existence I had to stick to strict formalisms).
that if you can't be 100% absolutely, positively certain, then you have no right to reject their kooky ideas.
Here's how I look at it: I run it as a statistical
hypothesis test.
I start with the NULL HYPOTHESIS: "There is no god". That is a cleanly stated null and after assessing the data I see no reason to
reject the null. (sorry to get into the stats stuff again, it's my current obsession).
As such I am a weak atheist because I see no reason to reject the null. In a sense it leaves open the possibility that should a theist ever step up to the plate and provide data sufficient to overcome a reasonable alpha level, it could be reconsidered.
Perhaps God is merely under the sofa cushions.
That's nonsense and we don't apply that to any other position.
Unfortunately in my line of work that is pretty much how it has to be. Statistical design of experiment is the only rational way for me to procede.
I know, but why bother? Do you really have no opinion on the issue at all beyond a mere lack of belief? I have a hard time accepting that.
Oh, no I simply
fail to reject the null hypothesis.
It takes it out of the realm of "belief" or "opinion". Indeed you could claim that the difference between me and a theist is merely setting the alpha-level (the p-value is the probabability of making a Type I error, or rejecting a true null hypothesis --I believe in the past I have mis-stated that and said the p-value is the chance of making a Type II error, the chance of failing to reject a false null, but as I learn more in this area I am trying to get it straight in my head).
I have set my alpha level at a reasonable level for me and the portions of the world I've seen, so right now my understanding of the universe states that I cannot reasonably reject the null hypothesis.
Since I have not seen all of the universe nor can I I will have to stay a "weak atheist".
(It is part of my deconversion, as I have left religion I have attempted to follow a path of rational assumptions and some sort of logic formalism. But I am still learning and I fall down quite a bit.)
)
