Strong vs Weak Atheism

[Michael]

What we are asking for is sources that are disinterested, or those who don't have an obvious conflict of interest.

What conflict of interest did you find in those letters from his brother and his followers? Who else is likely to write about him in the first place *other than* someone that is 'interested' in his words and deeds? There are lots of pieces of evidence that show the OT has been copied consistently from one generation to the next, including the dead sea scrolls.

Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jesus apparently appeared before thousands of people after resurrecting, so where are the accounts from those people?

They are recorded in the Bible. How many accounts are sufficient?

The accounts we do have are from the leaders of a religion who have a stake in the religion spreading and gaining favor.

That's akin to me discounting "dark energy" only because astronomers have a vested financial interest in the concept gaining acceptance and remaining "acceptable". You'll need more than pure handwaves and conspiracy theories to write off an entire historical account of a people.

I am also sure that Mohammed was a real person, and I am sure you can find letters written between his followers. However, that doesn't mean that God dictated the Koran to Mohammed.

Well, that's at least a logical argument.

The difference being that we can find empirical evidence that kangaroos actually exist.

And how exactly are they different in that respect?

Each person will have a different walk through life. What you describe is nothing like my own experiences. I was never dissatisfied with religion, per se. It just seemed irrelevant after awhile.

Yet here you are on religious website day after day. Apparently it's not as irrelevant to you as you seem to suggest.

What I find interesting is that those who push ID/creationism are not doing any actual scientific research on their claims.

I know exactly how you feel as it relates to folks who don't lift a finger to demonstrate most of their claims in the lab, and who blatantly ignore the lab results they have collected.

 

[Loudmouth]

What conflict of interest did you find in those letters from his brother and his followers?

Already described in previous post:

"The accounts we do have are from the leaders of a religion who have a stake in the religion spreading and gaining favor."

They are recorded in the Bible. How many accounts are sufficient?

No, they aren't recorded. What we have is the accounts written by the leaders of the religion.

Who else is likely to write about him in the first place *other than* someone that is 'interested' in his words and deeds?

Someone who is interested in history and events, but not interested in pushing the religion. For example, I am pretty sure you can find biographies on Jim Jones that were not written by his followers, or written by someone who is trying to push the tenets of that cult.

They are recorded in the Bible. How many accounts are sufficient?

They are recorded by those who are looking to spread the religion.

That's akin to me handwaving at "dark energy" . . .

Can't we have one thread where you don't pull out your dog and pony show?

You'll need more than pure handwaves to write off an entire historical account of a people.

You haven't shown that it is a historical account. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Yet here you are on religious website day after day. Apparently it's not as irrelevant to you as you seem to suggest.

What is relevant is the effects it has on society. I am very interested in that.

 

[Michael]

Already described in previous post:

"The accounts we do have are from the leaders of a religion who have a stake in the religion spreading and gaining favor."

I'm afraid that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory run amok and it still misses the point:

The fact of the matter is that weak atheism is not a knowledge claim, whereas strong atheism is a knowledge claim. One position doesn't require scientific support. The other does. Ironically, even if strong atheism were correct (which it's not), there could be no evidence to support it. It's the *ultimate* statement of faith.

What is relevant is the effects it has on society. I am very interested in that.

Great, another evangelical atheist out to "save" the world.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm afraid that's nothing more than a conspiracy theory run amok and it still misses the point:

No, it is common sense. What next? Take the word of every suspect as gospel when they say they didn't commit the crime?

Great, another evangelical atheist out to "save" the world.

Evangelical atheist? LOL. Projection at its finest.

 

[Michael]

No, it is common sense. What next? Take the word of every suspect as gospel when they say they didn't commit the crime?

No, it's not "common sense" to throw out an entire historical account based on one or few questionable statements. That isn't common sense, that the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.

Evangelical atheist? LOL. Projection at its finest.

??!?
Well I suppose I should have said "evangelical agnostic" since that is what your icon actually says. Then again, this is a thread on the difference between weak and strong atheism. You technically fit the former label by most folks definition, whereas I do not fit either category if "atheist".

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's not "common sense" to throw out an entire historical account based on one or few questionable statements.

It is common sense to doubt a historical account if the account directly benefits the writer. That is why we don't take a suspect's word as truth. Instead, we look for objective evidence. There is nothing conspiratorial about it.

Well I suppose I should have said "evangelical agnostic" since that is what your icon actually says. Then again, this is a thread on the difference between weak and strong atheism. You technically fit the former label by most folks definition, whereas I do not fit either category if "atheist".

You aren't allowed to change your faith icon. I would categorize myself as a weak atheist, for the record.

 

[Michael]

It is common sense to doubt a historical account if the account directly benefits the writer. That is why we don't take a suspect's word as truth. Instead, we look for objective evidence. There is nothing conspiratorial about it.

Of course there is, particularly when you're throwing out 66 separate historical documents that happened to be compiled by one group.

It's like the moon landing "skeptics" all distrusting the data because it came from NASA and those untrustworthy folks at NASA all need to protect their jobs.

You aren't allowed to change your faith icon. I would categorize myself as a weak atheist, for the record.

I've changed my icon (not necessarily my faith) on this website. What happens when someone's "faith" actually changes?

The key point was brought up in the first post in terms of knowledge claims. The key point is that weak atheism requires no scientific justification because it makes no knowledge claims, whereas strong atheism does require scientific justification due to it's claims of knowledge. Strong atheism could never enjoy empirical support even if it were true, so it's the ultimate statement of faith on the part of the 'believer'.

 

[46AND2]

That could be said for pretty much every "history book" ever written. By that logic one might try to discount the existence of any historical figure based upon that very same criteria.

Most history books do not claim to be inspired by omnipotent beings.

I'm not sure what you're expecting in terms of 'contemporary sources'. There are in fact letters from Peter, James and John that are recorded in the Bible, and they were all contemporaries of Jesus. You seem to be highly selective about the information that you accept and dismiss. Such logic applied to any historical account yields nothing useful. I'll skip the whole *it's all a giant conspiracy routine, since it has about as much credibility as moon landing 'skeptics'.

This is a large topic which I'll have to get into later, as it has been quite some time since I studied the topic and I'll have to reconstruct my findings. I will get to it, though. It might be a little while due to the holiday and my birthday coming up, but I won't forget.

Up until the advent of a camera, you'd have been a tough sell in terms of telling you anything about this kangaroo I saw one time......

"I didn't experience it, so I refuse to believe it!"

Very true. Even if you didn't believe that I saw a kangaroo, your opinions would A) be wrong, and B) they would be irrelevant to me, particularly since I am the one the had the experience of the kangaroo, and you did not.

Seeing a kangaroo is not an extraordinary claim. I would be perfectly justified in my disbelief if you claimed that you saw a kangaroo on the moon. Furthermore, seeing a kangaroo on the moon would not necessitate God putting it there.

FYI, you seem to 'assume' that God cannot be entirely "natural", and we all know about the danger of "assumptions".

My stint as an atheist ended up serving me well in terms of becoming comfortable with skeptically reviewing my own belief systems, and being willing to be 'out on a limb' if I feel it's warranted. On the other hand, my concepts of atheism itself became very limiting to me over time, particularly as I realized the my opinions were not driven by scientific knowledge, but rather they were based upon a consumer dissatisfaction with a single religious dogma package.

I hold no perceptions about what my atheism should explain. It is not a worldview that I am particularly attached to. I just have not been convinced that there is a god. It is not a choice, I did not even want to lack belief. It simply became a conviction that I could not avoid.

The scientific question about whether or not we were "intelligently created" is still a valid question with a legitimate scientific answer. No amount of bashing on various religious misconceptions addresses or answers that question "scientifically".

I do not not claim that bashing religious misconceptions answers any scientific question about ID. I bash on religious misconceptions, because they are misconceptions. And since misconceptions are all they have, then what reason is there to accept an ID proposal, scientifically speaking? Indeed, this is exactly what my conversation is about. If you have no evidence, what reason is there to consider it?

 

[Michael]

Most history books do not claim to be inspired by omnipotent beings.

They all are written by flawed human beings. Besides, all history books *claim* to be 'accurate' and yet they often are not completely accurate, and they often only include *one* very limited perspective.

This is a large topic which I'll have to get into later, as it has been quite some time since I studied the topic and I'll have to reconstruct my findings. I will get to it, though. It might be a little while due to the holiday and my birthday coming up, but I won't forget.

Happy Birthday and take as much time as you need.

Seeing a kangaroo is not an extraordinary claim. I would be perfectly justified in my disbelief if you claimed that you saw a kangaroo on the moon. Furthermore, seeing a kangaroo on the moon would not necessitate God putting it there.

The term "extraordinary" tends to be a subjective term in my experience. For instance, it's rather "ordinary" to have an "experience of God". Lot's of humans have written about such events since the dawn of recorded human civilization. I certainly am not the first human being to experience the presence of God within. Perhaps not every human being makes a daily effort to commune with God as I do, and therefore they may not have such experiences, but my experiences are not "extraordinary" in any way.

I hold no perceptions about what my atheism should explain. It is not a worldview that I am particularly attached to. I just have not been convinced that there is a god. It is not a choice, I did not even want to lack belief. It simply became a conviction that I could not avoid.

I've been there, and I understand the feeling. Atheism simply turned out to be as limiting for me as my previous theistic beliefs so I had to let go of that "lack of belief" as well.

I do not not claim that bashing religious misconceptions answers any scientific question about ID. I bash on religious misconceptions, because they are misconceptions. And since misconceptions are all they have, then what reason is there to accept an ID proposal, scientifically speaking? Indeed, this is exactly what my conversation is about. If you have no evidence, what reason is there to consider it?

I actually tend to agree with you on those points.