Soft Atheism vs. Hard Atheism

[Lethkhar]

MiniSiets

Lethkhar

Zambimaru

I guess I'm more of a hard atheist. I just find the idea or a guy in the clouds who knows everything, see's everything, can do anything, and created the hole universe highly unlikely. The universe seems to complex to be something that was made a being.

When you say "unlikely" instead of "impossible", that immediately disqualifies you as a strong atheist.

Not really. I admit there being a possibility that the Loch Ness monster exists, but that doesn't stop me from happening to believe for the time being that such a creature does not exist. In much the same way, this is how someone could view hard atheism. Saying that it is impossible that something could exist is pretty much making a claim that deals in absolute certainty,

Exactly my point.

Quote:

which is not what hard atheism is.

Again, by "hard atheism" I'm going to assume you mean "strong atheism". My understanding of the strong atheist position is that a strong atheist would make the statement,"I know that God does not exist."

Now, I guess that brings in a question of epistemology; what do we mean when we say we "know" something? As someone who an inherent sceptic, I would say that "knowing" something is the same as believing it with absolute certainty. But maybe your understanding of the position is different from mine.

Quote:

Don't confuse gnostic atheism with hard atheism. They are not the same thing.

I think this is your problem. Strong atheism and gnostic atheism are, in fact, the same thing. They're usually used interchangeably.

Quote:

I disagree with your notion that soft atheism is the more skeptical and honest point of view. In my opinion, hard atheism is because it treats the claims of deities much more realistically considering that many of them contradict our current understanding of how our universe functions. If someone were to tell you that they can walk on water without the aid of any special technology, in any other context than religion you would dismiss such a claim as false since it is vastly inconsistent with our current understanding of physics, but soft atheism seems to treat such a claim far too leniently, suggesting that it is a reasonable possibility to consider given the current evidence. I say it isn't. Not only is the claim not even worth considering without evidence to back it up, given the current evidence I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is false.

But see, that's not exactly what weak atheism is. The reason I'm a weak atheist is because of that "given the current evidence" part. Yes, if I knew that everything I perceive right now was true, then obviously there would be no gods. I agree with you that given the evidence I'm presented with, there are no gods. But how can I know that all of that evidence is true? Evidence has been wrong before. Science is supposed to try to get closer to the truth as time goes on, but any scientist will tell you that we will never "know" the "truth".

How can you know that you're not just imagining everything? How do you know that I even exist? You know that you exist, because you think, but the existence (or lack thereof) of anything else lies beyond true knowledge.

Quote:

And of course, I would like to point this out once again that this conclusion is not made on any grounds of absolute certainty. As a hard atheist, one can still admit that the conclusion could later be overturned and proved false, but until then it is the most reasonable conclusion given the available evidence.

Well, yes, you would admit that your proposition could be incorrect. But that's the problem; you're making a proposition in the first place. Weak atheism makes more sense because it merely denies what, as you've pointed out, we can't reasonably believe to be true rather than making the claim that it's completely impossible.  

[Lethkhar]

MiniSiets

Lethkhar

The reason for this is because to make any statement concerning the existence or nonexistence of anything other than myself is actually a leap in faith. To be sure, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there is no deity requires a small amount of faith in your senses. Small, yes, but it is faith nonetheless.

But you see, going by this approach isn't really following science and skepticism, because if you aren't allowed to have any beliefs or make any conclusions whatsoever, then science couldn't operate. I recognize that every belief, excluding those that deal with conceptual knowledge, requires some level of faith. However, it isn't really practical to try and assess the world through the eye of absolute certainty and 100% probabilities when you lack omniscience, because you will never be able to obtain absolute knowledge in order to claim 100% probability that something is true. If you require 100% certainty in order to operate, then you would never be able to make any decisions during your life because you're just not going to get it. That said, it also isn't practical to dismiss empirical observations altogether in order to assess the approximate likeliness of events, as religion seems to often do. We know this because simply believing that a rock won't fall when you drop it isn't going to stop it from actually dropping. Empirical observation has demonstrated this time and time again, so you need to take it into consideration if you want to make any attempt to reasonably determine the likeliness of an event.

I don't think I would ever make the assumption that I actually knew the likeliness of an event. I've only been alive for 18 years, and actually conscious and aware for even less of that time. The universe has been around for billions of years, maybe even forever. So, to take your example of a rock falling, my sample size is inconceivably small when you think about how many situations of a similar nature that I haven't witnessed the outcomes to. But that's beside the point.

Yes, it is impractical to live as someone who dismisses things that they aren't 100% sure of. That shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's an approach that brings me closer to the truth or not, though. The universe doesn't necessarily agree with people's lifestyles. So yes, in my everyday life I do hold certain things to be true for the purpose of functioning. That doesn't necessarily mean that I know that they're true. Every day it's a bit like playing a game of chance, albeit one in which I'm very confident in my chances.

Quote:

So basically, we find ourselves in the unenviable position of trying to constantly assess probabilities of outcomes based on very limited knowledge and observations. There is no such thing as "proofs" or "absolute certainty" in science, but that doesn't mean that it can't make reasonable conclusions about the universe altogether. There is a difference between "beyond all doubt" and "beyond all reasonable doubt". Personally, I choose the latter approach in assessing claims. wink

See, I think my doubt is perfectly reasonable.  

[MiniSiets]

Lethkhar

Exactly my point.

Good then we should be in agreement.

Quote:

Again, by "hard atheism" I'm going to assume you mean "strong atheism". My understanding of the strong atheist position is that a strong atheist would make the statement,"I know that God does not exist."

As I stated earlier, don't confuse gnostic atheism with strong/hard atheism.

Gnostic atheism - "I know there is no god"
Strong/Hard atheism - "I believe there is no god"

Quote:

Now, I guess that brings in a question of epistemology; what do we mean when we say we "know" something? As someone who an inherent sceptic, I would say that "knowing" something is the same as believing it with absolute certainty. But maybe your understanding of the position is different from mine.

You're right. I disagree with these definitions, as I find absolute certainty to be useless and impractical. When I say that I "know" something, what I'm really saying is that I simply hold to a belief to a much stronger degree. If I ever talk about something in the context of absolute certainty, I use the term "absolute certainty".

Quote:

I think this is your problem. Strong atheism and gnostic atheism are, in fact, the same thing. They're usually used interchangeably.

But you see, I think this is your problem. They are not to be used interchangeably. How then would you classify someone who believes there are no gods, but doesn't claim knowledge? Semi-soft atheism? It doesn't make sense. There is no category under your definitions, because soft atheism only encompasses those who lack belief, not those who in fact believe that there are no gods.

Quote:

But see, that's not exactly what weak atheism is. The reason I'm a weak atheist is because of that "given the current evidence" part. Yes, if I knew that everything I perceive right now was true, then obviously there would be no gods. I agree with you that given the evidence I'm presented with, there are no gods. But how can I know that all of that evidence is true? Evidence has been wrong before. Science is supposed to try to get closer to the truth as time goes on, but any scientist will tell you that we will never "know" the "truth".

Well, since you're using the definition of knowledge that I consider impractical, you can't "know" that the evidence is true--not to the unreasonable degree that you expect from it. No one can be absolutely certain of everything, but that doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions at all. You seem to be expecting that when we draw a conclusion it must be 100% certain, but the fact of the matter is in science we draw conclusions all the time that later turn out to be false and we either remove or update them.

Quote:

Well, yes, you would admit that your proposition could be incorrect. But that's the problem; you're making a proposition in the first place.

Why is this a problem? Scientists made the proposition that we formed through evolution even though they aren't 100% certain about it. Scientists have made the proposition that matter cannot be created or destroyed even though they aren't 100% certain about it. etc. etc.

Quote:

Weak atheism makes more sense because it merely denies what, as you've pointed out, we can't reasonably believe to be true rather than making the claim that it's completely impossible.

Again, I'm not arguing that it's completely impossible. I'm arguing that given the current evidence, it is so unlikely that I happen to believe it is untrue, much in the same way that I believe it is untrue that Loch Ness, leprechauns, or flying spaghetti monsters exist. Given what we currently know about the universe, to me this seems more reasonable than only saying "I lack belief" because this suggests that the possibility is greater than it really is.

Lethkhar

I don't think I would ever make the assumption that I actually knew the likeliness of an event.

I was very specific with my choice of words for a reason. I said approximate likeliness. You will never be able to know with certainty the true likeliness of an event, but I can guarantee you that using empirical observation you will get a more accurate approximation of likeliness than just guessing at random.

Lethkhar

Yes, it is impractical to live as someone who dismisses things that they aren't 100% sure of. That shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's an approach that brings me closer to the truth or not, though. The universe doesn't necessarily agree with people's lifestyles. So yes, in my everyday life I do hold certain things to be true for the purpose of functioning. That doesn't necessarily mean that I know that they're true. Every day it's a bit like playing a game of chance, albeit one in which I'm very confident in my chances.

And you see, that's exactly the point I've been trying to argue. Even you admit absolute certainty is useless, so there are certain things you hold true even if you don't have absolute knowledge that it is indeed true. In the same way, I feel confident enough in my chances that I don't just lack belief in gods, I actively believe in their nonexistence. Likewise for scientists, they don't just lack belief that matter can be created or destroyed, they believe that matter cannot be created or destroyed given the available evidence.  

[Lethkhar]

You know, the more I think about it, I think all atheists are inherently weak atheists, with strong atheists being a subset of weak atheists. Let me explain:

A weak atheist merely lacks belief in a deity. If a strong atheist believes there is no god, then they must also lack belief in a deity.

So I guess what I believe is that strong atheists make an unnecessary and unprovable assertion which the rest of us don't make.

Thank you for helping me realize this. This was a good discussion.  

[MiniSiets]

Lethkhar

You know, the more I think about it, I think all atheists are inherently weak atheists, with strong atheists being a subset of weak atheists. Let me explain:

A weak atheist merely lacks belief in a deity. If a strong atheist believes there is no god, then they must also lack belief in a deity.

So I guess what I believe is that strong atheists make an unnecessary and unprovable assertion which the rest of us don't make.

Thank you for helping me realize this. This was a good discussion.

Well, I'm glad that you got something out of it, even though I still disagree with you.

The way I see it, the point of calling someone a soft/hard atheist is to specifically distinguish between the kinds of atheists that take it a step further and those that don't, so to simply say that hard atheists are just a subset of soft atheists doesn't really make sense to me. The point is that hard atheists believe in the nonexistence of deities and soft atheists don't, not that they maybe believe in the nonexistence of deities. I understand what you are trying to say; in order for an atheist to be a hard atheist, they must first have a lack of belief in deities, but what I'm saying is, soft atheists lack belief and only lack belief, whereas hard atheists don't, so they would not be categorized as a subset of weak atheists.

And when you say "unnecessary and unprovable," it seems as if you are talking about things in the context of absolute certainty again, in which case that statement would be true for any claims about reality, not just with regards to hard atheism.

I think using the definitions I described earlier provides the easiest way to categorize an atheist. You have:

Gnostic atheist - "I know there are no gods"
Agnostic atheist - "I don't know if there are any gods"
Hard atheist - "I believe that there are no gods"
Soft atheist - "I don't believe in any gods"

And if you want to be really specific about someone's beliefs, you can simply combine terms to be even more precise. Example:

Agnostic soft atheist - "I don't know whether gods exist or not, and I lack belief."

These are the definitions that the ACA (Atheist Community of Austin) goes by, which is a community of atheists based in Austin, TX that broadcasts the TV show "The Atheist Experience," and I've found that they have been a pretty well-educated and reliable source on all subjects relevant to atheism.  

[Lethkhar]

MiniSiets

Lethkhar

You know, the more I think about it, I think all atheists are inherently weak atheists, with strong atheists being a subset of weak atheists. Let me explain:

A weak atheist merely lacks belief in a deity. If a strong atheist believes there is no god, then they must also lack belief in a deity.

So I guess what I believe is that strong atheists make an unnecessary and unprovable assertion which the rest of us don't make.

Thank you for helping me realize this. This was a good discussion.

Well, I'm glad that you got something out of it, even though I still disagree with you.

The way I see it, the point of calling someone a soft/hard atheist is to specifically distinguish between the kinds of atheists that take it a step further and those that don't, so to simply say that hard atheists are just a subset of soft atheists doesn't really make sense to me. The point is that hard atheists believe in the nonexistence of deities and soft atheists don't, not that they maybe believe in the nonexistence of deities. I understand what you are trying to say; in order for an atheist to be a hard atheist, they must first have a lack of belief in deities, but what I'm saying is, soft atheists lack belief and only lack belief, whereas hard atheists don't, so they would not be categorized as a subset of weak atheists.

If you draw a circle and label it "weak atheists", the draw a circle inside of that circle and label it "strong atheists", that's what I'm talking about. I know you know that, but the point is that one group has something that the rest of the overall group doesn't. I think our definition of weak atheist is also pretty much the definition of an atheist, and strong atheists are certainly atheists.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Though interesting, it's pretty trivial and making diagrams is too much work. (Which is where is would go if we went much longer)

Quote:

And when you say "unnecessary and unprovable," it seems as if you are talking about things in the context of absolute certainty again, in which case that statement would be true for any claims about reality, not just with regards to hard atheism.

Pretty much. There a few exceptions, but yeah.

Quote:

I think using the definitions I described earlier provides the easiest way to categorize an atheist. You have:

Gnostic atheist - "I know there are no gods"
Agnostic atheist - "I don't know if there are any gods"
Hard atheist - "I believe that there are no gods"
Soft atheist - "I don't believe in any gods"

And if you want to be really specific about someone's beliefs, you can simply combine terms to be even more precise. Example:

Agnostic soft atheist - "I don't know whether gods exist or not, and I lack belief."

I'd never heard that system before, and as far as I know it's not very widespread. However, I will grant you that it's a pretty good system that etymologically makes sense.

I'll still stick by the fact that most people consider gnostic atheists and strong atheists to be equivalent. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what most people would say.

Quote:

These are the definitions that the ACA (Atheist Community of Austin) goes by, which is a community of atheists based in Austin, TX that broadcasts the TV show "The Atheist Experience," and I've found that they have been a pretty well-educated and reliable source on all subjects relevant to atheism.

I love those guys. Arrogant and self-righteous as hell, but pretty awesome and intelligent nonetheless.  

[Xiporah]

Um. I guess I'm soft.

I was not raised religiously. I have never been religious on my own because it never interested me. It was a natural conclusion. The only time I go to churches are for weddings and funerals. The only time I was taken to church as a child was by my dad's parents and I disliked it because you had to be quiet and sit still. I assumed it was just something they did or maybe something you did when you got old because none of my other grandparents or my parents did it.

As such, I have zero interest in religion. The subject bores me because I see it as being completely irrelevant to my life in general. In fact, I've kinda stopped telling people I am an atheist because then they assume that I'm a walking debate monger/bible encyclopedia and they think I actually care about it to defend my point of view. I don't, and the subject is rarely brought up by anyone in my area. Now I just tell them I am not religious. It's a more apt description and people just go, "Oh." and change the subject.

Do I believe in god? No. Can I sit down and blather on about my 'evidence' for hours? No. Have I read the bible? ******** no, why would I read the bible if I'm not christian?

My lack of religion is the least important aspect of my life. It doesn't concern me. It's also why I rarely post in this guild anymore. I've found that most atheists who were once religious seem to be a little more hardline, and it's more important to them than to me. For me, it's always been this way, and I kinda feel like I probably don't belong in the atheist catagory.

 

[MiniSiets]

That's interesting. So I'm curious, why did you join this guild then Xiporah if religion and atheism don't really interest you? Are you sure you don't have any desire to discuss it at all?

I think you would still be considered an atheist despite your lack of concern for the subject. There is nothing in atheism that says you have to actually be interested in it. There are plenty of people out there who don't believe in deities and don't really care about it either. It's an error on the part of the religious that they are too quick to judge you as militant merely because you chose to call yourself an atheist rather than nonreligious.  

[Xiporah]

I joined about two years ago, while searching for a place where I could talk to people who were like me. I was also very intrigued by the atheist title at the time.

What I discovered, is there aren't a lot of people like me at all.

I also joined this website, http://www.atheistforums.com/ and was active there for a while, hoping to find just a general place to chat, but there again, I ran into the people who wanted to debate until they were blue in the face. I haven't posted there since early this year either. I went to an Atheist group meet up through Meet-up.com as well and felt severely out of place.

I pop by here every once in a blue moon, saw your topic and thought I'd share my side of it. :3

 

[Raticiel]

Xiporah

I joined about two years ago, while searching for a place where I could talk to people who were like me. I was also very intrigued by the atheist title at the time.

What I discovered, is there aren't a lot of people like me at all.

I also joined this website, http://www.atheistforums.com/ and was active there for a while, hoping to find just a general place to chat, but there again, I ran into the people who wanted to debate until they were blue in the face. I haven't posted there since early this year either. I went to an Atheist group meet up through Meet-up.com as well and felt severely out of place.

I pop by here every once in a blue moon, saw your topic and thought I'd share my side of it. :3

Wow, you're like... wow! At last there's a real atheist here...
Because as long as there's a debate, there are questions, and as long as there are questions, there's doubting. And doubting means everything but not atheism. Enough said.  

[Raticiel]

MiniSiets

brainnsoup

But I think most atheists do not fit in either category, but somewhere in between.
There's a lot of logic and reasoning that goes in to deciding what God is, and everyone goes through it differently.
I think you should not worry so much about categorizing yourself with one group or the other and simply focus on your own beliefs.

But you see that's just it; I'm not so much concerned about the labels but rather whether or not it is a reasonable position to have a belief in no gods. That is the part I am struggling with, because I don't want to end up in a conversation with a theist that gets away with the argument, "See, you're just as irrational as me because you believe there is no god just the same as I believe that there is a god!" even though I don't think the two stances are comparable that way considering that the current evidence favors one stance much more than the other.

But isn't this what every debate between theism and atheism will always end up like? whee logic will never tell which option is better. The only discourse that won't be just a pile of nonsense will be a practical discourse then. Yes, the one that will include all abortions, euthanasies, suicides, meaning of life, political stuff and - the most important one - everyday life on a person. Yes, the discourse that can't be resolved without tanks and bombs, insulting and forcing your own views.  

[MiniSiets]

Raticiel

But isn't this what every debate between theism and atheism will always end up like? whee logic will never tell which option is better. The only discourse that won't be just a pile of nonsense will be a practical discourse then. Yes, the one that will include all abortions, euthanasies, suicides, meaning of life, political stuff and - the most important one - everyday life on a person. Yes, the discourse that can't be resolved without tanks and bombs, insulting and forcing your own views.

I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest that because we can't deal with reality in absolute proofs that the next best thing is to simply throw our arms in the air and say that no position is more logical than another. I mean, again, it's not like if you just suddenly start believing that if you drop a rock it won't fall, then the rock really doesn't fall. That's simply not how reality works no matter how much someone tries to make a religion out of it.  

[alteregoivy]

I would say that I am a "hard" atheist when it comes to specific religious claims, and a "soft" atheist when it comes to more nonspecific claims.

For example, I think the likelihood of the Judeo-Christian God is so unlikely as to hardly be worth considering. Certainly the Bible is so unlikely in its claims, and since Judaism and Christianity are based off of this book.... You see where I'm going.

In contrast, when someone changes the definition of "God" into something more reasonable, I am more willing to treat it from a "soft" atheist point of view. For example, the idea that the universe itself is somehow conscious. Or the idea of a "primary mover" and calling that God, no matter what it may turn out to be. The thing about these ideas is that they don't make specific claims that go against our view of the universe; there are a lot of things that we don't understand about the universe yet, and these ideas of "God" don't necessarily go against our understanding of the universe now.

As opposed to claims on this Earth that defy the laws of physics and such.

...Make sense? sweatdrop  

[Xiporah]

Raticiel

Xiporah

I joined about two years ago, while searching for a place where I could talk to people who were like me. I was also very intrigued by the atheist title at the time.

What I discovered, is there aren't a lot of people like me at all.

I also joined this website, http://www.atheistforums.com/ and was active there for a while, hoping to find just a general place to chat, but there again, I ran into the people who wanted to debate until they were blue in the face. I haven't posted there since early this year either. I went to an Atheist group meet up through Meet-up.com as well and felt severely out of place.

I pop by here every once in a blue moon, saw your topic and thought I'd share my side of it. :3

Wow, you're like... wow! At last there's a real atheist here...
Because as long as there's a debate, there are questions, and as long as there are questions, there's doubting. And doubting means everything but not atheism. Enough said.

Precisely how I feel.

 

[D i v i n i t y]

I guess I'd say I'm a "soft atheist" but I'm far from "50-50".
I strongly disbelieve in the existence of any god(s), but if a being which is super powerful and can't contradict itself logically exists, then I really wouldn't be able to understand its mentality and it is possible that I simply could not comprehend its nature. This is just my opinion. I strongly doubt that any god(s) exist but I do accept the minuscule possibility. That's just my opinion. Hard atheists, please don't hurt me. gonk