Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

I run into folks like that all the time in chat rooms. The more technical terms are "strong atheists" and "weak atheists." A strong atheist is someone who strongly believes that God, the Goddess, gods, or goddesses do not exist. A weak atheist is someone for whom God, the Goddess, gods, or goddesses simply have no significance.

Strong atheists frequently get into arguments with theists - for instance, deconstructing a religious text (the Bible, Qur'an, etc.) to show its contradictions. Weak atheists would not care one way or the other. Issues of divinity are simply irrelevant to them.

One of the issues in discussing atheism and agnosticism is that most people don't know what they actually mean.

An "atheist" doesn't necessarily believe that god(s) don't exist; an atheist merely does not hold an active positive belief in god(s). The word "agnostic", on the other hand, makes no claim as to the beliefs of the individual as they pertain to existence of god(s); an "agnostic" is someone who does not believe that whether or not god(s) exist(s) can be known.

Someone can believe that whether or not god(s) exist cannot be known, and still believe in god(s). One can believe that whether or not god(s) exist cannot be known, and still believe that there isn't/aren't god(s). Thus, there can be both theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics.

Furthermore, since atheism does not necessarily imply disbelief in god(s) and can instead imply lack of positive belief in god(s), one who takes no stance on the existence of god(s) can be described as an atheist.


The words we have are really inadequate for the issue, and in my experience, "strong" and "weak atheism" really just further complicate things by allowing people to draw conclusions about the individual that are not necessarily accurate.


I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe that whether or not god(s) exist can ever be known. I do not believe in god(s), which makes me an atheist. I do not disbelieve in gods, which does not make me a theist.

It is inaccurate to view "theism" and "atheism" as polar opposites, just as it is inaccurate to view "chicken" and "not chicken" as polar opposites; logically speaking, one refers to a specific thing, while the other refers to everything else.

Yes, that was Huxley's definition of agnosticism. However, as far as atheism goes, there are many variations of the strong-weak difference.

For instance, some people call Buddhists atheists. However, does it make sense to refer to an adherent of a religious category which simply has no concept of a creator-god an "atheist"? Some Buddhists argue that atheism only makes sense in a monotheistic context. Since most Buddhists live in non-monotheistic societies, use of the word "atheism" makes no sense.



What you call a theistic agnostic, I would call a weak theist. (For what it's worth, I am a weak theist.) However, I agree with your point.



What you just described is what Huxley called agnosticism.



Yep, there are subcategories of each.

This 1888 quote from Robert Flint helps approach my take on it:



I would argue that agnosticism in its "true" form is, inherently, also atheism.


By the definition of the word, yes; if they are without belief in deities, then they are atheists. It is not the word "atheist"'s fault that people have attributed all sorts of connotations to it.

There are many definitions of agnosticism. In common, or nontechnical, usage, some people even define an agnostic as someone who is "not sure."

As to "true" forms, being a nominalist, I reject the existence of forms altogether; and, to me, reality or truth is only a name for our constructions. How can there be a "true form" to a word? Agnosticism or atheism are are, like all words, devoid of essential meaning. The meaning is only in the minds of the speaker/writer and listener/reader.

I agree-- words are convenient abstractions. However, they still have associated definitions, and common understands of the definitions of words are what allows us to communicate with one another. Communication begins to break down when words are used to describe things other than what they are understood to describe; such as calliing someone who's "not sure" an "agnostic".

I agree that there isn't a "true form", but there are things that are accurately categorized as such according to the agreed-upon meaning, and there are things that aren't.

Often many associated definitions, which demands precision. I agree with Humpty Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass (chapter vi)

that makes sence. agnosticism means you dont know if theres a god so you will not rule out the possiblity?

That's all fantastic, but when one associates definitions with a word that are not agreed upon as being associated, as stated before, communication breaks down. I can intend the word cat to mean what's usually described as dog, but if I do so, it must be with no reasonable expectation of being anything other than misunderstood.

Pretty close. It is the belief that whether or not god(s) exist cannot be known.

Well, now I will be getting off topic. However, speaking as a radical sociologist (which is my approach to the discipline), there are times when communication should break down - when the very situation of communication breaking down is advantagous. Deconstructing words and sentences questions assumptions, and it empowers others to know that they can do the same. We are not captives of the labels of others.

It is worthwhile to consider why strong emotions are involved in religious discussions. Religious people frequently believe that people without religious convictions are immoral and dangerous. They use examples of communist nations to illustrate the terrible things that a lack of religion or an antagonism to religion may motivate. In actuality communist nations have pretty much been totalitarian regimes and the reason that religions were persecuted were that religions provide an alternate power base that competes with the totalitarian regime. Whether belief in God exists in those circumstances is essentially irrelevant. Non religious people see the actual evidence of the violence and cruelty in the world in history and in current events caused by strong religious belief. They see no rational reason for this cruel behavior and are well aware that they behave morally with no religious motivation. Beyond this, many religious people believe in an afterlife and, as is normal, are afraid of dying with no prospect of an existence beyond life. Non religious people accept this final demise but religious people do not. It is basically an unsolvable problem.

Personally I think the reason that there are rabid atheists is because there are rabid religious fundamentalists. If fundamentalists were not so influential atheists wouldn’t feel the need to bash religion so much.

When I'm talking about religious fundamentalists I mean people like this.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTGNi8kXCZ0&feature=related[/youtube]

I do find strong Atheism to be very grating on me. I admit also that this is because of very personal, subjective experience. When I tried to kill myself, I didn't believe in god or an after life. I was just purely materialistic, so I felt, why should I have to suffer through the kinds of things that others would put me through. I just didn't feel that my life had any purpose to it. Now, I simply don't consider someone else's idea of objective truth to be more important than my own existence. I see strong atheists for what they are, black magicians determined the curse the populace in order to reduce its numbers, and yet at the same time not picking up a single weapon. The idea is that the strong atheism won't get to you when you read or hear about it, but it is something that will eat at you later, when you least expect it, like an assassin who pretends to be your friend.

I probably have given the religious questions more thought than most people, at great cost to my time. I noticed that cats don't have religion, so I wondered why people needed it. It seems sometimes as though the animals have achieved spiritual peace, while humans suffer for lack of it. Religion has many, sometimes contradictory purposes. Religion can be the glue that holds a society together, it is also the power that can destroy.

My long series of thoughts on the matter gradually led me to belief in polytheism. The strong conflict between the powers of the multi verse is too readily apparent to deny. Actually, if people look closer, there are certain similarities between strong atheists and religious fundamentalists. They both believe that objective truth is more important than subjective truth. They both believe that one should force ones beliefs down other people's throats for what they call the greater benefit of everyone. They both have an inherent dislike of much of the occult.

Yes, i think that somewhat too, that the practically hysterical ranting and raging of SOME atheists about religious texts and beliefs might be described as a strange kind of fundamentalism. Worship of the "real" and denigration of the "unreal".

Last edited by ouinon on 13 Dec 2007, 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

I cannot, of course, speak for all atheists, but it seems to me that most atheists are, like myself, pragmatists. We deal with the materials and forces in our environment and manipulate them to obtain consistent results. Religious processes and traditions do not yield consistent results so, as far as I am concerned, they are not acceptable for a practical life.