Using you wording (which makes it easier) if you believe that it is false that the universe was created by an intelligent mindful creator then you believe that it is true that the universe was not created by an intelligent mindful creator.

In other words, you cannot say that A is false while maintaining a neutral or unknown position that -A is true.

This is not a very useful analogy as in fact "Democrat" is not identical to "a-Republican" in luckyme's example. However, let's say that it was. In that case, being a Democrat would be like being an atheist. And here you are agreeing with those atheists here who claim that atheism is just the negation of theism--that all that is required to be an atheist is that you not be a theist. They'll even say that it doesn't matter whether or not you self-identify as an atheist--if you don't believe in a god then you are an atheist.

However, just as being a Democrat in this scenario wouldn't require that you believe anything in particular, being an atheist also doesn't require that you believe anything in particular. So I don't see how you've advanced your point here...

I think that instead of mucking around in some mistaken logical notion of the excluded middle applied to belief or logical negation, what is really going on is that you just don't believe most of the atheists who claim to not believe that no god exists. You think they really do believe this, protests to the contrary, and so they should defend this belief.

Right, which is why a consistent weak atheist will not claim to believe that it is false that the universe was created by an intelligent mindful creator. Rather, she will claim to not believe that the universe was created by an intelligent mindful creator.

You might believe that it isnt a statement (I presume logical noncognitivists would fall in this category).

Or another attempt - If you reject my claim that I built my car out of lego you may think someone else built it, I used something other than lego, or it self-assembled in a series of happy accidents. Being an a-legoist is not outrageous, it's under-specified. It is nonetheless still true that you believe 'bunny built his car out of lego' is undisputably false, even though you may not have a view as to where my car came from.

I agree, but I believe this is not a consistent position that is held by many here. Batair is one of the few atheists here that I believe does hold this position and is consistent in his posting with this position. But I feel the Batairs of the world are few and far between.

But I would have a view, a view that it was not built by Bunny. And subsequently any view that logically follows from it not being built by Bunny.

Atheism requires either/or/and a) autism b) belief in naturalism (materialism) c) a parasitical nature

/thread

Oh no, belief in naturalism, FSM forbid.

obvious troll is obvious

Fair enough. But then the point is not about the excluded middle, but that you don't believe atheists who claim to not believe that god doesn't exist.

I suspect that part of the problem might be that many of the atheists here actually do believe that several proposed versions of god, e.g. the traditional Christian/Muslim/Jewish God, etc. don't exist, but are not willing to claim that no god exists because of the possibility of a more deistic god existing. Would you say of someone who holds this view that they believe that god doesn't exist?

My post was at least 10x better than yours PERIOD

Dear StewTradheir, do you think the intellect and the tolerance that you demonstrate are more likely to convince me, an atheist, to accept religion or less?

That's not "a view as to where my car came from" that's a claim about where it didn't come from. One may have no further opinions, even if you yourself feel compelled to always choose an option from what's currently going around.

As usual when you adopt this strategy it's the "what logically follows" part that actually doesn't. (ie believing in no god does not entail belief in happy accidents, no matter how difficult it is for you to think of other explanations).

I think if you don't know by now you never will and that your taxing my people (or shills posing as my people at the very least). When I make great posts they get deleted, so I'm trying to keep it simple.

Why could Bunny not have built his car out of something other than legos? There is no evidence that Bunny didn't build his car out of lincoln logs, or play-doh, or steel (or anything), just that you don't believe he built his car out of legos. Extrapolating this to the fact that Bunny didn't build his car does not make sense. In my eyes, that's where your point fails.

I don't hold the belief that Bunny built his car out of legos. End.
I don't hold the belief that the God of the Bible is real. End.

Why do you need to adopt additional positions?

Yup.

Also, "happy accident" is no more an explanation than "i have no idea" imo. And its probably the lost tilting thing anyone ever says around here.

If you had to guess, what % of modern Christian theologians consider 'weak atheism' to be an authentic, morally robust psychological state?

I.e. how many could write a first-person short story with a 'weak atheist' protagonist that both (1) rings true to the average RGT 'weak atheist'; and (2) validates the hero's psychology as an honest synthesis of his life experience?

It has everything to do with the excluded middle. And it is not that I don't "believe" people, but that many are inconsistent in their views.

No. Believing that the revealed God's do not exist insofar as they have been described to them is perfectly consistent with a weak atheist position. I do question the actual reasoning for rejecting all said God's, but that is a different topic.

I still disagree as my position is still a positive "It came from a non-bunny involved process". Which may not seem like a big deal in your analogy, but I feel has important implications with regards to the universe.

If we switched out "Bunny" for "intelligent designer" then you can see how important it becomes. If we were discussing your lego car and my position was that it was not the product of intelligent design then it is very justified for you to require an explanation from me how such a thing could have come about without the aid of an intelligent designer.

First, I have not once used the term "happy accident" so I think we should leave that behind.

Second, as far as I can see there are only two other options, one would be chance and the other necessity. Now if you want to say that there is some other explanation that we just don't know of, fine, but I feel that is just a cop out.

Really Jib? Really? Well, I suppose you could come back and admit you've used it many times, so by the law of excluded middle, you haven't used it once.

No, it's very sufficient for you to state "what a crock, you haven't provided an iota of evidence that "bunny, the intelligent designer produced that car.' and walk away. There need not be the slightest urge or requirement to demand " ok, you bozo... then what happened here?". One isn't connected to the other.

" 12354695 cubed is 7"
"bs"
"hold it, you haven't proven what it is."
" I don't care what it is, but you are wrong, wrong wrong."

And what has that got to do with C?

So you are arguing from personal incredulity? While I'm sure you don't mean to be, that's pretty arrogant. You are basically saying, "Because I can think of no other options, it's either A, B, or C. If you don't accept A as true, you therefore must believe that B or C are true and I will hear nothing more about it".

What every atheist/agnostic has been trying to tell you throughout this thread, is that you don't get to tell us what we think or believe. Even if we don't accept claim A as true (and therefore think claim A is false), it doesn't mean we are claiming B or C as true. B or C might be true. D through Z might be true. All we are saying is that we do not accept A as true. B thru Z are separate issues that can be discussed.

So please stop with this false dichotomy. I'm tempted to implement bunnie's suggestion: Either you accept science which has never proven there is a god, or you don't accept science, which must mean you think the earth is 7000 years old, because I cannot think of any other alternatives. This is pretty much what you're doing.

Sorry, meant in this thread. I most certainly have used it in many other places, lol. But I am trying to get away from that term as it was not constructive.

Everyone else has been saying the same thing, but I thought I would try as well

Atheism is simply the rejection of your claim.
You can be an atheist( reject your claim) and also believe in no god
You can be an atheist( reject your claim) and also believe the universe sprung from nothing
You can be an atheist( reject your claim) and also believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure
You can be an atheist( reject your claim) and also be allergic to strawberries.
You can be an atheist( reject your claim) and also have no view on how the universe got here.

And so on.

How much longer do we have to go on before you realise this?