Of course, this has been my position throughout this thread. I have never claimed that it cannot exist. But as of now, we can say that it probably does not.

Only if you are not objective.

They've spent nearly thirty years trying hard and failing to find evidence of proton decay. Is that good enough for you to conclude that protons dont decay? Or would you merely conclude that they dont decay in the manner we had predicted and leave the question open as to whether they ever decay?

Not something I know anything about, but perhaps proton decay is almost an expected event in the context of a huge, well-tested theory. Perhaps other subatomic particles have been found decaying as expected. ??
Now, if they've been searching for evidence of protons lining up and spraying eggnog in my ear when I wink, they'll dismiss it a lot sooner for the flip-side reasons.

hope that helps.

What do you calculate the probability of the existence of anything supernatural to be, objectively speaking? Show your work please.

This thread has done a pretty good job of completely confusing this issue!

When I say: I find no evidence that there is a God and therefore think it is unlikely there is a God, I consider that soft atheism. Deorum seems to be describing that as strong atheism.

I think we really are just arguing over the definition of the term. I think it is far more useful a term to describe strong atheism as 100% belief there is no God. It is meant as the opposite of the strong theist.

Given that D is saying he holds out the possibility that evidence could arise, I still feel (despite what he professes) that that makes him a soft atheist. He's not saying there IS no God, he's saying there MOST LIKELY is no God. That's the defining difference is it not? It's what makes the distinction useful.

Or am I missing something.

And D, I agree with concerto and others here: its a vast universe. the mere fact we haven't found something saying nothing about whether we will find evidence of something. It may be in this universe, for example, that magic is possible, or once was possible, but its been evolved out of us for some reason, or that telepathy does exist, has been shown to exist but we haven't been able to tell the difference. I think this is unlikely, but we can't discount the possibility.

Scientists have been searching for a unifired theory of everything to no avail, does that one does not exist? Or merely that we don't have the means as of yet.

Our technological capabilities while impressive are also relatively primitive (I'm assuming, comparing to what we'll have in 1000 years, 2000 years, if we survive that long.) But again, I don't think you would argue with that. I just think you really are a soft atheist even though I know you will be frustrated by hearing me say that.

Not really. I was asking about what criteria would be sufficient in an undeniably empirical field for Deorum to decide that what was being looked for didnt exist. It was a question about him, not about protons.

Perhaps just the meaning of useful. ?

Arouet's distinction between strong and weak atheist is useful in arguing with theists (which is a pretty substantial motivation for a number of atheists on this board).

After all, a weak atheist can do more laughing-at-theists since they can consistently point out that the theist is holding certain beliefs in an area in which knowledge is impossible. A strong atheist trying to share the joke has to cede rationality (and you know how they hate doing that).

Heh, almost though not quite it. I don't mean useful for any particular purpose other than making it clear what we are talking about. The way I'm reading Deorum's caveat laden position muddies the water too much if that's hard atheism. It can be reversed and becomes soft atheism (see my posts above). That makes it a not terribly useful definition.

Ding.

Strong atheism is pretty much on par with deism I would say. Iow. it's not a horrible belief since it doesn't (necessarily) affect too much, however both are horrible as claims of knowledge.

They're pretty good as statements of belief though.

I dont think it matters if it's not clear what brand of atheism you identify with. Not to the same extent that it matters what brand of theism you advocate.

Atheism has zero consequences (in the sense that being atheist doesnt substantially imply anything about your other beliefs) so I dont think it's an important position to understand in it's own right - it's an opposite of theism and is only important to the extent that theism is important.

Where do you come up with these things? Was there eggnog and a spray bottle in your line of sight when you wrote that? I love it!

Even if it may not be as important, that doesn't mean the language shouldn't be clear! I agree that for most discussions the distinction won't matter.

I don't know - my view would be that, since it wont matter, there's no need to be clear. (Since lack of clarity wont lead to any actual confusion, merely potential confusion).

I just treat all atheists as weak atheists (in your sense) and go from there - I can't think of a single problem which may arise unless I'm trying to persuade them that their position is irrational.

There are two physicists -
One believes the luminiferous aether is causing global warming because he found it said so on a note he wrote during a vision.
The other believes there is no luminiferous aether.

If they are exhibiting the same level of rationality to you, ok. Me, I'm snickering along with the 2nd physicist who has apparently ceded rationality also.

Admittedly, I know a quite a bit more about studies of the supernatural than I do about proton decay (which is especially embarrassing since I was a physics major). I just haven't really kept up with much physics since I graduated and much of what I had learned I have since forgotten. I do not remember enough about the research and the models involving proton decay to form a belief about it.

Err no. The 2nd physicist hasnt yet ceded rationality.

In order to be analogs for atheists the two physicists have to both believe there's no luminiferous either. There has to be a third physicist in your group -

1. Believes there is luminiferous ether due to revelation
2. Believes there is no luminiferous ether
3. Thinks knowledge of luminiferous ether is impossible as it makes no testable physical predictions

3 can snicker at 1 for forming beliefs in an area in which knowledge is impossible. 2 can't laugh along rationally.

But you do feel qualified to form a belief about the existence of all gods?

(This isnt meant to be a challenge as such - it's a genuine enquiry).

I agree the disagreement seems to be with respect to the definition, so let us examine that aspect for now.

There are two problems with that, though. The first is that it disagrees with the standard definition: the belief that there are no gods. Can we agree that belief does not imply absolute certainty? The second problem is that it renders the terms 'gnosticism' and 'agnosticism' useless. If strong atheism implies 100% certainty, then a strong atheist would necessarily be a gnostic atheist, and a weak atheist would necessarily be an agnostic atheist, as one cannot claim to know but not believe. The other possibilities would be nonsensical. A gnostic weak atheist would be one who claimed to know that there are no gods but does not believe there are no gods, while an agnostic strong atheist would be one who claimed to not know that there are no gods but is absolutely sure there are not any.

Correct, and since it is most likely that there are not any, I believe there are not any; I assume that they do not exist.

But it does say something about it. It says it is not likely, especially considering that we have been diligently searching for it but have found other explanations in nearly every other situation (and never have come close to concluding that the supernatural is likely). As you already mentioned, I am not discounting the possibility. But because of the consistent failure, I assume that it is not real.

It is a daunting task, but we have found evidence that there may be one (the understanding that matter and energy are the same thing, and that all matter can be described as having a wave function, for instance).

Given your definition of strong/weak atheism, yes I am a weak atheist (ofc my objection is to your definition )

All gods that fit the definition of supernatural, yes.

I'm not sure what supernatural means, but are you including a deistic god - who set the world running then sat on his hands? And DS's multi-dimensional-kid-with-a-chemistry-set?

3rd is superfluous and not only because he would have trouble knowing when to cross the road anyway ( is a car 'really' not coming). The 2nd is well aware, as any intelligent human is, that definitive knowledge is only available in a defined system. Since this topic is not in one of those he can succinctly sum up "100 years of rigorous tests and the entire weight of physics theory show no trace or need to assume luminiferous aether" with "..so I believe luminiferous aether doesn't exist".
On the flip side, "because I saw it in a vision" needs confirmation to be considered rational else we'd be dodging flying purple elephants.

As a proponent of "we can't help what we believe" you're not a good salesman for when a person can form them. A belief statement is just that, a report on the belief. Whether it was formed rationally is another topic.

"I believe there is no dog on my lap." Call your 3rd physicist in if you must, or toss me in with with some fundie visionary because of such a radical claim, but I think it is a rational belief to have at this moment..... and it is what I believe.

No he's the analog of an agnostic weak atheist. The situation I was positing included a theist, an agnostic weak atheist and a strong atheist and contrasted the rationality of the two atheists. You mysteriously decided to include only two in your analogy - then contrasted the rationality of the theist and the atheist.

*shrug*
I don't know what you're talking about now, you seem to have changed topic from "Is strong atheism more or less rational than weak atheism" to "Is atheism more or less rational than theism".

I'll make an observation in the hope it's relevant. (This was kind of the point of my initial remark and you seem to be affirming it above).

No belief is inherently irrational, it's only set of beliefs which are irrational.

Your two physicist analogy had a theist, a strong atheist and you mistakenly thought I would label the atheist irrational. It's impossible to label anyone irrational or otherwise based on the sole criteria of whether they believe in god. "I dont believe in luminiferous ether" is not irrational unless you also think knowledge of ether is impossible and that one should only form beliefs about things it is possible to know.

As for being a "salesman" I'm perfectly capable of judging the rationality or otherwise of a belief decision given the (incorrect in my view) assumption that we do choose our beliefs.

A belief is a statement of a current condition arrived at in an unknown way perhaps.

There is no singular belief that can be extracted out of context ( which is a bizillion other beliefs) so it's meaningless to talk of "inherently irrational" when it comes to a belief. They are always in your second construction "a set".