I mean can you list some actual thinks you think exist and things you dont. (And things you believe but dont know) - some actual, concrete examples would help me understand why you dont want to put 'god' into that category.
I think the difference between this base claim and your 'generic god' is that this one is well defined. I dont know what the properties are which captures all elements of the gods theists have proposed - in fact I suspect there isn't a category which applies to all of them.
I dont think this is well-defined - the universe includes spacetime and the concept of cause includes an event preceding the caused phenomenon.
I dont think theists' gods are necessarily fuzzy - I think most of their descriptions include properties/events/traits which contradict the world we see. Those who say "I believe in God" and who can't say what God is - well I dont think they're making a claim able to be rejected, so there's no response of acceptance/denial or agnosticism there.

You seem to be saying to those who can define their god - well I dont believe that one exists, but there's this woolly, ill-defined category which has something in common with yours which I can't rule out.
I think so - if there is any intention to have a meaningful discussion. If we're just inventing categories and words without any real aim - well then I guess there's no problem.
It restricts discussion to debate around concrete beliefs rather than hand-wavy 'almost concepts' and this, in turn, allows one to form a view and apply logic. You can't logically or rationally discuss something with no properties and nobody believes in a god with solely the minimalist properties we can probably agree on. Discussing the disbelief or otherwise of a concept nobody is actually proposing seems like a waste of time to me.

Also if there is any intention to persuade theists they should abandon their views (which is presumably a relatively common goal). Unnecessarily broadening the concept they are putting forward and labelling 'god' allows them to hide behind one's inability to disprove the existence of a nebulous, continually shifting category. Thus the various arguments which may persuade them to abandon their theism may fail and have less impact because they don't seem to have power against all possible conceptions of god we may or may not be able to come up with. (The defence "What if God is...?" springs to mind).

Well yeah - I would include that kind of answer in the final atheist comment. I just dont see the point since you probably do disbelieve in what the theist was referring to with the word 'god'.
I would agree - I'm not suggesting one should restrict discussions of god to one conception at a time. But I am suggesting restricting it to a disjunctive formation of those actually on offer - since otherwise what are we talking about?

The Christian God might be A or B or C or D... the question is that the Christian God includes some entity which intervened in the world to make a dead human come to life after three days. Presumably you think such a God actually doesnt exist. Saying that "there might be some other thing which would sort of be a god which didnt do that" seems to me, as I put it earlier, to be overly conciliatory.

If we shift discussion to some loosely defined 'overgod' broad enough to cover all of these, but broader than necessary - then there is a place to hide, if you like. If the Christian wants to defend their claim - they need to defend the existence of an entity which made a dead person come to life again. I see no point to not focus our disbelief/lack of belief considerations on the same proposed deity.
I'm not a fan of theological noncognitivism as a general position - but if they are claiming to believe in something without having a view on its properties, then I dont think they are making the kind of claim that can be rejected or accepted. In other words I dont think "God exists" is the kind of thing which can be true or false if God isnt at least circumscribed by some contraints. Whatever that 'maximal constraint' is should be where the discussion rests in my view - not in some even wider and harder-to-define conception.
Are you looking for god now?

C.S. Lewis

Lewis always maintained he felt his faith was at its weakest after he had defended it.

You can believe the Christian God might be real, but still be agnostic.

It's called being an agnostic theist, which just so happens to be that category that I fall into.

edit: I'm using the reference "Christian" rather loosely obv.

RGT has felt quite an ordeal of late. I remember Godboy (I think) suggesting that SMP, as it was then, was a terrible place for Christians to post. I appreciate the thought - and you get 10/10 for consistency again, since last time I decided I was an atheist you also sent me a Lewis quotation.

God loves you, bro

Hoping I'll have the opportunity to continue checking in this thread this week (sorry for the semi-derail!)...

Another question: What you believe/don't believe is based (almost?) entirely on experience. The reason I say entirely is that even how or what you reason about is based on what inputs you receive from the environment (books, interactions with other people, interactions with the environment in every other way, etc. etc. etc.). The reason I say almost is that I'm not sure there's not some other way that I just haven't thought of in the past 3 seconds... but anyway.

How do you get up one day and decide "this experience I've been having (presumably repeatedly) is a delusion"? Out of all the experiences you are having or have had, why THIS experience?

I don't think it's a decision, as such but a realization. I daresay it's some "minimal adjustment" required to maintain coherence.

*grunch*

That doesn't make much sense. I don't believe in the Christian God and in addition I believe the Christian God does not exist - neither of these make me a strong atheist.

I remember this realization for myself. It sucked, and I don't wish it on anyone.

For me (on an emotional level) it was a combination of going through a series of difficult life choices where following the Christian path consistently left me miserable, and the non-Christian path lead me to happiness.

On an intellectual level, I just got tired of the company I was forced to keep by being Christian. There are plenty of idiot theists and plenty of idiot atheists, the difference is that idiot atheists go about their normal humdrum lives, whereas idiot theists revel in their ignorance and even rise to power (see: Harold Camping, Westboro Baptist, etc.) making the rest of Christianity look terrible.

Yes, I probably do, but I believe that is covered by the word atheist.

We're talking about what we believe. It's not captured by a single word on either side of the discussion. Even if we agreed that strong atheist is the proper term for my belief, no doubt someone will interpret it to mean a claim that no god can exist. It seems much more practical (and correct) to me to assume that theism means believing in a god, atheism means not believing in a god, and to learn more about the particular theist or atheist - discuss.

Well I suppoes we could quibble about overly, but I can't help but be conciliatory (I am Canadian, after all). But I come back to the idea that over a billion theists also don't believe that particular claim, yet supposedly still believe in the same God.

I have no interest in shifting discussion to some loosely defined overgod, and certainly not to offer a place to hide. I want to discuss what people believe and why. I am willing to share my beliefs and reasons, and I wish that theists here were willing to do the same. But while many atheists are perhaps too free in posting their opinions, it is striking how rare it is for a theist to challenge another theist, even where disagreement is obvious.

On the specifics of the resurrection, many theists believe because of what is written in the gospels. I do not find that compelling, but I accept that it is a form of evidence. Not having the original documents opens many doors for debate. Who wrote the gospels? When? Why? Are the gospels we read today a faithful representation of the originals? And so on. Some Christians believe that all of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses to the events in question. That they weren't raises a red flag. On the other hand, if the Bible is really God-breathed, then it doesn't much matter who wrote it or when. On this, there is no provable overall position, but the discussion can be very interesting.

I disagree. Or maybe I agree. I'm not sure what you are saying. If by maximal constraint you mean an individual's full and particular concept of god, then I would be happy to have the discussion rest there. But I would also be happy to discuss a particular aspect of their god, which will open it up to other posters who agree on that point and not on others. What I don't want the discussion to be limited to is the god-parts that satisfy all the theists, since that leaves so much off the table.

Yes. But the theists here are hiding it well.

Another great point. I think the confusion for this stems from Christian theists thinking their god is *the* god (ldo?), so being anti-Christian automatically qualifies you for a host of other properties: anti-theist, nihilist, communist(!).

Haven't read all of this thread but I "believe" in the "ether". I don't "believe" it is the platform for light but then again I don't "believe" that what one "sees" via the eyes is "light" either.

In speaking to the term "ether" one has to use words that people can relate to even though the meaning of the term is not at all what one would expect in facility. In spiritual science the "ether" is supersensible (beyond the senses) and one can say that what one "sees" is a sensible manifestation of the "ether", in part in any case. The term is "etheric body"in direct relation to Man or "etheric cosmos" in direct relation to the cosmos.

The "etheric body" is also called the "life body" in that when a Man dies the "physical body" is released and returns to nature which in relation to Man is of a destructive nature. Before Man dies and after he dies external nature relates to Man in the same manner, that of a destructive activity and this is evidenced (proof?) by the loss of form of the corpse. There is no difference before and after vis a vis external nature and his (Man's) physical body.

OP's question somehow was to be related top the "G" word but I'm here to say that it is necessary to bring concepts to the fore which speak to spiritual realities and not relate all of our knowledge only to earth bound concepts which can never explain anything but earth bound activities.

The 19th century scientist posited the "ether" and I believe the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the "ether". It appears that they thought something was around but demanded a earthly basis which is another way of saying that it had to be measured (earthly). Demanding that the cosmic world "fit" into ones way of measuring is fraught with error and in fact is what the religious spoke to as "darkness" or at least one approach to "darkness".

Speaking to "Philo" here for a while back he asked what I meant when I stated to speak from the bottom up as apposed to screaming vast generalizations of the the "G" word and I hope this is a start to that answer, a conceptual presentation of a supersensible or spiritual reality.

And yes there is more to the "etheric body" than what one terms "life" and as an example there is a "light ether" in that one does not see light through the senses but the working and deeds of light which are called "colors". Light in and of itself is spiritual or supersensible. Finis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

And people *do* point to the bible as an ultimate source of cosmology and biology and in some cases that it is totally inerrant. Asking what knowledge the bible has provided us with aside from "do unto others" (which can and was already derived outside of the bible) is a fair question. It is just a variation of (this is straight from Hitchens): "You ought to be able to tell me of a moral action performed or an ethical statement made by a believer that I couldn’t make because I’m a nonbeliever."

The ether isn't the aether (though I believe neither exists). However, I don't think you should be a strong atheist - I doubt two words are going to encapsulate your position. (maybe youd choose spiritual scientist?)

That's not what creationists mean by transitional fossils.
Well I think hitchens is a fool, anyway but that quote is silly.

Of course if someone tells you the bible makes some particular claim it's reasonable to point out the claim is false. It's not ok to try and "deduce" what the bible would have said were god to have existed - nobody has any clue.

Which god do you not think doesn't exist?

Of course.

Any that haven't yet been postulated to me and/or I haven't yet considered enough to form a positive disbelief in and/or that don't have any specific qualities that conflict with my current understanding of reality.

Oh, I see. You should still read Portable Atheist. He only writes the foreword and there is lots of good pantheistic stuff in there. (And I think that is a very reasonable question to ask a theist since they claim to have a monopoly on morals in a lot of cases. Not sure why you assert it as silly it has been put other ways by other thinkers.)

I would be a fan of that too - but there is a distinction between weak and strong (very passionately defended on this site). I am only speaking to those who think that such a distinction is important and who also think it's right to disbelieve in the aether (rather than modifying it to fit the facts).
I think atheism is defined solely with respect to theism - it's a response, if you like. I dont think a strong atheist has to postulate all the infinite possible gods which could exist and rule them out one by one. Its the theists who make the claim - they propose an entity (which they believe exists) and delineate it to a greater or lesser extent. A strong atheist believes these concepts fail to refer to anything. This focussing on some 'potential god' which someone may someday come up with, currently property-less and declaring it might exist - that just seems like an empty and pointless claim to me.

I'm a strong atheist, but I'm not rejecting The Great Zoltan - until someone tells me what The Great Zoltan is supposedly supposed to be.
In my view they don't, of course. They use the same word for a different concept - though I'm surprised a billion believers in the christian god dont think Christ was resurrected.
What are your beliefs though? Sure one of the things they dont include is some entity you call god. But dont you also actually think that Jesus was just a guy? That Allah is not real? That there is no actual Thor? In other words - your actual beliefs are all negative rejections of postulated deities. Weak atheism isnt a belief at all (if you think this discussion includes discussion of atheists' beliefs - shouldnt we try and articulate what they are rather than what they arent?)

It seems to me you are rejecting every view of god put forth, but leaving the way open for The Great Zoltan and his ilk - however that still doesnt rate as something you believe, it's again just a lack of a belief in some currently undefined concept. If a weak atheist is to 'share their beliefs and reasons' how does that include listing a whole bunch of things they dont believe? Isnt that sharing their non-beliefs? To me it's analogous to asking someone for their views on law and order and hearing them say "Well I don't endorse a ten year jail term for assault." - Uh-huh. And?
This is the kind of thing which leads me to think one should be a strong atheist - the discussion of religious dogma and beliefs is driven by the believers. They propose various possibilities and (imo) a weak atheist says they have no view a strong atheist thinks the religious claims are likely false (each person's required 'level of certainty' will vary).

What many seem to say is that, although they reject every claim put forth by a believer and think they're wrong - there may possibly be a religious claim made at some point or somewhere which they dont want to reject. This is what I mean by 'too broad' - leaving a caveat for options not currently being put forth by the faithful.
By maximal constraint I mean Christian God or Allah or Thor or Zeus or ... - it's not some category which they all agree on, it's some category which includes all proposed Gods.

It's fine to ask such a question of a theist who says that atheists cant be moral or similar.

What's silly is to take the claims of extremists and demand that moderates explain them. (Without context, I took his challenge as being to all theists, if he was only speaking to the loony 'atheists are baby-eaters' crowd well then he's silly for wasting his time, but the comment itself isnt silly).

"Of course if someone tells you the bible makes some particular claim it's reasonable to point out the claim is false. It's not ok to try and "deduce" what the bible would have said were god to have existed - nobody has any clue."

Do you deny the existence of aether? Or do you think there may be some form of aether you havent heard of which actually exists and is the medium through which light propagates - completely consistent with the laws of physics as we see them today?

Do I need to deny the existence of aether without any proof one way or another? What would this accomplish?

This would actually fall under the categories of "haven't yet considered enough to form a positive disbelief in," and possibly also "not having any specific qualities that conflict with my current understanding of reality," simply because I'm only passingly familiar with the concept of "the aether." I could look into the actual claims about it that were/are made and form a stronger position on it if you would like, but I'm not sure I see the point.

I can lack a belief in the floating space teapot without ever feeling the need to positively assert that there are no teapots floating in space, anywhere.


Why is this a problem? You'd rather blindly pre-reject something that you otherwise wouldn't?

I just don't see why it's such an issue, that you feel the need to positively assert that "Invisible Object Y" does NOT exist, rather than considering it a meaningless claim until "Invisible Object Y" is asserted to interact in the observable world in some way (at which point you can then have a meaningful claim to assess).

This would be my position (inserting god for invisible object Y) if so many people didn't claim god (invisible object Y) actually exists.