If you leave a chance for a creator then these concepts aren't necisarily imaginary are they?

The word "god" has actual definitions. See below. There is no need for "undefined meaningless direction." It doesn't seem very productive to adopt the position that there are no gods, but use a different definition of god (ie, only specific flawed models that have been posited to me).

T: I believe in the God X
WA: Well I lack a belief in a whole bunch of things which I can't tell you about and most of which are probably not identical to your X, but I'm not ruling them out. Oh and I think X doesnt exist.[/QUOTE]Why do you keep creating these weird "weak atheist position" strawmen? You've done it throughout the thread and I don't think I've found a single one consistent with my position. The response to "I believe in God X" is "I do not believe in God X." If such a position is defendable, I can also add, "I believe God X doesn't exist because Y and Z." I guess I should probably just quit trying to restate the weak atheist position because you're clearly not interested in what it actually is.

"  God
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs." (dictionary.com)

"God is the English name given to a singular omnipotent being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems) who is either the sole deity in monotheism, or a single deity in polytheism. God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe." (wiki)

"god
the supreme or ultimate reality: as
1: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality" (m-w.com)

Anything known or unknown that happens to have created and oversees the universe would qualify. Supernatural beings with supernatural powers that require human worship also qualify. Someone pointing to a stapler and calling it a "god" would not qualify.

Since you responded, I'll pick on you. Jib, you have thousands of posts here and the majority seem to be in RGT. So you are clearly willing to post something. In at least a few threads, you have told atheists what they believe, despite their vigorous denials. Surely, you can post a contrary view to a theist from time to time, and survive the onslaught? And you might just get a more positive response than you expect!

I see your other thread on raising the content bar. Perhaps that will help.

I was a lurker for awhile before posting, but I was around in those days. My recollection then, as now, is a wide range of thread quality. Some brilliant and incredibly informative, and others filled with junk or personal attacks, and many with a bit of everything. As a mod reading much or all content, I suspect things look worse from your perspective.

To me, it also seems to come in waves - sometimes the front page is filled with threads I want to read, and other times there is nothing of interest. Yet there still seems to me a lot of posts and pageviews. If numbers are up overall - then somebody must be happy?

I am a big fan of civility. We can certainly use more of Bunny's charity.

As you may remember from my a theist thread this is exactly what I do. I believe in a creator and I try not to define him by using my own meager human intelect to judge what HIS will is. I still see it fit to pray to this creator because I feel its right to honor such a being and I do have hopes about some things ie life after death but realize that could be left over reminents of a catholic upbringing or just plain wishful thinking. And the point of me saying all of this is the same reason it matters. To hold a firm belief in something you feel is right while not swallowing all of what organised religion jams down your throat. Does that have no value?

You're bringing up a concept neither of you believe in or can even articulate beyond some hand-wavy "It's kinda what you're talking about, but different somehow".
The difference is that God in those two sentences doesnt refer to the same concept. The second usage pertains to things which are, more or less, defined - by the people putting them forth as candidates for belief. The former is a vastly different concept - somehow, but in no clear way since it includes so many undefined pseudodeities.
You assert the possible existence (or perhaps the possible, possible existence) of a bunch of things nobody is interested in (yet). It clouds the issue with a non-claim about non-entities.
Ah - gotcha. I dont agree with the claim it's the same god since they have vastly different properties, but your comment at least makes sense to me now.
Well I at least understood your position anyhow. You and I hold identical beliefs about all the gods under discussion - we both lack a belief in their existence and both believe they dont exist. My claim is that being a strong atheist is a rejection of all gods - the disagreement arises over what 'gods' refers to. I dont think it's meaningful to include some undefined entities nobody worships or has ever worshipped or ever will worship.
Didnt you just reject them above?
'Leading with your lack of belief' is not discussing your beliefs. (Which is fine, you dont have to, of course). It's listing an infinite bunch of things you neither rule in nor rule out, most of which you have no idea what they are.
Clearly not - a strong atheist rejects every god. If you accept one, you're not a strong atheist.
I didnt explain it well. Every theist thinks a god from the Maximally Constraining set (poorly named, but anyhow) exists. Strong atheists think the set is empty. Weak atheists do not hold the view that X is in MC for any X.

Thanks for stopping by.

I think religious endeavour has value.

Don't lump all theist together its as bigoted as saying atheists are evil. The purpose of believing in a meta-concept no one can articulate is its the most plausible and valid imo of theist beliefs. It says simply I don't understand you Lord but I am greatful for all you've created.

On a side note I hope that your ok bunny and that your sudden lack of faith isn't brought on by paticularly hard times that would test your faith.

My life remains as far from hard times as I can imagine, but thanks for the concern.

I don't know. Propose one, and we'll see?

Words and statements describing things with no measurable attributes and traits shouldn't be denied or accepted, only ignored.

Yeah, that's my point. "God" doesn't refer to undefined, potential things - there have to be measurable traits and attributes to make any comment about them so being a strong atheist isn't making a claim about those undefined things.

Ok, prove your point:
H: Xybzzt is a God.

Q: What are the mesurable traits and attributes of Xybbzt?

You'll have to ask H.

In case this seems unnecessarily sarcastic - I do appreciate the comments (though I can't understand the vehemence). I just dont like stopping responding without at least acknowledging that it seems like there's nothing further to say.

I quoted:

"I guess I should probably just quit trying to restate the weak atheist position because you're clearly not interested in what it actually is. "

Because this is presumably not something you meant. What you refer to as 'weird weak atheist straw men' were not attempts to "explain the weak atheist position" - there is no "The" weak atheist position to state. It's a non-position, after all I'm just as much a weak atheist as you are. They were attempts to articulate how a weak atheist differentiates their response to a theistic claim from a strong atheist's response.

Here's the criticism that (I think) bunny is making of those who self-identify as "weak atheists" (with which I largely agree). They say they are weak atheists as opposed to strong atheists because they lack a belief in any god. But that isn't a sufficient condition to identify yourself as a weak atheist in this contrastive sense as all atheists (including the putative "strong atheists") lack a belief in any god.

So when they say they are "weak atheists," they also seem to mean that they are not strong atheists. Thus, to know what it means to be a weak atheist we have to know what a strong atheist is. The most common definition used here is that a strong atheist is the person who says that she believes that there are no gods.

This is where the real disagreement lies. The problem is that many weak atheists seem to think that in order for the strong atheist to have this belief they must be denying the existence of any conceivable god. But since no one has actually even thought about all conceivable understandings of god, let alone believe they don't exist, this seems to imply that there are no actual strong atheists.

But if there are no actual strong atheists, if it effectively impossible to be a strong atheist, then there is no need to describe yourself as a "weak atheist" in this contrastive sense. According to this view, all atheists are actually weak atheists. Thus, when we talk about the characteristics of "weak atheism," all we are really doing is just describing atheism in general.

There are of course still differences between atheists. However, it is not that some are weak and some are strong atheists. Rather, it would be about the extent to which each particular atheist believes that particular understandings of God don't exist or just doesn't know whether that God exists (i.e. lacks a belief that such a God exists).

Bunny also seems interested in rehabilitating the term "strong atheist" in some way, but I'm not as interested in that.

Thanks for the summary, it's pretty accurate (i would quibble that there could, technically be strong atheists even if it did include "all possible gods" if someone were to believe the term inherently inconsistent). Two comments:
I am interested in this but not for it's own sake. I think RGT does a poor job of criticizing atheists' views. We should be just as rigorous in spelling out our positions and defending them as theists should be. I think there are many who declare themselves weak atheists with some force - yet who have an incoherent concept of the strong atheist views they are disavowing. This should be discussed as much as we critique theists who believe in free will and predestination.

There is a strategic goal in this too. By weakening the atheist claim (and thus avoid the "you have unproven axioms too" challenge) there is a 'hiding place' for theists. This weak-strong distinction implies some issue to be resolved wrt the possibility of god. If the debate is allowed to shift to possibility the theist has an easier job defending their (weaker) claim - one they can always bolster via the "possible necessary beings must exist" route. I don't have any great drive to "win" the argument, but I think people should be held to account for the positions they hold.

You could not be more wrong. Look at any of the the threads that I have started on theological topics, I welcomed atheists questioning my position. But what I don't care for is having a discussion about whether or not eternal torment view of hell is a valid biblical doctrine, and some idiot coming in asking me to prove that God exists. It's clearly assumed in the topic. So if that is what you are talking about, then no I don't care to be questioned about things that are clearly assumed for the purpose of the discussion.

If I wanted to have a place where everyone agreed then I would go to a christian forum. I have been there before, it's boring. I come here to get my statements questioned. But by people that can separate their emotions from their intellectual beliefs. Some here cannot seem to do that.

It amazes me how wrong you can be. Classic case of the ostrich syndrome.

All the arguments I've seen with this conclusion rely on fairly restrictive definitions of "god." I suppose that, strictly speaking, if you are a solipsist you might be considered a strong atheist (in that you think nothing other than yourself exists). So perhaps it isn't literally impossible to be a strong atheist as described, but views like this don't seem to be what the weak atheists are talking about when they describe "strong atheism."

I agree with the spirit of what you say here, but think there are significant structural problems with having this kind of discussion. There is no avoiding the fact that there is a basic asymmetry between how much content is associated with the atheist and theist views. Saying that you are an atheist just doesn't say much about what you actually believe, so if we were really to critically engage with the views of the atheists on this forum we would end up having to more or less step outside of the religious/theological aspect of the forum.

For instance, suppose we are interested in how atheists think about death--its role in our own view of the world, whether we should fear it, etc. Two things get in the way of this discussion. First, all that is really associated with atheism regarding death is that certain religious views of it are false (e.g. the immortality of the soul). But beyond that--whether you are influenced by Heidegger, or Epicurus and the Stoics, Daniel Dennett or even your own personal reflections on it just doesn't have much to do with atheism itself. So it ends up that most of the people here, who are mostly interested in arguing about religion, don't care.

And second, these kinds of discussions usually then get criticized on religious grounds, which means that atheists have to once again explain why they think that the religious views are wrong, which ends up dominating the discussion rather than the positive features of the view itself.

I think a problem with how the weak atheist label is used here is this. Almost all the theists on this forum are religious ones--they accept some form of either the Christian, Muslim, or Jewish god. When these theists discuss theism v. atheism issues this is usually the kind of god they are talking about.

Here's the problem. It seems to me that a lot of atheists are not being upfront about their views here. While it is true that in a global sense they are "weak atheists," many of them have asserted that regarding these particular gods they believe that they do not exist. That's fine. The problem is that when they are then challenged by the theist to defend their view they retreat to the claim that they are only weak atheists and so they don't need to show why they believe that god doesn't exist.

This is, as the saying goes, weak sauce.

If your applied logic could in any way or form be true, exploration of knowledge through hypothesis is impossible because the very act of making a hypothesis would make it not a hypothesis (since "potential" is somehow made either impossible or possible by the very act of naming whatever linguistic container you want to contain "potential" in), which would mean you would either have to deny it or accept it there and then.

And forgive me for being blunt, but when you have paradoxal bitemarks in your own behind it might be time to start assessing if you are stretching your arguments somewhat thin....because if this was true we could never have discovered the luminoferous aether to begin with, and certainly never invalidated it with some new knowledge.

I didn't really mean criticizing their non-spiritual views. I just meant their atheism and reasons for identifying as such. I agree there's not much we can say about "atheistic beliefs" in a general sense.
This is how I see it too (although I don't know about not being upfront. I think it arises from not considering ones atheism rigorously)

I can make a hypothesis. I can propose any god I like, then go looking for him. I just can't express a view as to his existence or otherwise until someone's articulated what properties and traits he's supposed to have.

No paradoxal bite marks there.
how can you make a claim which is not even wrong?

Ah...but then we find ourselves as the huge chasm which you have crossed very casually.

Your OP implies that people, by which I guess you mean atheists, should be strong atheists. A strong atheist is someone who says "God exists" is a proposition that is always false.

Now you say that you can propose any God, and express a view to his existence when someone's articulated what properties and traits he's supposed have.

Hopefully you see the "gap" between your statements...

I think that there are, in fact, people who will tell others that they deny the existence of any conceivable god. Now, perhaps they are speaking foolishly and saying something which cannot possibly be true, since they cannot possibly have thought about every conceivable god. But they say it nonetheless. So maybe those who self-identify as weak atheists are simply trying to say, "Hey, I'm not one of those morons that runs around saying no conceivable god whatsoever can possibly exist."

Again, no. I am open to the possible existence of God as defined by at least some of the people involved. And I realize that strong atheism does not rule out the possibility of wrong belief. I just have trouble imagining that stating what I believe is the cause of so many problems.

Well, thank god at least one thing I said make sense.

Excellent point. Edit to add: before now?

Maybe, maybe not.

I'll end here, since your followup after this post with OrP has made it clear I have completely missed your point. If your point is that we should not distinguish between weak and strong atheists - I am fine with that. But I would still distinguish not believing X from believing not-X. And in the context of god, I am happy to look at it case-by-case, or on subsets with some common qualities, or on the whole kit and kaboodle, but my position will vary from one to another.

I posted earlier that there is nothing quite analagous to god. Here are two topics that are the closest I have come up with. First, the lottery. I do not believe that I will win a major prize in the next draw. I also believe that I will not win such a prize. I attribute this belief to the very small probability of winning, combined with the well-defined scenario, short time frame and clear resolution to come. However, while I don't believe that I will ever win the lottery, I also don't believe that I will never win the lottery (even though I almost never buy tickets - as an aside, I have had this conversation before: Me: I hope I win tonight! P: How many tickets did you buy? Me: None. P: Wha Me: Buying tickets really doesn't affect your odds much at all.) The odds are still very low, but the time frame is more open-ended, my habits may change and so on, so I lack that particular belief. But that doesn't affect any of my other specific beliefs about lotteries that could come up in a conversation about them.

The second is intelligent extraterrestrial life. I used to believe that it exists - probably formed during my university course on Astronomy's Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Now I don't believe that it does. But I also don't believe that it does not. And I don't have a particular problem with someone believing that it does exist, or believing that it does not exist. And I am confident that we could have a discussion about the topic, despite my weak position.

Now I'm off to follow your debate with OrP...