Yeah, but my point is that even if they make that claim, they are wrong about their own views. This is easy to demonstrate, all you have to do is describe a conception of god about which they've not yet thought. So the proper thing to do then would not be to create a distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheists, but rather just say that there are some people who don't correctly understand their own atheistic beliefs.

Yes...I personally call those people strong atheists. It is implicit that a strong atheist says "There is no god" as a true statement.

I don't really care how many rhetorical roundabouts people are willing to take in order to try and define themselves out out of this, but that is the one mandatory facet of strong atheism.

Now if people suddenly adoc "but only for these values of god [god1,god2,god3...]" fine...and they can even call themselves strong atheists, but don't expect any meaningful conversation with people who go by the typical understanding of the term.

Kinda like calling yourself a communist, when communist is defined as capitalist.

...and not just claims about god's existence, but also about what should be considered right or wrong for others based on claims of what god would or wouldn't want/expect,etc.

It gets to be a pretty big problem here in the states. I still say that a big underlying reason why I can't play poker online, or buy beer until a certain time on Sundays, can be tied to people's claims about what god considers morally right and wrong. The list goes on... Assisted suicide, pro choice, etc., not to mention all the ridiculous tax breaks that religion gets (although I suppose this gets back to existence). It's why I've went from silently watching from the sidelines, to being somewhat of a vocal activist against religion. Not that it's done any good on here.

I thought that the group of atheists who don't correctly understand their own atheistic beliefs because they claim (incorrectly) to believe in the non-existence of all conceivable gods is precisely the group that is referred to by the label "strong atheist". Is it better to describe this group, rather than give it a name?

This seems to me a different description of "strong" and "weak" atheist than is common around here (although it might more accurately reflect what people mean). Here you (and tame deuces above) seem to define a strong atheist as someone who believes that he believes that there are no gods (of any conceivable kind). Presumably, the weak atheist would then be the person who believes that she doesn't believe that there are no gods (of any conceivable kind).

This avoids the problem I pointed out earlier, as it is very possible that some atheists are confused about their own beliefs and so are strong atheists in the sense you describe here. So this definition is at least an improvement on the prior one. However, what I would say then is that this isn't a matter of what kind of atheist you are, or what it means to be an atheist. Rather, what we would be talking about when using "weak" or "strong" atheist are some second-order beliefs about our own views, but not any difference in our views about the existence or non-existence of god.

I dont think this is quite right. Most of the time God is discussed it RGT. Or at least a lot of the time... Its the deists creator God or cosmological God. Which i think might exist and dont have a strong disbelief of. Unlike Yahweh who i do have a strong disbelief of.

v.
??? These are at odds. Yes I know you qualified them but surely you have thick enough skin to ignore a few posts you don't like. Isn't that what you told me to do when I complained about Splenda? And are you sure it isn't you getting emotional? Who are these "some"? Me? If you want a thread where "you are dumb for believing in god" is not allowed just say so in the OP and moderate the forum??


wtf why would I be talking about that, I explicitly mentioned that this was not the case in the good old days thread. We are still back to where we started, what is stopping you from making these threads and having these discussions you want to have? You can't expect people to "play nice" as a rule though, especially given the level of "discourse" the most active theists provide. YOU COULD CHANGE THIS BY PROVIDING DISCOURSE.

I try to be diligent and write specific gods as God and unspecified gods as god. I don't believe in God and I have no special reason to suspect gods, but I'm not closing the door on that one.

I know people like to poke fun of this as nitpicking, but it is in fact the grammatically correct way of avoiding the entire debate that is in this thread. So it isn't nitpicking, but extremely healthy use of language.

Some believe that theism is the default position unless proven otherwise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyYfZwtx-d0

IMHO, human beings may have started with different default positions, so there are no universal arguments.

The set consisting of every set which is not an element of itself is an element of itself.

You see I dont think this makes sense - that was Russell's conclusion wasn't it? The words appear to mean something, but when we try to break it down this sentence can't possibly be true (or false). It's not actually a statement one can believe or disbelieve, it's a series of words which fools us into thinking they represent a claim.

The issue is not what strong atheist means, it's what god means.

If this is right, then I am a weak atheist (who thinks no god exists). I suspect you are right about what is going on, but I personally think we would do well to understand the strong atheist claim better and recognise that as commonly used it doesnt actually mean anything (and hence requires no rejection or differentiation).

And what's a god? Given your previous admonition:

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

I think the best approach would be to point out that what they're saying isnt sensible.

Right. That is what I think is meant by "a claim which is not even wrong".

This speaks to the motivations for this thread really. I think Original Position is correct - most theists here do believe in a religiously defined God. The atheists then say "Well I'm a weak atheist" and the theist* defends a God the weak atheist will concede is possible - even though nobody actually believes in that 'philosopher's god'. I may well be wrong about how the debate would evolve, but I think it is superior to focus on beliefs people actually hold - rather than defending/attacking/discussing a conception of God nobody believes is accurate/complete and which can't even be defined very well. This is what I meant by 'somewhere to hide'.

* I think there are some notable exceptions who will rather defend their own, specific God.

I think this is a semantic issue then - I would say it isnt a claim if it cant be true or false.

As such, I dont think "All possibly conceivable gods dont exist" is a claim - since it's impossible to evaluate. I think 'god' means something and being a strong atheist is to reject the existence of every element of that set. If a new religion springs up then (meaningful) strong atheism changes.

The problem is that you really have to show that a God exists before you can show that a specific God exists. We never make it to the specific God as we cannot get passed the general.

I feel great pity overwhelming me whenever someone I know or even a random forces me somehow to engage in a conversation about god.

Visualizing it now.. as ive ran thru this process many times....them looking me in the eyes and attempting to explain their beliefs, I nod and try to say nothing to offend while blindly agreeing. I feel sorry for them honestly because my instantaneous thought process is "wow this person is most likely unintelligent, or lacking the ability to attain rational thoughts". I assume this because if the person has not figured out in 20 30 or 40 years that a god figure existing is absolute madness I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt ldo.

Id say its older people for sure that I feel more pity for because they lacked the technology and easier access to smart material. Knowledge is so precious, most people are so set in their ways though....

Okay, but it would be awkward to have to say, "It is not sensible, what is being said by the group of atheists who don't correctly understand their own atheistic beliefs because they claim (incorrectly) to believe in the non-existence of all conceivable gods." We should probably agree upon a name for this group.

That's a surprise to me - whose god do you think might exist?
Okay this is a peculiar view to me. Your conception of a strong atheist may include the acceptance of the existence of at least one god?
We're not a long way apart (although if you think some God possibly exists then we disagree on the details). As Original Position pointed out, part of my motivation is to rehabilitate the term 'strong atheist' since I think it's a wasted concept on RGT at the moment.
My running 'joke' whenever my wife wants to buy a lottery ticket is for her to give me the money and I'll shout out some random numbers.
As you know, I often used this as an analogy to theism. I agree that it's a similar concept and (like the 'odd number of stars vs even number of stars' issue) that a 'weak' rejection makes sense as opposed to a strong, negative position. My issue is that, with god, people are needlessly clinging to a weak view for fear of rejecting things out of hand which arent even a 'god'.

I don't think it matters. If I could persuade RGT to adopt my treatment of the terms, I would (implicitly) have ensured that we dont need to refer to this group.

If I want to show you that I own a car, I dont need to prove that cars exist. Showing you the specific example establishes the existence of the general by default.

It's possible to approach the question by proving some kind of god exists and then arguing for why your specific conception is a correct description of it, but it isnt necessary. However, in a similar vein to this thread's meandering topic, if you were trying to do this - you're going to need to spell out exactly what you mean by "a god". We could start an 'HC' thread about that, if you like - I'm not convinced there is a very good definition on offer.