The default position...

[Curious George]

Curious George.

So you would say no, this person did not believe god exists.

And yes, this person does not believe God does not exist.

And you wonder why I don't get it?

Doesn't not, not believe in no God? Does not, disbelieve in no God?

These are just increasingly redundant and obtuse ways of writing the same thing but adding extra 'dis' s' and 'not's' isn't it?

You are moving the "no". The person believes god exists, the person believes god does not exist.

The person does not lack a belief that god exists, the person does not lack a belief that god does not exist.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It was my understanding that the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism is how the disbelief is stated.

Weak: "I disbelieve due to lack of evidence".
Strong: "I disbelieve due to the notion of 'God' being illogical".

The thing that separates them is the 'possibility variable'.
The way weak atheism works implies that they would believe if God(s) could be proven.
The way strong atheism works implies that God(s) isn't/aren't plausible.

The BOP can be applied only to the strong, and of course only when they make the claim, as has been discussed before.

I am of the strong atheism, which is quite rare for someone of my study level.
The smart decision is to be a weak atheist, however, I choose to be honest, as in, my beliefs describe who I really am.

I could be wrong, as there is much debate over there even being varying levels to atheism.
But, I'd rather just drop this off and leave it as another possible topic for debate.

Peace.

 

[ArtieE]

Show me the fault...you have extended the definition of my third premise...that is all you have done...it changes the "theistic strong atheist" conclusion but it does not eliminate the truth that we are calling a person who believes the statement -God does not exist- is true, a theist.

No we don't call this person a theist. You do. That's why your reasoning doesn't make sense.

 

[Bunyip]

It was my understanding that the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism is how their disbelief is stated.

Weak: "I disbelieve due to lack of evidence".
Strong: "I disbelieve due to the notion of 'God' being illogical".

Those positions overlap a great deal.

The thing that separates them is the 'possibility variable'.

How so? Nothing is certain.

The way weak atheism works implies that they would believe if God(s) could be proven.
The way strong atheism works implies that God(s) isn't/aren't plausible.

The implausible can stil be proven, look at quantum mechanics.

The BOP can be applied only to the strong, and of course only when they make the claim, as has been discussed before.

I am of the strong atheism, which is quite rare for someone of my study level.
The smart decision is to be a weak atheist, however, I choose to be honest, as in, my beliefs describe who I really am.

I could be wrong, as there is much debate over there even being varying levels to atheism.
But, I'd rather just drop this off and leave it as another possible topic for debate.

Peace.

 

[Curious George]

According to the definitions you specified, yes.

The definitions that I specified are your definitions. So I am surprised you cannot see how under these definitions not all atheists are strong atheists.

I will break it down.

I said

Theist believes god exists.

Atheist = not theist

Strong atheist believes god does not exist.


Under these definitions a atheist is anything that is not a theist, whereas a strong atheist is an entity holding a specific belief.

Some of the differences:

Strong atheists under these definitions must be capable of forming belief in the matter, atheist do not have this limitation under these definitions. This allows for implicit atheists. Strong atheists under these definitions have a definite belief, atheists under these definitions do not, this allows for weak atheists.

 

[Curious George]

No we don't call this person a theist. You do. That's why your reasoning doesn't make sense.

Is one of the definitions wrong after changing the third to strong atheists are atheists who believe that god does not exist?

 

[Curious George]

No we don't call this person a theist. You do. That's why your reasoning doesn't make sense.

They believe God exists, therefore by your definition they are theist.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Those positions overlap a great deal.

Ah yes, I agree.
However, I was trying to smash through a base point
A strong atheist might say, "God doesn't exist" opinion stated as fact.
A weak atheist might say, "I don't believe because of lacking evidence" objective reasoning.

But this is just another thing I don't have solid ground on.
I welcome any evidence or logical arguments on the subject, and within this thread as well.

 

[ArtieE]

It was my understanding that the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheism is how the disbelief is stated.

Weak: "I disbelieve due to lack of evidence".
Strong: "I disbelieve due to the notion of 'God' being illogical".

These are agnostics. Stop talking about agnostics we are discussing atheism and atheists. We are talking only about belief not knowledge logic or evidence. We aren't talking about agnostic atheists only atheists and atheism.

 

[Bunyip]

The definitions that I specified are your definitions. So I am surprised you cannot see how under these definitions not all atheists are strong atheists.

I will break it down.

I said

Theist believes god exists.

Atheist = not theist

Strong atheist believes god does not exist.

Yes, same as the atheist.

Under these definitions a strong atheist is anything that is not a theist, whereas a strong atheist is an entity holding a specific belief.

Some of the differences:

Strong atheists under these definitions must be capable of forming belief in the matter, atheist do not have this limitation under these definitions. This allows for implicit atheists. Strong atheists under these definitions have a definite belief, atheists under these definitions do not, this allows for weak atheists.

Strong atheists and weak atheists are not separate groups. I am a strong atheist in relation to Yahweh, and a weak, or implicit atheist in relation to Gods not known to me.

 

[Deathbydefault]

These are agnostics. Stop talking about agnostics we are discussing atheism and atheists. We are talking only about belief not knowledge logic or evidence. We aren't talking about agnostic atheists only atheists and atheism.

Do you know what I was replying to, or why, or my reasoning for listing such things?
Also have you ever even seen the definition of atheist?

I might refer you back to my OP...

 

[Curious George]

Ah yes, I agree.
However, I was trying to smash through a base point
A strong atheist might say, "God doesn't exist" opinion stated as fact.
A weak atheist might say, "I don't believe because of lacking evidence" objective reasoning.

But this is just another thing I don't have solid ground on.
I welcome any evidence or logical arguments on the subject, and within this thread as well.

Current definitions that are used hold
Weak atheist does not believe God exists
Strong atheist believes god does not exist
(The difference is where the negation is placed)

Implicit atheist are those(or things) that do not believe because they have no concept of God.

The default position is agnostic, but in that it rejects belief because of a lack of knowledge or belief that such knowledge is unattainable, is by these definitions a version of weak atheism because they do not believe God exists.

However it is possible to restate an agnostic position such that they believe the statement God exists and the statement God does not exist are true. This then requires further definition of theism if one wishes to continue to define atheism by "not theist"

This is what they are grappling the reason for which they are asserting my statement lacks reasoning.

 

[Bunyip]

Current definitions that are used hold
Weak atheist does not believe God exists
Strong atheist believes god does not exist
(The difference is where the negation is placed)

Implicit atheist are those(or things) that do not believe because they have no concept of God.

The default position is agnostic, but in that it rejects belief because of a lack of knowledge or belief that such knowledge is unattainable, is by these definitions a version of weak atheism because they do not believe God exists.

However it is possible to restate an agnostic position such that they believe the statement God exists and the statement God does not exist are true.

How is that possible? That seems the key here - that is implicitely impossible isnt it?

This then requires further definition of theism if one wishes to continue to define atheism by "not theist"

This is what they are grappling the reason for which they are asserting my statement lacks reasoning.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Current definitions that are used hold
Weak atheist does not believe God exists
Strong atheist believes god does not exist
(The difference is where the negation is placed)

Implicit atheist are those(or things) that do not believe because they have no concept of God.

The default position is agnostic, but in that it rejects belief because of a lack of knowledge or belief that such knowledge is unattainable, is by these definitions a version of weak atheism because they do not believe God exists.

However it is possible to restate an agnostic position such that they believe the statement God exists and the statement God does not exist are true. This then requires further definition of theism if one wishes to continue to define atheism by "not theist"

This is what they are grappling the reason for which they are asserting my statement lacks reasoning.

Information has been uploaded to memory storage.

Thank you.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, same as the atheist. Strong atheists and weak atheists are not separate groups. I am a strong atheist in relation to Yahweh, and a weak, or implicit atheist in relation to Gods not known to me.

According to definitions they are most certainly different groups which is why they have different names. That one can in some regards fall exclusively into one category and in other regards fall into only one category does not change that these are different categories.

 

[Bunyip]

According to definitions they are most certainly different groups which is why they have different names. That one can in some regards fall exclusively into one category and in other regards fall into only one category does not change that these are different categories.

No, not at all. Why would that follow? I belong to many different categories - so do you.

 

[Curious George]

How is that possible? That seems the key here - that is implicitely impossible isnt it?

Hmm what the redefining of theism so your model continues to allow atheist to encompass all agnostics? Not at all impossible.

It would look like this:

Theist= believes god exists and does not believe God does not exist.

Atheist= not theist

Strong atheist= believes god does not exist and does not believe God exists.

 

[Curious George]

No, not at all. Why would that follow? I belong to many different categories - so do you.

Yes but we belong to different categories in different instances. That one falls into one category in one instance and another category in another instance does not negate that these are separate categories.

The answer is that all strong atheists are atheists but not all atheists are strong atheists. Under the definitions I used.

 

[Bunyip]

Hmm what the redefining of theism so your model continues to allow atheist to encompass all agnostics?

No, of course not. I exclude agnostic theists.

Not at all impossible.

It would look like this:

Theist= believes god exists and does not believe God does not exist.

Atheist= not theist

Strong atheist= believes god does not exist and does not believe God exists.

What is the difference in practice or evidence?

 

[Bunyip]

Yes but we belong to different categories in different instances. That one falls into one category in one instance and another category in another instance does not negate that these are separate categories.

Of course.

The answer is that all strong atheists are atheists but not all atheists are strong atheists. Under the definitions I used.

Sure.