fast

I keep hearing this, but I keep failing to see the valid inference. An "I believe" positive assertion does not equate to an "it is" positive assertion. As far as I can tell, the only positive assertion (which is quite explicit) pertains solely to the "I believe" proposition. The so-called implicit "it is" does not follow--or least not that I can see.

Lydia: God exists
Betty: I believe you
Atheist: Betty, substantiate your claim, for you have the burden of proof.

The only burden on Betty would at most be to demonstrate that she in facts believes—not that what she believes in exists. It’s not exactly like Betty is saying, “God exists and I believe it�?, for it could be the case that she’s clueless but believes nevertheless.

Wiploc

I'm a strong atheist, and I think there's a chance that gods exist too.



Nonsense.



If I said god doesn't exist, then I would have the burden of proof. What makes me a strong atheist is that I believe god doesn't exist, and that doesn't give me any burdent of proof at all.

As it happens, when we talk about the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, I do say that he doesn't exist, so I do (with respect to that god only) have the burden of proof, and I'm happy to meet that burden. But I'm a strong atheist as regards to all gods, not just the one for which I have the burden of proof.

crc

fast

Thanks for that reminder--I needed it. :thumbs:

I know to separate beliefs from claims, but it just seems that I keep putting them together for somehow--without even realizing it sometimes. I've been saying all along that atheists of any variety (strong or weak) lack belief in God, yet I have been distinguishing them by claim -- not belief. For example, a strong atheist (as I've been saying) is one who lacks belief in God who then decides to make some claims of his own, "God does not exist", whereas the weak atheist makes no claims in regards to God’s existence.

But, from what you say, I can derive what I say isn't the case. Weak atheists lack belief in God, and so do strong atheists: they both lack belief in God, but that's not to say the strong atheists have no belief--they do believe--they believe no God exists.

So, the strong atheist simultaneously lacks belief in God and have belief God doesn't exist--nothing at all to do with claims where proof is needed.

Man, I hope I'm right here.

I can imagine a possible objection being that one cannot lack belief and have belief in the same thing at the same time, but the 'in' and the 'not' above make all the difference.

Wiploc

I think you were doing fine. In fact, my post originally opened with, "What Fast said."



It's the language. In casual usage, "I don't believe in god," often means, "I believe god doesn't exist."



Many weak atheists have belief about god too. They believe he may exist. The people who say babies shouldn't count as atheists (I'm not one of them) probably think you should form some belief about god before you can count as an atheist.



Then lets unpack the phrase "lack belief in god." It means "not believe that god exists." There is obviously no conflict between not believing that god exists and believing that god doesn't exist.

crc



[QUOTE]