Wiploc

So atheist equals weak atheist, and weak atheist equals atheist. And a strong atheist is an atheist who believes god doesn't exist. All we need now is a word to refer to the atheists who aren't strong atheists.

crc

His Noodly Appendage

I believe that god does not exist.

However, the very definition of god makes his existence unfalsifiable, so certainty is impossible by definition.

Regardless, this fact does not raise my personal estimation of p(EoG) above zero.

Dlugar

I am not offended, I simply grow weary from people attempting to engage me in debate when obviously they have a complete misperception of what I'm discussing which could be easily cleared up by reading what I write. Let me try again to clear up the confusion:

1) I do not believe that all atheists are self-describing.
2) I do not believe that newborns are self-describing.

If you feel offended by my use of the word "atheist" to talk about non-self-describing non-theists, please feel free to substitute "non-theist" for "atheist" in everything I write (and everything everyone else has written in this thread). Hopefully that will enable you to discuss the issues rather than the semantics.

Dlugar

Hmmm... I'm not sure that I agree with you, here. If there is an individual who isn't sure about the Christian God (say, a 50/50 chance), but believes there is no possibility whatsoever of the Flying Spaghetti Monster existing, is that person a [weak] agnostic or a strong atheist? If you reverse the gods (so 50/50 chance of FSM, zero for Xian God), why would the label stay the same?

Dlugar

The conversation went something like this:
Me: I've never met a strong atheist who believes God is 100% unlikely.
Him: Well, I'm one!
Me: Oh ... do you base that on some logical proof of self-contradiction or anything?
Him: No, it's based on faith, not on reason. It doesn't take much faith to believe God doesn't exist, but if I didn't have any, I'd be practicing Pascal's wager and join some religious following.

Wiploc

I agree. If you just say, "I'm a strong atheist," and let it go at that, then you probably mean you're a stong atheist with regard to all gods. But there's nothing unclear or misleading or otherwise wrong with saying, "I'm a strong atheist with regard to some gods and a weak atheist with regard to others."

crc

Dlugar

Slight quibble here--I'd say that "I'm a strong atheist" probably means "I'm a strong atheist with regard to the popular ideas of God in the place where I live". If pantheism isn't a popular idea of what "God" means in the nearby regions, I wouldn't intepret this person's claim of strong atheism to necessarily include it (although it certainly could).

We're certainly in agreement here.

Wiploc

And another slight quibble: I think when I say I'm a strong atheist I'm saying that the things I think of as "god" don't exist. For instance, the pharoahs did exist, and I'm told that they really were what people then thought of as gods. But they aren't what I mean by "god," so I'm still a strong atheist.

crc

fast

I am not trying to claim, I have not claimed, nor do I have any intentions of claiming in the near (or distant) future that you, I, or another must use the applicable labels in a proper and correct manner. There is no entailed necessity that we use the terms as they ought to be correctly used. It is however a good idea to do so, but it is not a must.

For example, Ms. Sarah who holds a belief that there is no God may call herself (or otherwise self-describe as) a weak atheist in terms of a particular purported-to-exist God, but such misuse has not, does not, and will not change the fact that she nevertheless remains a strong atheist.

A person who lacks belief that there is a God and holds a belief that there is not a God are the individually necessary conditions (INC's) of being a strong atheist.

One is not always one or the other. Beliefs change. However, it is the case that at any given moment in time, one cannot simultaneously be both a weak atheist and a strong atheist. They can no more do that than can they be a theist and an atheist at the same time. According to what you're proposing, one can be a theist and an atheist if one believes in one God and denies another. Such usage is not commensurate with how proficient users of our language use the terms.

If you think a strong atheist is a weak atheist with the extra belief that no God exists, then you're in good company, for there are others who believe (yet erroneously believe) that as well; the problem with that is the fact that a weak atheist has two (not one) conditions.

A weak atheist isn't merely one who lacks belief that there is a God, but a weak atheist is also (and this is not something to ignore) one who lacks belief that there is not a God. In other words, a weak atheist lacks belief that there is and isn't. Therefore, it is not the case that a strong atheist is a subset of weak atheists, for it's a contradiction to have one that lacks belief that there is not a God who also believes that there is not a God. Consequently, you (and those in your company of agreement) are mistaken.

Dlugar

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if Ms. Sarah holds a belief that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, but may self-describe as a weak atheist in terms of the Christian God, you would state inequivocally that she is, in fact, a "strong atheist" and is misusing the term "weak atheist"?

While it is true that, given typical use of the language, one would not call a person a "theist" and an "atheist" simultaneously. This is (I believe) because we typically think of the term "atheist" to mean "not any sort of theist"; hence, to be a "theist" and an "atheist" at the same time would be a contradiction in terms.

However, regarding those who are "not any sort of theist", there is a distinction that some make between "weak" and "strong" atheist. This distinction is not, I would posit, typically with regard to all deities equally. Typically, people make a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism with regard to a particular deity. To put it another way, such usage is commensurate with how proficient users of our language use the terms "weak" and "strong" atheism.

This difference is simply a matter of definition, and quite a meaningless one at that. In any case, I would say that most people use the term "atheist" to describe this group of "weak atheists + strong atheists", and restrict "weak atheists" to excluding strong atheists, as you posit here.