Steven Mading

I exist. I am a counterexample to your claim.
Yup. And the sooner we get the believers to realize that where we are atheists with regard to N gods they are atheists with regard to N-1 gods, the better.

Neither is weak atheism, either. Most users of the language insist that atheism is a belief, because they don't understand it and language is defined by common usage.

fast

The operative "if" is inapplicable. Whether one believes, disbelieves, or otherwise fails to or lacks a belief in regards to the FSM is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Theism and atheism has to do with one's belief in the existence of a God or Gods; moreover, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is not (and ought not be considered) a God.

If a person believes that there is not a God yet regards herself as a weak atheist, then such a person is mistaken.

Very good. "Atheist" equates to "not a theist".

Yes, and whether one makes that distinction changes not the fact that there's a distinction to be made. For example, if one was to carelessly use the terms interchangeably (with disregard for the meaning of the terms), then the person would inadvertently be making errors.

You can posit it, but can you give a sound argument for it?

If I believe in one God yet disbelieve in another, then I am a theist. According to what you propose, I would not merely be a theist but an atheist as well. Do you think that's reflective of how the terms are properly used? I don't.

Dlugar

Then s/FSM/Zeus/. Or do you think Zeus is not (and ought not be considered) a God?

Hmmm, but who defines the "meaning of the terms" if not the majority of the people using the term?

My argument is that the majority of the people using the terms use them in such a manner.

Neither do I; I already addressed that. Your argument seems to be:

1. One cannot be simultaneously a theist with regard to X and an atheist with regard to Y.
2. Therefore, one cannot be a weak atheist with regard to X and a strong atheist with regard to Y.

2 does not follow from 1. Simply because the "theist" and "atheist" sets are disjoint doesn't mean the "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" sets necessarily are. (Of course, some people use "theist" and "atheist" the same way as in 1, and insofar as they are clear in their meaning, I don't find this "incorrect", although I agree that it is a nonstandard usage. However, I find that most people use "strong" and "weak" atheist in the same was as 2, namely while specifically listing the God(s) for which they are "strong" and/or "weak".)

fast

If a weak atheist is one who lacks belief that that there is a God and one who lacks belief that there is not a God, and if a strong atheist is one who lacks belief that there is a God and one who believes that there is not a God, then knowing that a person lacks belief in the existence of a God is not enough information to determine whether one is either a weak or strong atheist.

Blue, a commonality among the different definitions, is insufficient information to determine whether or not one is or is not a weak or strong atheist.

Red, a distinction among the different definitions, is sufficient information to determine whether or not one is or is not a weak or strong atheist.

To expound, a weak atheist is (in addition to the first blue condition) one who lacks belief that there is not a God. Furthermore, a strong atheist is (in addition to the first blue condition) one who believes that there is not a God.

Since one who lacks belief that there is not a God is incompatible with one who believes that there is not a God, then one cannot non-contradictorily be both.

If I were to say that I am a weak atheist in reference to God #1 and a strong atheist in reference to God #2, the message would be understood by those who understands the distinction between a weak and strong atheist, but understanding the content of the intended message does not entail that the message was delivered correctly.

I have cited very specific conditions of both a weak atheist and a strong atheist, and neither of the definitions caters to the subsequent distinctions I might try and make among different purported Gods.

The question to ask yourself is which red condition you belong to (assuming of course that you’re an atheist). Is it such that you lack belief that there is not a God (or God’s—we ought not forget that little tidbit of information), or is it the case that you believe that there is not a God (or Gods)?

To say of one that he lacks belief in one God and disbelieves in another is not the same to say of one that one is a weak atheist whereas one is a strong atheist, for to do so is to confuse (or not fully understand) that a weak atheist is not merely one who lacks belief in a God or Gods but rather one who also lacks belief that there is not a God or Gods, so it is not the case that we can correctly talk as if I can be a weak atheist in regards to one God and a strong atheist in regards to another.

What we can do is say that we lack belief in regards to one and disbelieve in regards to another, but of course, that’s a much different thing -- if only we would take the time to differentiate between what we mean and what we say.

With kindest regards, I am and remain,

fast

omen

The only thing I have to add is that any attempt to define a god, inevitably leads to contradictory limitations. ( Even omnipotence and omniscient ability can provide limitations ) Also, I do not say I "know" there is not a god/gods in a general "esoteric" way. I will however, definately say,"<insert mythological being> god does not exist." Yaweh, Ra, Zeus, etc etc etc

Dlugar

I'm not sure I understand you. I'll try to give a few examples, and you tell me whether you would describe them as strong or weak atheist, how's that?

1. Believes that the Christian God for sure doesn't exist. Isn't sure about the pantheist god.

2. Believes that the Christian God for sure doesn't exist. Isn't sure about the Jewish God.

3. Believes that Zeus for sure doesn't exist. Isn't sure about the Christian God.

4. Believes that the Muslim God for sure doesn't exist. Isn't sure about the Christian God.

5. Believes that a "supreme being" God for sure doesn't exist. Isn't sure about "lesser" gods or minor deities.

Which of these would you describe as being "strong" atheists and which as "weak"? Hopefully this will help me better understand what you're going for here. Thanks in advance!

Wiploc

He's betting on the fastest horse in each case, so he'd call them all weak atheists.

I'm sympathetic. But not yet convinced. What if I'm not sure about the shopping cart god (the one who, if I pass an empty cart in the lot without taking it in with me, gives me one with bad wheels)? Can't I say I'm a strong atheist because nobody else will think of shopping carts when we talk about gods? In other words, can't our we sometimes bet on the biggest or closest horse rather than the fastest?

And, in any case, I don't see that anyone is going to be confused if you say, "I'm a weak atheist with regard to the shopping cart god, but a strong atheist with regard to all others." I think that's legitimate. But I agree with Fast that if you don't specify, if you just say, "I'm a strong atheist," then either you believe all gods to be nonexistent, or you believe the local popular gods to be nonexistent. No, that won't wash. Fast is right. If I say I'm a strong atheist, without specifying specific gods, then I'm saying that I believe that no gods exist.

crc

Steven Mading

Fast, your strong atheist phrase in red is ambiguous in English:
One of the chief problems with English is that association and parsing order is often unspecified, leading to multiple correct interpretations, as happens here.

"He believes there is not a god" could mean:
"he believes there (is not) (a god)" - this means he believes one particular god is not existant.
"he believes there is (not a god)". - this means be believes that no god exists at all.

English parse-order association is often ambigious like this. "not" could be the negation of the noun phrase "a god" or it could be the negation of the verb "is" - leading to the two different interpretations shown above. Both are equally correct. So it's a poor way to phrase it.

In your argument, the difference between the two meanings is highly important. Are you arguing that nobody should be called a strong atheist unless that person believes all gods are nonexistent? It would seem so from what you're saying here, but the problem is that if you look at the flip side and interpret your weak atheist definition the same way as your strong, then nobody should be called a weak atheist unless they are a weak atheist with regards to all gods - and that defines me out of existence as neither strong nor weak atheist. That's why I don't accept that the terms must necessarily apply to all gods. If I accept that, then I'm saying that my position doesn't exist.

fast

One of the fundamental aspects of theism that sets theists apart from atheists is the very belief in the existence of a supernatural God or Gods. First off, it is the ordinary case that most people, if they believe in such an existence, that the belief is in regards to a single God; moreover, it is the case that most theists would deny (or tend to deny if pressed) the existence of other Gods, yet it’s not the case, of course, that theists are also atheists—least not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

If it’s such a case that a theist does believe in the existence of more than one God, and even if it so happens that such a theist yet denies the existence of still other Gods, then such a person is still a theist, for a theist is not only one that believes in the existence of a God, but a theist is also a person who might additionally (as opposed to may) believe in the existence of other Gods; therefore, it can legitimately be said that a theist is one who believes in the existence of at least one God.

What can we now say about atheists while keeping in mind one of the fundamental distinctions between that of a theist and that of an atheist?

As we delicately thread the needle in our little drama of distinctions here, we’ll notice that an atheist is not merely one who lacks belief in any one particular God. As I have just demonstrated, it is possible that even a theist might lack belief in a particular God as well.

An atheist lacks belief in the existence of all Gods!

A weak atheist (and yes, a strong atheist too) lacks belief in the existence of all Gods.

But, the blank slate weak atheist (as opposed to a weight carrying strong atheist) belief has yet to be formed, let alone steered in a particular direction, so not only does the weak atheist lack belief in the existence of all Gods, but he too lacks belief in the non-existence of all Gods.

Could be a theist for all I can tell!

Dlugar

Ummm... I think this is quite obvious. All weak atheists and all strong atheists lack belief in the existence of all Gods. The distinction is when a person accepts as true the proposition, "God does not exist". But this still leaves room for ambiguity:

1) Must a person accept as true the proposition, "All gods do not exist" to be a strong atheist?
2) If not, which God (or gods) must a person be referring to with the statement, "God does not exist" in order to be counted as a strong atheist?

Ummm... obviously if I'm asking which are weak and which are strong, all of the five in question lack a belief in any god. (And therefore are atheists, not theists.) Is this really the only answer I'm going to get? Or did wiploc get it right, that you would label them all weak atheists?

To clarify in case it was unclear, my question is: given the information provided, can you state definitively whether any of them are strong atheists? Or, given only the information provided, is it still ambiguous whether any of them are strong or weak atheists?