I would say that I am a strong atheist towards the christian god, thor zeus et al.

I cannot realistically hold a position of strong atheism over *a* god (creative intelligence) because I don't have the requisite information to make that judgement, and if I did, I would be a god myself.

 I do find the likelyhood of a creative intelligence which is a personal god to the human species vanishingly small.

Are you talking about the blue snarfwidget or the purple snarfwidget?

-Triften 

The green snarfwidget. He doesn't take kindly to drawings of him, but he doesn't mind bombs. 

I think the original post was rude. In it, he:

1. Declared strong atheism impossible (later retracted).

2. Declared atheism and agnosticism incompatible (wrong again). 

3. Demanded proof that excludes the possibility of an undefined concept.

4. Declared that failure in 3. results in agnosticism (presumably with 50/50 probability, but that's a guess).

That set the tone. If there can be a reasonable discussion now, free from naked assertions, so be it.

Is there a way to have this kind of advice forcefully presented to newbies before they make a post? Or at least posted in a very hard-to-miss location?

Not that it would necessarily help in every case, but it's a thought. 

I feel bad for you that you haven't had the opportunity to meet people who don't need faith in order to  put others before themselves, and conduct their lives with integrity, be humble, and refrain from anger or impatience with others.

Of course they shouldn't be representative of all people of faith.  But if faith is not a guaranteed safeguard against being a jackass, one has to wonder what the point of having faith is.

Why did you decide to restate the premise of the thread after it's already been addressed? You've added nothing to it that would merit a different response from what's been given already. I'll respond once on the assumption that you don't know any better.

1. Atheism in modern use doesn't affirm a committed disbelief, it is a lack of belief. In other words, what has been offered in support of a proposition has been unconvincing to the atheist. We all make similar judgments on a daily basis.

2. Agnosticism posits one can't understand a deity. Its use to mean neither active believer nor disbeliever is functionally identical and often used in conjunction with atheism (i.e. agnostic-atheist and weak-atheist mean the same thing).

3. That something should be considered plausible because it hasn't been excluded from all possibility is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

4. Not having excluded something from existence doesn't raise it to a 50/50 proposition. The deity of biblical texts, for instance, is characterized by improbable and undemonstrated suspensions of physical principles as we have thus far known them, making the entity implied less probable than something more mundane.

It's true I fucked up, and I didn't write the variable to anything. 

Sorry about somewhat restating the point I just thought to look at the argument holistically. Anyway I thought I might answer a few of your responses Magilum.

This first claim you make is that aethism is not a commited disbelief. Proably the easiset way to refute this is to quote the definition of Atheism from the American Heritage Dictionary which is "the doctrime that there is no god or gods." It is on Dictionary.com if you care to check. This goes back to the origional posit of the thread that a strong atheist can not exist. But in a more fundamental sense to even call oneself an atheist requires that on some level one must belive that god does not exist this is a definitional prequisite. Then we come back to the idea that an atheist still has the burden of proving no god exists. For example to say that a car is black requires that you prove it is black. To say a car is not black still requires you to prove that it is for example red. This is the claim which atheism definitionally is bound.

The second response is that agnosticism is functionally identical to atheism. Now I will agree that they may have been used in conjuncture but just because one person says uses a word does not add it to the dictionary once again we must return to definitions to aquire a better understanding of the word itself. Agnosticism is "The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist." Although it may have been used sometimes with atheism there is a great difference. You may notice two things agnostics first require proof that god does not exist which answers the origional question of the thread that strong atheism is impossible and that it requires proof. But secondly to say that one is an agnostic atheist is definitionally difficult because they are different definitions atheism supports a truth and agnosticism says that to prove that truth is impossible. Perhaps there can be middle ground but that may require different definitions. Perhaps it would be good to post different definitions for the sake of argument because at the moment I am using these and I am afraid based on the vaguness of the arguments in general that definitions of the words would help to avoid these misunderstandings.

But on to point three I am afraid to some extent you misunderstand my advocacy. I am not arguing that god is necessarily plausible an argument for a different thread but rather I am saying that the existence of god is possible to be possible is to be "capable of existing." American Heritage Dictionary. The argument at the top as far as I can see still justifies that since it says that because not all is known anything may be possible.

Now for the fourth point once again I think you misunderstand my advocacy you say that because I present 2 options that I imply a 50/50 chance of either occuring. That was not my intent at all. What I was intending to do was to simply say that as of right now we can not disprove the existence of god. Now I will conceed that the odds may be something like 99% agnostic and 1% theist but the argument still stands that a god may exist. That was the central point of the argument not as a theistic justification but as a atheist critique.

I do hope that this in some way answered your objections.

Sorry about the example I tend to give bad examples but thanks for the alternative.

If you looked up "homosexuality" in a dictionary some decades ago, you'd probably find it categorized as a mental illness. Dictionaries aren't immutable, they change to reflect the common vernacular. The term, "atheism," which was originally coined, IIRC, as a slur against non-believers in Zeus, has since been applied to non-believers in Yahweh. We're faced with the choice of accepting a label applied to us as a slur as a model for our beliefs, or adapting the word to a more accurate description of the position. This doesn't contradict the literal meaning of the word, which is "without gods." This shift began, IIRC, decades ago in atheist groups; but we are a minority trying to change the stigma of a word for a majority that stills views it as a slur.

You'd first have to demonstrate the concept of a car is a meaningful one, which in the case of gods has not been done.

Did you know "ginormous" and "irregardless" are considered words in some mainstream dictionaries now?

[I snipped the rest because it's redundant and defers repeatedly to dictionary over practical use. Just google for "weak atheism, or "agnostic atheism" and just do your own research, please.]

Emphasis mine: "because not all is known anything may be possible."

Which is why, given an equal amount of evidence -- in this case, none -- probabilities must fall to precedent. The more unprecedented something is, the more easily it can be dismissed as a possibility. If I said I saw a Volkswagen the other day, and I lacked an apparent impetus to lie about it, there's a decent probability to my statement because it's precedented, even common. This is not so if I say aliens destroyed the moon and replaced it with a new one exactly one minute ago.

I understood your point perfectly, but it's pure special pleading to believe that the lack of exclusionary evidence (if such a thing could even apply to something with no properties) applies to a god moreso than an infinite number of other improbable ideas. Many of them are even better supported than the idea of a god, because they're defined and have evidence (fake evidence, but still), such as bigfoot or the chupacabra. As I see it, it's tradition and fear alone that place this concept on a pedastal: that people have believed for a long time, and that people want to feel better about mortality.

So before I begin I will say that I might not address every point specifically. I will try and group similar arguments and look at the general theory but also because of the sheer volume of argumentation it is quite possible that I might miss a point. If I do overlook something critical please bring it to my attention and I will attempt to address it. And finally read all of the objections and then read this post I try and clarify where I am going but there is a chance I might lose someone so it will make more sense if you understand the arguments up to that point before reading this. Either way thanks for the responses.

     So let us start at the first 2 counter arguments presented by deludedgod. Look at the first argument. He references an article written previously. The article talks about how the fact that god cannot be disproved does not mean that god exists. It is a good argument but my advocacy is not that god definitively exists but rather the absence of evidence against god means that he can exist. (As an aside I am a Christian just to give you a reference for my view point.) There is a distinct difference between a saying it does and it can. For example a car can exist because there is nothing which makes it’s existence necessarily impossible but this does not mean that the car does exist.(this is probably a bad example but look at it in terms of the advocacy itself and it might make some sense.) So I simply seek to prove that god can exist not that he does thus the first reference does not respond to my advocacy it refers to a similar fallacy but not to my position itself.

Now we need to look to the supernatural critique (the second reference). Before I start let me give an overview of a preori arguments deludedgod gives an explanation in the paper but I have a feeling most people will not read it or they may not understand everything my analysis may fall in a similar category but for the sake of completeness I will simply attempt to define it quickly. First an a preori argument proves a concept false independent of observation. Some philosophers such as Willard Quine contend that purely logical reasoning is impossible and that all a preori arguments reference some type of physical observation but for the moment that is beside the point. Most arguments are reasoned arguments which rely on some sort of value judgment. One example would be saying that genocide is immoral this argument relies of the value judgment that killing is immoral. However a second argument could say that morality is not definable therefore genocide can never be moral. This second argument does not rely on any value judgment to determine the morality of an action but rather it says that because we do not know what morality is we cannot say anything is moral. This is a simple example for an a preori argument. Literally the argument comes before a value judgment hence the direct Latin translation “Before the first.”

     So let us move on to the actual critique of the word supernatural. As a short footnote it is entirely possible that I misunderstood the critique and if I did please inform me of where I misinterpreted it.

So in a basic sense the critique begins by saying that in order to discuss god we must first define god. It then proceeds to explain that because any definition of supernatural relied on simply defining what the word is not then the word itself can never be completely defined for example saying “the Bismark was not a car.” Does convey some useful information but it does not define the Bismark itself. Thus to say that god is supernatural  and supernatural is not natural might be helpful in defining what god is not but it does not define god. The argument then runs that because we cannot define god in rational terms means that he does not exist.

     There are a few conceptual problems with the argument on a basic level. First the argument itself does not prove that god cannot exist but rather that we cannot define god at least in positive terms. However this still allows for the existence of god. For example to say that morality cannot be defined is not to say that it does not exist rather it still exists and the fact that it is not defined simply precludes us from talking about it. Another example would be attempting to define space not in the astrological sense but as in the term “empty space”. What is space? When you think about it it is nothing we can say that space is not matter but beyond that we cannot say what it is. However this does not preclude it from existing. So even if we cannot define supernatural god can still exist.

While I am on this point I might bring up a separate unrelated argument concerning the implications of the word supernatural. If we accept that god is supernatural this means that he is necessarily beyond our perception. In short we are bound by constraints of space and time whereas god exists external to those. So we would never find god even if we searched to the ends of the universe we could never find god because he exists outside of our reality. This also provides a logical counter to any belief that god does not exist because the belief could never be verified. If there is always something else out there perhaps even beyond our perception we can never say that there is no god.

      Back to the critique. I just showed why it does not disprove god but if I accept it as true then we might all just shut down our computers and go outside. It says that if we cannot define god then we can never discuss him. This means that in order for me to meaningfully continue I have to define god. I do not have to define supernatural but if I can define god then we can meaningfully continue the discourse about god. So I contend that the definition as to what god is can be found in religious sacred texts. For the sake of expediency I am going to use the bible as my reference just because I am most familiar with it. Now I do not want someone to copy and paste twenty reasons why the bible is bad from another thread if I wanted to deal with that right now I would be posting in that thread. This is to be taken as an object example and viewed in that light. Also I know that not all religions have sacred texts but I do not personally advocate those religions. So here goes. In the critique deludedgod claims that we cannot draw definitions from literary works. He cites an example about how alive in literature has a different meaning than the definition. The problem is that this is a generic noun like cow or pirate. These do not denote a specific thing rather a varied group and since literature tends to be specific a definition of for example a cow as a black animal with horns might not suffice. However God is a proper noun although it may be used be many different groups it implies a specific being similar to saying Billy or Jack. In these situations literature works differently. It only looks at one instance of object but when there is only one object it becomes a useful tool of knowledge. For example think of trying to discuss Aeneas without referencing the Aeneid.  Similar to define for example the Christian god we must look to the bible. So on that level when we say god in the Christian sense we refer to a all knowing all powerful all present being. Now of course there are other gods in other religions but this distinction is not relevant until we look at the specific characteristics of god and for the sake of this argument that is not a problem all I have to do is show that the proper noun God can be defined and I have done that so I believe this effectively deconstructs the critique.

So now that I have covered deludedgod’s objections let us move on and look at magilum’s arguments. We should probably start with the dictionary definition argument. The argument makes a vague claim that we should not use the definition of atheist as someone who does believes that god does not exist. He says that words change to reflect common usage. This is true that the definitions of words do change but since they reflect common usage they are best suited to define words because they give a concrete definition and reflect the most probable use of the word. Furthermore no counter definition was provided the only possible counter definition was to do a google search. I might say that the internet is probably not the most reliable information source and furthermore the definition I obtain may change from website to website. The final problem is that there is no justification as to why I should use this google definition I will find. The other thing is he asks me to do my own research which I did and when I went to a credible source these are the definitions I found.

 The second claim is that weak atheist’s are people who have not been convince that god exists but that they also do not actively believe that no god exists. So since they do not say there is no god they are not true atheists. If this is a summary of your beliefs then you are an agnostic. Here are a couple more definitions of agnosticism just to drive home the point.

A.    The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.B.    One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. C.    One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. D.    One who is doubtful or noncommittal about somethingSo if I read those definitions correctly they all speak of uncertainty and if I looked correctly at the summary of weak atheists beliefs it also speaks of uncertainty. Definitionally weak atheists are agnostics so since weak atheist is not defined in the dictionary then we should use the word agnostic in it’s place. Thus no matter how much you want to be a “weak atheist” you are actually an agnostic. But now we need to distinguish between atheists and agnostics. Definitionally they are different one discusses ultimate uncertainty while the other posits a belief that no god exists. So on this level there are no weak atheists there are agnostics which is where a lot of people in this thread fall and there are atheists which is where a few people in this thread fall. This I think goes back to the original question of the thread as to if atheism is possible.Now let us look to the one last blip in the top of his post which states that atheists are trying to change the definition of the word “atheist” to mean the same as agnostic. This is first just plain wrong because it only express the view of an individual but in a more fundamental sense now atheists who are actually agnostics can just call themselves agnostics. They instantly get more recognition and they do not have to bother changing a word. As a side not however if they still want to keep trying to change a word instead of using a new one I might suggest they try a different strategy because most people define atheism as a belief that no god exists.
There is one other one line response at the top of his post which is that I have to prove the word god meaningful which I just handled in reference to deludedgods critique.

Now go down to the bottom of the post where he essentially says that the existence of god is not very probable. The main response is that even if the existence of god is highly unlikely like.00001% to 99.99999% I am still allowing for the existence of god even if aliens are more probable he never disproves that god can exist. On this level my original advocacy still stands. Now as for evidence proving god I think there is another thread for that and we can discuss that there. So in general I think I answered Magilum’s responses to my advocacy.

Now look down to the post by Archeopteryx (nice name). Just for reference some of his responses were already listed so I will not repeat myself.

Start with the argument that definitions are not an authority. There are a few arguments against this.

First definitions reflect the common usage of words so they reflect how words are generally used and thus what most people mean when they say that word. Secondly dictionaries actively influence common usage of words for example I my Latin class whenever we are not aware of the meaning of a word we look it up and that is the definition we use. So dictionary definitions are more useful when defining words. But as one final point there are no alternatives given so until someone else gives justified definitions these are the ones we use. At that point the definitional analysis still stands.

Then look down to the second argument he uses an example he says that he could rationally reject the idea that there is a vampire in his apartment even though he is not completely sure that it is false. The problem is that to say something for example that vampires do not exist requires you to prove that. People say that vampires are fantasy but that is at best an assertion. Vampires might exist we cannot know. In the same way to prove that god does not exist requires that we show that he does not exist an atheist must prove that. The claim is still a positive claim because it claims that something is true in this case “god does not exist”. This still requires a justification if you want to be an agnostic you make a negative claim “I do not know if god exists”. This sounds like your opinion in which case you are definitially an agnostic. To call yourself an atheist by merit of the definition requires you to make a positive claim. So yes atheists still have to prove that god does not exist.

But then look to the next response that agnosticism is not a stance rather it is a modifier. There are two problems. First yes agnosticism can be used as a modifier in it’s adjective form but the definitions I gave were of a noun which does not modify something besides being a predicate nominative which renames the subject(not really applicable in our situation and more generally used in sentences like “He is a teacher”). But secondly I checked in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and as far as I can tell an agnostic is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in god. Forgive me if I am wrong but that seems like a middle ground position. I already responded to the rest of the arguments earlier in my post. So I think I have defended my position in a reasonable manner and I hope it is satisfactory. Sorry if it was a bit muddled but I tried to group common arguments. But just remember I am not trying to prove god but rather show why atheism can never be completely justified. And as a footnote I will be discontinuing the argument after this simply because I do not have time to write responses of this length so you can say whatever you want but do not expect a response.

[editing post]

What happens when we get to five proofs anyway?  Usually it's enough to prove something just the once.

"Here is the security video that shows my client was in another country at the time of the crime." 

"I see.  And...?" 

"What?  He's using an ATM and we have records of the transaction, and his prints are on the pad" 

"That's only three proofs!  Guilty!" 

Why do people keep saying that denying the existence of a deity is a belief?  It is not.  It's rejecting what is illogical.  If something doesn't coincide with logic, then why is belief required to reject it?  It isn't.  Strong atheism does not require faith or belief.  Only the knowledge of the logical obstacles of the existence of a deity.  Give me one reason why it's illogical to deny a being that can't survive infinite regression?  Just one.  Strong atheism is justified and is logical.  It does not require faith or belief.  That's like saying you heard someone could go into space with no suit on.  If you have the knowledge of what happens to humans in space when they are unprotected, why is belief or faith required to dispute this claim?  It isn't, plain and simple.  Bottom line:  weak atheism and strong atheism are both rational..they just separate the ones who question religion from the ones who denounce claims made by it.  Both are supported by logic and reason..