Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[Relayer]

If something has a cause, the fact that it has a cause implies that it necessarily exists otherwise it couldn't exist to have a cause (just as how the fact that I am conscious ("I think therefore I am") necessarily implies that I exist because if I didn't exist I couldn't exist to be conscious).

Ah, I see, you are making quite a common logical mistake:

"Necessarily, if X has a cause then X exists" is not the same proposition as "If X has a cause, then X exists necessarily." In the first case, necessity is a property of the proposition; in the second, it is a property of X's existence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I didn't make a logical mistake at all because I already pointed that out:

"Necessarily exists" at present I mean, I'm not saying that it was pre-determined.

If I have a cause, that already necessarily implies I exist.

But (as I explained with the quote) that doesn't mean my existence was necessary in the first place. (Yes, they're not the same thing). I already dealt with this in the above quote.

[Relayer]

If I have a cause, that already necessarily implies I exist.

Sure, but this is different to what you said:

the fact that it has a cause implies that it necessarily exists

What exactly is "necessary existence in the present"?

[Edwardo Piet]

Sure, but this is different to what you said:

the fact that it has a cause implies that it necessarily exists

In the present. I don't mean that is pre-determined. I already dealt with this.

What exactly is "necessary existence in the present"?

Truly existent in the present. If something truly exists now (in the present) then it necessarily does now (in the present) otherwise it's not true to say that it truly exists now (in the present). I don't mean "necessary" as in pre-determined (and as I said, I already said that).

Perhaps I should have used "logically" rather than "necessarily" in this case, I didn't mean to confuse you.

[Relayer]

Truly existent in the present. If something truly exists now (in the present) then it necessarily does now (in the present) otherwise it's not true to say that it truly exists now (in the present). I don't mean "necessary" as in pre-determined (and as I said, I already said that).

Perhaps I should have used "logically" rather than "necessarily" in this case, I didn't mean to confuse you.

I think we might have come to the end of the road here, because we seem to be talking straight past each other now. I have no idea what it means to "logically exist".

[Strappado]

Strong Atheism as defined by Dawkins belief scale (shown here: http://christophersisk.com/dawkins-belief-scale-images/) says "Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God."
I think its safe to say that Strong Atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion (based on the assumption it makes) and may as well be considered a religion itself.

I've been exploring a lot of youtube clips lately of news channel and talk show interviews with atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, and various others and I've come to the conclusion that theists when structuring their arguments (usually) argue on the premise that all atheists are what Dawkins defines as Strong Atheists. This makes the theists look better then they are to the masses, because in reality its just two religions arguing with each other. I think that in order to show how religion is irrational atheism cannot be viewed in this way. I'm not saying that anyone is actually a Strong Atheist here (to be so is to be irrational and illogical I think), but whether we like it or not that is how the atheistic community is commonly viewed by theists. I think this mostly just stems from lack of understanding on the theists part..but the point I'm trying to make is why is Strong Atheism even mentioned at all? I think all the principles of rationality and logic go against Strong Atheism....right?

Strong atheist here.
Does it mean that I "know" that no gods exist?. No, but I find the idea so absurd that I'm not willing to put the brakes on when defining myself. I'm not going to say that "I'm merely 90-99% sure" just to satisfy nitpickers and people who aren't entirely finished with God.

We can't set up an experiment and test whether or not a god really does exist. However, the proponents of theism have always been religions and they have a really bad track record as far as knowledge of the world goes. Especially the future. Take Christianity, it's been going on for almost 2000 years and many of it's prophecies are testable (Jesus was going to return in the lifetime of his followers) and have failed a long time ago. A hypothesis that fails over and over again must at some point be thrown out of the window. We would do this with all other things. But it seems to be difficult with gods.

[thesummerqueen]

A hypothesis that fails over and over again must at some point be thrown out of the window. We would do this with all other things. But it seems to be difficult with gods.

Handy when you can claim we don't know their motives when it comes to explaining that away, yeah?

[Edwardo Piet]

I think we might have come to the end of the road here, because we seem to be talking straight past each other now. I have no idea what it means to "logically exist".

Merely existing is actually identical in reality to logically existing. Nothing illogical can exist. We say something is "illogical" when it contradicts logic but it still, logically, contradicts logic. You say "logical contradiction" you don't say "illogical contradiction". Things that are contradictory can't exist and so are nothing: There are no illogical "things". The concept of illogicality logically exists and is real, but illogicality itself doesn't exist and, logically, can't. Only logicality itself exists beyond the concept. Logic is absolute and is separate to its conceptualization (a rock is still a rock whether we as rational beings are around to conceptualize that absolutely logical fact or not (just as our concept of "fact" is separate to the facts themselves, as in, what actually is, what actually exists. Existence is separate to its concept)).

Just as how our conceptualization actually exists physically in our brains whether we conceptualize that conceptualization itself and call it "conceptualization" or not.

Anyway, if you think we've come to an end of the road here and you don't want to continue our conversation here, so be it. I'm fine with that.