Eliminating the Possibility of God

[Unyfren]

Reading through the latest posts by theists has been very disappointing to me. The problem with most of their arguments is that they try to defend their conception of what/who/where/when/why god is. The theists are taking the debate a little to quickly. Before they can establish characteristics of any god they must establish the possibility of there actually being a god.

I am also disappointed at the strong emotive language used when making sweeping, yet unsubstantiated claims about god's existence, like: magic, fairy tale, myth (which by the way in most intellectual circles would be agreed upon as a helpful part of the human experience), etc.

The atheist makes the bold claim that: there is no god. This claim rightly has the burden of proof, especially in light of the logical fallacies and problems that arise from making such a claim. Obviously, atheists must either propose some alternative to god which would eliminate the possibility of god's coexistence or they are not atheists, but rather agnostics.

I am thus interested to see how many real atheists there really are on this forum in contrast to how many pseudo-atheists (agnostics who don't want to believe in a god).

I understand the difference between a weak and a strong (or a soft or hard) atheist, but I believe that if pushed to the logical extremity any weak (or soft) atheist is really agnostic. If you disagree with this point, I would like clear reasoning to help me understand.

It's good to be back.