Robert G. Ingersoll

Echoes and I have the same problem, i.e., understanding why an atheist would chose the 'strong' version.

Here's how I see it, and please correct me if I'm wrong (as I am confident you 'strong' folks will):

'Strong' means to me taking an unnecessary absolutist or dogmatic approach, unnecessarily taking on the burden of proof which logically falls to the theist.

There are undoubtedly many ways to express a 'weak' atheist viewpoint, but here's one way to say it:

" I am unaware that is any good reason(s) not to assume that ALL religious belief is make-believe, or sheer myth. The burden of proof is on the believer in the 'supernatural'. Until this burden is met, I will continue with my reasonable assumption - which is similar to my reasonable assumption that Santa, the easter bunny, Zeus , Thor, et al are also myth and make-believe."

To state this in a positive mode, I am a CONVINCED metaphysical naturalist or materialist (convinced beyond a reasonable doubt).

I think this is enough. I wonder what the advantage would be to go beyond the above, i.e., be a 'strong' atheist?

mecca777

Here's my attempt:

"Almost all major religions describe their gods in terms of supernatural entities which have effected visible or observable change or influence in the natural world. This supernatural influence was credited with any aspect of the world which was beyond the means of then-current knowledge to explain.

This is no longer necessary; previously evidence for the supernatural has been explained by increased understanding (evolution, physics, astronomy, statistics, medicine, and other fruits of the scientific method), and there are no new "miracles" which objectively defy a non-supernatural explanation.

Therefore, I reject the supernatural as a potential explanation for any phenomenon, and believe that there are no gods."

Jobar

RGI, I'm moving this to the GRD forum. An important topic to be sure, but not directly addressing the question of Existence of God(s). J.

tronvillain

I usually see "weak atheism" defined as "a lack of belief in God", and "strong atheism" defined as "a belief in a lack of God" (or something to that effect). Are you sure that anyone is actually using your definitions?

I am a strong atheist. I believe that God does not exist, just as I believe that unicorns and leprechauns do not exist, and just as I believe that the sun will rise tommorow. I am not certain that God does not exist, but the available evidence leads me to assign a very low probability to his existence, and so I say that I do not believe in God.

beastmaster

I reject the strong / weak dichotomy for a lot of reasons.

First, it's just wordplay; there is no functional difference between "lack of belief" and "belief in a lack." However you cut it, there is no God in your life.

Second, the dichotomy creates the impression that arguments for atheism are mutually exclusive. They aren't. There are lots of reasons to be an atheist, and they all mutually confirm one another. Does an evolutionary biologist say "OK, here's one proof of evolution. That is logically sufficient. No need for further inquiry."? Of course not. Biologists find every single kind of evidence and proof for evolution until it forms a seamless incontrovertible web.

Third, the "burden of proof argument" is boring and pedantic. It's well-suited for academic and formal argument, but it doesn't much satisfy when one is lying in bed at night, alone, in a cold sweat, contemplating the certainty of one's inevitable demise.

Fourth, I think you mischaracterize strong atheism as being absolutist or dogmatic. Strong atheists do not claim omniscience. To the contrary, imperfect information is the human condition. The only question is how one proceeds with imperfect information. Based on all the information that is reasonably available to me, and without considering evidence that is *not* reasonably available, I can infer with confidence that there is no god.

Psycho Economist

I get the impression that the reason this is brought out "one more god damn time" has something to do with the "Does it take faith to be an atheist?" thread.

I hope I'm wrong, because If I'm not this is going to annoy you.

The existance of deities and the existance of the supernatural are seprate issues. Deities are a subset of supernatural things, but one could believe in the Force, or the power ESP or the inferances of astrology... and not believe in the existance of any gods.

However, if one negatively disbelieves in the existance of supernatural forces at work in the universe, the existance of any and all gods is impossible. Gods are characteristically supernatural.

Sure, not all people who assert that no gods exist are (even passively) materlialists or naturalists. They go out on a limb. And some people positively assert the truth of naturalism and materialism without anything to back themselves up. They'll get what they deserve too.

But if you weakly / negatively / passively see no reason to hang your hat on the supernatural, there can be no deities. This leaves the theist with a much easier burden of proof (that any sort of supernatural exists), but if you both agree to move the discussion to that level, the heat's off you.

Of course, if supernatural stuff can ever be substantiated, we'll all have to come off our "strong athiest" high horses, or look like asses... but so would Christians, if Odin decided to stop skulking around the High Kingdom.

Nothing dogmatic about that, that I can see.

Oh, yeah... and it's really not a big deal among friends, either.

Psycho Economist

Mecca, whether or not it's possible to substantiate the existance or non-existance of particular deities settles the question of gnostic or agnostic, but not weak athiest or strong atheist.

I think we can mostly agree that religions make positive claims about their deities that can be disproven. But theists will turn around and ask you to disprove the existance of a hypothetical, perfectly ineffable god, which is tautologically impossible. That example shows that gnosticism is not sufficient to support strong atheism. Also, one could be an agnostic strong atheist, and simply "have faith" that no gods exist, though believing it could never be proven, so gnosticism isn't necessary for strong atheist beliefs either.

[P.S. When is this getting moved to G.R.D., or did it go there and bounce back?]

Tercel

Robert, I second Tronvillain. -I would consider you a "strong" atheist.

Jobar

Huh? I *thought* I had moved it last night. Went through all the motions... well, if at first, etc....

Doubting Didymus

Wait a minute, If Robert is a strong atheist, then what is a weak one?

My own position on god is simply that I assign his existance a fitting probability - exactly equal to any other entity with no evidence for its existance. In other words, god is as probable as santa. I had thought that this made me a weak atheist (which is a stupid name for it, really). What am I?