Rusting Car Bumper

Strong vs. weak is not very helpful and at worst its a false dichotomy. Atheism is too nuanced to be summarized by strong vs. weak and its foolish to think one has to choose one or the other.

DC

seebs

The main reason this comes up is that, understandably, many theists feel that "there is definitely no God" is a bit strong a claim, and merits some kind of support. Once again, the pragmatic model of burden of proof is useful - the "default" is for me to keep believing what I believe now.

The distinction between "I do not believe in any gods" and "there are no gods" is a substantial one, and often, failing to make that distinction results in endless and futile debates. The distinction remains useful; it allows us to distinguish between people who make an affirmative claim, and people who merely fail to make a claim.

I am less convinced each time I have this discussion that the idea of "negative and positive claims" is a useful one; it produces very surprising results when tried on reasonable real-world cases.

Nonetheless, it is useful to many people in the inevitable debates to have *some* term which distinguishes between mere lack of belief and active disbelief. The positions differ in implications.

Giorgia

I'm new to IIDF and I'm sure I'll never read everything, so, forgive me if this has already been discussed:
Would the distinction between "weak" and "strong" bear any correlation to "closet" atheists and "activist" atheists?
I'm wondering because it would seem that the public lives of all atheists would be much improved if so many were not in the closet. For instance, it would be so much easier to fight "prayer in schools" and "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance if millions of atheists were known to exist.

__________________
I'm moving to a small town and starting a "subliminal intentional community" there; if you're sick of noise, contact me.

Tercel

Basically, a strong atheist positively believes the statement "there is no God". ie they would be happy saying "I believe God does not exist". A weak atheist would say that that statement is too sure of itself for their liking. A weak atheist would say "I see no reason to think God or gods exist... hence I lack a positive belief in any gods." they would be happy with the statement "I do not believe in god". The weak atheist position comprises of three beliefs:
1. That the "default" position is not to believe in god(s) until evidence is found.
2. No such evidence has been found.
3. It is too strong a statement (since there is not sufficient evidence for my liking for such a position) to say that god(s) do not exist.

The strong athiest position comprises one belief:
1. God(s) do not exist.

Weak atheism differs from weak agnosticism in that weak agnostics lack belief 1 in the weak atheism list. Strong agnostics are quite different and have the belief that:
1. There is insufficient evidence for me to determine whether God exists or not.
2. Not only am I unsure (the definition weak agnosticism up to this point) but no one can be sure.

That's my unbiased (since I'm not an atheist) definitions after having spent 2 years watching atheists bicker about the meanings of the terms.

Robert G. Ingersoll

This is precisely the way I see it too, Tercel. And, unlike you, I AM an atheist, so I think we may be on to something.

I believe the basic problem is that when an atheist says the words "There is no god or supernatural" or "I know there is no god or supernatural", most people, including all theists, agnostics, and many if not most atheists see this as dogmatic, absolutist, and downright illogical. The burden of proof question may be pedantic, but so what? It is definitive re the whole debate; It is the first necessary step, if you will.

What the heck is wrong with just expressing one's atheism in terms of "I do not believe in the existence of gods or the supernatural" or "I'm aware of no convincing evidence of the existence of god or the supernatural, and until supernaturalists provide such evidence, I shall utterly lack belief in such".

WHY is it necessary to go beyond this? Is it the fact that some don't wish to associate the word 'weak' with themselves, that this seems to imply some sort of "in the closet" atheism, or a wishy-washy agnosticism? Or that 'weak' implies that one is passive to the threat of fundamentalist sectarian political activism?

This is definately wrong, at least in my case. I am not an agnostic, in the sense that most use it today. (I am an agnostic in the sence I am not a gnostic.) I am not wishy-washy anything, nor am I in the closet regarding the fact of my atheism.

If the distinction between strong and weak is truly a distinction without a difference, then we should just drop the distinction and all just be plain ole atheists.

Maybe we could agree that it is bad form to use absolutist or dogmatic SOUNDING phraseology, such as "There is no god" or "I know there is no god". I am convinced this is important, as it puts us on the defensive for no good reason, i.e., we give away our natural (pun?) advantage in debate.

The burden of proof is on the theist. Is there an advantage to relieve him of such? I see none.

Jack the Bodiless

Well, my own "take" on this (which might mot mesh with anyone else's) is as follows:

I try not to distinguish between people who are weak atheists or strong atheists, but between arguments that are weakly or strongly atheistic. Atheists generally have both in their arsenals.

I define a "weak atheist" argument as a negative one based on simple lack of evidence. This is similar to (for instance) the commonly-held view that there is insufficient evidence for Earth-visiting aliens.

And I define a "strong atheist" argument as a positive one based on something more specific than a simple lack of evidence. This invariably requires that God has one or more specific features whose existence can be successfully disproved (or rendered implausible to the point of absurdity). Thus, the fossil record is a strong argument against the Biblical God, the Problem of Evil is a strong argument against the "omnimax" God.

Against a more generic God: the notion that the fundamental "prime mover" of the Universe has human-like intelligence, values and emotions is a fairly "strong" one. It isn't simply that I have no evidence of this: from what I know about how these attributes probably evolved in us, as a response to the evolutionary imperative to survive and prosper, I find it fundamentally ridiculous to assume the existence of a "God" with these attributes.

Why would it need them? How could it evolve them? The notion is absurd.

I require, not merely evidence that these divine attributes exist, but a rationale for their existence: one sufficient to overcome my belief that many generations of natural selection are required.

Selsaral

Great comments so far. I am a strong atheist, in that I assert there are no gods, and there are several reasons for this. First, no evidence has ever been brought forth to support such a creature, and evidence and arguments usually presented are so sad as to earn my contempt and make me skeptical of anyone who thinks such arguments are persuasive. There are an endless stream of claims but not a single, persuasive piece of evidence.

Second, and most importantly, human beings are clearly religious creatures. We have been for many many thousands of years; we have a long and distinguished history of believing in all sorts of wacky things. Combined with the first argument, it's fairly clear that all supernatural experiences are simply products of human consciousness and the human condition. When it is clear that we are not impartial observers and are extremely good at misinterpreting and misbelieving essentially everything, I am forced to become fundamentally skeptical and downright dismissive of all claims of supernatural phenomena. When a guy tried to convert me to Scientology, and I saw how many people had been sucked into that deathtrap (my friend's husband is a die-hard convert), I saw how incredibly gullible, foolish, and weak-minded human beings can be.

Third, the causes for the religious nature of human beings are obvious and persuasive. Our consciousness is complicated and regularly results in strange phenomena, such as schizophrenia, dreams, experiences with drugs, a lot of wishful, imaginative thinking, etc. Although not conclusive, Julian Jaynes 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' provides a fascinating theory of how our consciousness was developed and functions, how it interprets events, and how religious experiences are a product of our cognition. The 'placebo effect' is also vaguely supportive in this area. It shows how badly we want to believe. I find it highly suspicious that the things human beings want most, such as eternal life, all the mysteries of creation answered, absolute goodness and absolute confidence is provided by most religions.

These and a few other arguments line up in my head and lead me in the direction of strong atheism. I will admit, I am not as positive there isn't a god as I am positive that I exist, but I'm still pretty sure. Until I hear a single persuasive argument I will continue to assert there is no supernatural.

beastmaster

Here's how I approach atheism and I'll leave it to you to decide whether I am strong or weak.

(1) An inference may be based on incomplete or imperfect information.
(2) An inference should be based on the evidence that is reasonably available to me.
(3) An inference should not be based on evidence that is not reasonably available to me, i.e., unknown or future evidence.

I think it is proper to draw the inference that God does not exist based on the evidence reasonably available to me, and disregarding the possibility of evidence not reasonably available to me. Not only is there no reasonably available evidence of god, but there is also strong circumstantial evidence that god does not exist and that god is most likely an invention of the human mind (see Selsaral's excellent post).

I don't understand how this could possibly be construed as being dogmatic. I do not claim omniscience. I am unabashedly open to reevaluate my no-God inference if new evidence becomes reasonably available to me.

I think strong vs. weak is a bogus dochotomy. In the end, all atheists infer that there is no god. Weak atheists merely reach that inference on the basis of less evidence (i.e., the absence of affirmative evidence for god(s)).

Agnosticism is a proper position if:

(1) there is no reasonably available evidence,
(2) the reasonably available evidence is inconclusive, or
(3) the god-concept is insufficiently defined so that one can differentiate what is relevant evidence for its existence or non-existence.

Agnosticism is *not* a proper position merely because there is evidence that is not reasonably available to us. That would be nihilism or skepticism: nothing could be known.

echoes

My beliefs have changed a little bit since the time of my writing what the original poster Robert G. Ingersoll quoted.

My antipathy towards atheism expressed in the original post ("Previously, I had been under the common misconception that all atheists are strong atheists, which kind of turned me off to the idea") came from a high school philosophy teacher I had, who criticized atheism in a manner that strong atheism is often criticized- for being too rigid and dogmatic. **EDIT** My teacher also compared atheism to theism because, according to him, they both assert too much. **EDIT**

But the thing that I have come to realize is this: If ever there appears one shred of evidence for god that cannot be explained in materialistic terms, I think the average strong atheist will consider the evidence and reevaluate his beliefs in light of the new findings.

On the other hand, my experience has shown me that in the face of evidence against the existence of their god, the average theist simply evades the facts or attempts to crudely reconcile the facts with his beliefs so as to protect his beliefs and insulate himself from reason. I suspect that many others share similar experiences with theists.

I have started to lean towards the conclusion that weak atheism/strong atheism is a false dichotomy. There are far too many examples of atheists who try to explain their beliefs as a blend of weak and strong atheism for me to see the differences between the two as black and white.

Ockhamite

As of today and prior to reading this thread, i changed my profile from strong atheist to 'agnostic atheist'. Now, i asset there are no gods, nor any experiential evidence thereof, yet, the burden of proof to 'prove that a god can not exist', is not something i can conclusively meet. I am a metaphysical naturalist, yet, i cannot 'prove' another worldview is not possible.....though no evidence supports any other worldview.