MassAtheist

I call myself a strong atheist and I subscribe to the position you describe. But I think that this is really because I'm a naturalist - I don't believe in any supernatural existence. I do not believe that it is possible for a being to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, immortal, or to have any other traditional god-attribute. Further, any being that does not have at least some god-attributes cannot rightly be called a god.

Of course, being human, I recognize that my knowledge of existence is incomplete. So, technically, I would be agnostic. But to me, every human is - by definition - agnostic, so that label doesn't really mean anything.

The Messiah

Quote Rainbow Walking

The Agnostic: Primarily critical of evidential claims. Non-committed to final rejection or acceptance of the theists claims. Views the question as essentially un-resolvable in any conclusive manner.

The Weak Atheist: Primarily critical of philosophical claims; committed to rejection of evidential claims as such, un-committed to a wholesale summary rejection of a resolution ever being possible in the theists favor.

The Strong Atheist: Summarily rejects the possibility of either argument or evidence ever being mounted in sufficient degree to conclude the issue in the theists favor. Not only critical of the arguments and evidence for theism but offers alternative arguments to replace theism.

It is likely that almost every skeptic in this forum has found him/herself appealing to all three of these distinctives at various times and under specific circumstances. You can draw your own conclusions from this point onward.

-------------------------------------------------

Does this imply that every atheist complies with a mixture of these definitions or that atheists can be split into three distinct groups? The definitons you offered seem fairly concise but I still think there is room for alternative interpretations. Do you think a concensus is possible?

The Messiah

Quote Synaethesia

I very much agree. Strong atheists simply tend to be stronger in stating that they think God is a bad theory.

--------------------------------------------------

By stronger do you mean more adamant?

Philosoft

Exactly. No one says, "Gods don't exist" without having at least a rough idea what one means by "god." Both 'weak' and 'strong' atheists reject god-concepts that have the above characteristics for one or more logical reasons. Both types of atheist would be amenable to changes in belief if it were shown that either a god with the above characteristics can logically exist, or that "god" actually represents something that has different characteristics that are logically possible.

<strong> Agreed. Those that assert that strong atheists make some existential knowledge claim with the statement, "Gods don't exist" are misguided.

Jimmy Higgins

Alright, then it sounds that the term Strong Atheist is merely a relative term that is actually determined in weight by the person who uses the term. Perhaps we should for a group, hash out the definitions of "agnostic", "atheist", "weak atheist", "strong atheist", "stupid atheist who really is a christian that is just angry at god", and "what christian thinks an atheist is". Then we can give these definitions to Noah Webster and they can plot them in the dictionary.

The Messiah

Quote Vorkosigan

strong atheist: there is no god
weak atheist: lacks a belief in god
agnostic: no means exists to resolve question -- can be either atheist or theist
atheist: does not believe in god.

90% of all dictionaries contain strong and weak atheist definition; I just surveyed a whole bunch for an article on this topic.

As a strong atheist, I think RWs explanation is pretty close. The strong atheist believes that gods do not exist and proffers negative evidence, postive argument, and alternatives.

I do not think "Strong Atheism is as unhelpful as religion." That is a nonsense statement, since some strong atheists are in fact religious. You are aware, aren't you, that atheists can be religious without beliefs in god?

If we take your intended meaning to be "Strong Atheism is as unhelpful as theism" then you might make prima facie sense. You would be wrong, but at least you'd be halfway sensible.

--------------------------------------------------

Not surprisingly, since I made this initial statement, I don't agree. As you can probably tell so far I disagree with the atheist position if is defined as the non-belief in God as there are many definitons of God. I'm suggesting that it is safe to say that the definitons of God presented by modern religions can be refuted and furthermore the definiton of God can be such that it is something that exists in accordance with Philosoft's definiton earlier.

Since religions exist that don't include a definiton of a God, one cannot redefine atheism (strong or otherwise)by replacing non-belief God with non-belief in Religion.

Perhaps it would be most accurate to suggest that it is the supernatural that atheists reject as Reasonable Doubt mentioned before. This is as untenable as the theist poistion that asserts that the supernatural does exist, although the specific descriptions can be refuted. Which should lead to the only tenable position being that of an agnostic. I don't think theists are helpful becuase they cloud reason and judgement and they can be pretty damned nasty too. By the same reasoning I would say that atheism can be interpreted as unhelpful as this poition is not based on proof which means any observation will be biased by this view.

phlebas

Truly. However, in common usage, you're not really an atheist until you disbelieve in all of them. The most devout Bible-thumper is an atheist when you're talking about Allah or Aphrodite.

As for the pointless (for all practical purposes) distinction between weak and strong atheists, it all comes back down to your definition. I am a very strong atheist regarding the standard concept of the Christian god. I am somewhat weaker with any not-as-contradictory definitions you could come up with (although a noncontradictory definition is only step one of many needed to buy anything but skepticism from me.)

I think you're making this needlessly complex.

If there are people out there who call themselves religious who also don't believe in a god, then on that subject I agree with them. However, if they do believe that fasting is the key to reaching inner peace, then they and I part ways.

I would suppose that many atheists also have doubts about the supernatural. However, one can believe in ghosts or fairies or whatever without believing in a god. (I presume.) I am a skeptic across the board, but it's my disbelief in any gods at all that make me an atheist.


Maybe so, but it comes back to the definition on which you settle. I am an atheist, and my only claim is "I lack a belief in god."

I think you are making this more complex than it needs to be.

Jayhawker Soule

I would suggest, to the contrary, that the scientific method is irrelevant here, e.g.,
In my opinion, your suggestion that "there is a theory or law to be establish here" is flawed.

What, specifically, do you find "untenable"?

[ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

rainbow walking

Originally posted by The Messiah:


Does this imply that every atheist complies with a mixture of these definitions or that atheists can be split into three distinct groups?

rw: The distinctions are conceptually abstract until actually applied in a defense of ones position when the distinction begin to emerge.

The definitons you offered seem fairly concise but I still think there is room for alternative interpretations.


rw: There can arise subjects of discussion that require one to define his position. If his position requires an alternative definition he is certainly within his right to offer it.

Do you think a concensus is possible?

rw: One already exists on the basic lack of belief in a god or gods. The distinctions I listed only become evident when one begins to express the basis of his lack of belief.

himynameisPwn

Well, I'll be, oxygen is supernatural.