Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 05:28 AM

From what I have seem on these pages I think Stong Atheism is almost as unhelpful as Religion. However, before I can make such a pugalistic statement I need a definition of Strong Atheism.

Would any STRONG Atheists can to offer an exact defintion. The current Oxford Dictionary definition of Atheism is

atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist.

There is no definition for Strong Atheism.

06-23-2002, 06:41 AM

Strong atheists beleive god definitely does not exist.

Mike Carmichael · 06-23-2002, 06:55 AM

The problem is with your dictionary. If you have a dictionary that defines an atheist thusly: � A person who does not believe in God.� then you�re defining a person not inasmuch as their beliefs, or lack of, but their repudiation of the christian god of the capital letter �G�.

I would suspect that an atheist is a person who believes in no gods at all.

If you�re going to get into subspecies of atheists, I also suspect that you have a little more time on your hands than you need. ;-)

Bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic: I don�t know and you don�t either.

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

WinAce · 06-23-2002, 07:17 AM

I wouldn't go so far as defining it, because I've seen 'strong atheists' who're actually either weak atheists or agnostics.

In general, I'm a strong atheist in regards to any gods made up in human religion and I will go so far as to say they can't exist

. As for other possibilities, "The universe looks exactly like a natural entity, therefore I see no reason at all to add gods". In other words, the likelihood of their existence seems as low as that of Leprechauns so I discount them.

Let the flaming begin!

Philosoft · 06-23-2002, 07:54 AM

It seems to me the common presumption of meaning for 'strong atheism' is a complete misconception. I have come to believe there is no fundamental difference between weak and strong atheism, semantics aside. I think the key is contained in the possible answers to the question, "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" The commonly misconceived 'strong atheist' would presumably answer "no." However, I have yet to meet this type of atheist.

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote Allan

"In general, I'm a strong atheist in regards to any gods made up in human religion and I will go so far as to say they can't exist"

Wouldn't this mean that a Strong atheist is really someone who believes that human religions are fabrications and wouldn't it be useful to make this distinction clear?

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote Philosoft:

"It seems to me the common presumption of meaning for 'strong atheism' is a complete misconception. I have come to believe there is no fundamental difference between weak and strong atheism, semantics aside. I think the key is contained in the possible answers to the question, "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" The commonly misconceived 'strong atheist' would presumably answer "no." However, I have yet to meet this type of atheist. "

I think you make the point very well. I'm sure you are correct that every atheist, and what's more EVERYONE, would have to answer yes to your question. Doesn't this imply that atheist definition in the dictionary is WRONG and does need to be redefined? I appreciate that other dictionaries could define it differently but I doubt it would vary much from those exact words.

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 08:07 AM

Quote Mike Carmichael

Bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic: I don’t know and you don’t either.
-------------------------------------------------

That pretty much sums it up. Do you disagree, the bumper sticker bit seems to suggest that you do?

Greg2003 · 06-23-2002, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
<strong>It seems to me the common presumption of meaning for 'strong atheism' is a complete misconception. I have come to believe there is no fundamental difference between weak and strong atheism, semantics aside. I think the key is contained in the possible answers to the question, "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" The commonly misconceived 'strong atheist' would presumably answer "no." However, I have yet to meet this type of atheist.</strong>

But I think that, to the extent that a distinction exists, the weak atheist says if 1 & 2 then god. However, 1 & 2 are not yet supported, therefore, no god for now. The strong atheist simply says it is a justified true belief, ie. knowledge/fact that 1 & 2 cannot be true, therefore no god.

While I accept the possibility that there could be something beyond the comprehension of man that could be god, such an entity cannot be described and certainly not believed in since its existence cannot, in accordance with what I just said, be supported by 1 & 2. Therefore, although something could exist beyond all comprehension, 1 & 2 are still false, therefore no god.

Thus ends my quirky attempt to merge weak and strong atheism.

Philosoft · 06-23-2002, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Messiah:
<strong>Quote Philosoft:

I think you make the point very well. I'm sure you are correct that every atheist, and what's more EVERYONE, would have to answer yes to your question. Doesn't this imply that atheist definition in the dictionary is WRONG and does need to be redefined? I appreciate that other dictionaries could define it differently but I doubt it would vary much from those exact words.</strong>

I don't see any real problem with the dictionary definition. Really, if people want to create misconceptions, they're going to do it regardless. Sure, it's an extra step for me to tell the misconceiver in question, "I would believe in God if conditions x,y and z were satisfied," but it's not that big of a deal. It's certainly not a big enough deal to try to engender unrest in the atheist community about it so thousands of people write to Merriam-Webster bitching that the definition of 'atheist' is wrong.

06-23-2002, 05:28 AM	#1
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Strong Atheism From what I have seem on these pages I think Stong Atheism is almost as unhelpful as Religion. However, before I can make such a pugalistic statement I need a definition of Strong Atheism. Would any STRONG Atheists can to offer an exact defintion. The current Oxford Dictionary definition of Atheism is atheism - the theory or belief that God does not exist. There is no definition for Strong Atheism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2002, 06:41 AM	#2
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Strong atheists beleive god definitely does not exist.

06-23-2002, 06:55 AM	#3
Mike Carmichael Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Sowega Posts: 10	The problem is with your dictionary. If you have a dictionary that defines an atheist thusly: � A person who does not believe in God.� then you�re defining a person not inasmuch as their beliefs, or lack of, but their repudiation of the christian god of the capital letter �G�. I would suspect that an atheist is a person who believes in no gods at all. If you�re going to get into subspecies of atheists, I also suspect that you have a little more time on your hands than you need. ;-) Bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic: I don�t know and you don�t either. Thinking Freely, Mike Carmichael

06-23-2002, 07:17 AM	#4
WinAce Beloved Deceased Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Carrboro, NC Posts: 1,539	I wouldn't go so far as defining it, because I've seen 'strong atheists' who're actually either weak atheists or agnostics. In general, I'm a strong atheist in regards to any gods made up in human religion and I will go so far as to say they can't exist . As for other possibilities, "The universe looks exactly like a natural entity, therefore I see no reason at all to add gods". In other words, the likelihood of their existence seems as low as that of Leprechauns so I discount them. Let the flaming begin!

06-23-2002, 07:54 AM	#5
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	It seems to me the common presumption of meaning for 'strong atheism' is a complete misconception. I have come to believe there is no fundamental difference between weak and strong atheism, semantics aside. I think the key is contained in the possible answers to the question, "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" The commonly misconceived 'strong atheist' would presumably answer "no." However, I have yet to meet this type of atheist.

06-23-2002, 07:56 AM	#6
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote Allan "In general, I'm a strong atheist in regards to any gods made up in human religion and I will go so far as to say they can't exist" Wouldn't this mean that a Strong atheist is really someone who believes that human religions are fabrications and wouldn't it be useful to make this distinction clear?

06-23-2002, 08:03 AM	#7
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote Philosoft: "It seems to me the common presumption of meaning for 'strong atheism' is a complete misconception. I have come to believe there is no fundamental difference between weak and strong atheism, semantics aside. I think the key is contained in the possible answers to the question, "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" The commonly misconceived 'strong atheist' would presumably answer "no." However, I have yet to meet this type of atheist. " I think you make the point very well. I'm sure you are correct that every atheist, and what's more EVERYONE, would have to answer yes to your question. Doesn't this imply that atheist definition in the dictionary is WRONG and does need to be redefined? I appreciate that other dictionaries could define it differently but I doubt it would vary much from those exact words.

06-23-2002, 08:07 AM	#8
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote Mike Carmichael Bumper sticker: Militant Agnostic: I don’t know and you don’t either. ------------------------------------------------- That pretty much sums it up. Do you disagree, the bumper sticker bit seems to suggest that you do?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.