Thanks for the polite and non-argumentitive post. I find your latter reason why god is a special belief more compelling than the former. Why is there “something” instead of “nothing”? That’s a great question to ponder and I can see how it could lead to a spiritual belief.
One of the reasons people are having a problem with strong vs. weak atheism is magellan01’s use of “adamantly” in his definition of strong atheism. How about someone who believes there is no god (from evidence) but does not do so adamantly? Believing in no god is different from claiming that one knows there is no god.
As for persecution: I’m Jewish, and I’ve been all over the country, and in most parts loudly proclaiming I’m Jewish is less likely to cause problems then loudly proclaiming I’m an atheist. The Boy Scouts discriminate against atheists and gays - people seem to care more about the gay part. I’ve experimented with telling religious types that come to my door I’m Jewish and not interested and that I’m atheist and not interested. In the former case, they start trying to convince me I need to be saved, but act like I’m a decent human being. In the latter case they act like they’ve seen the devil.
Still, I could get married in a nice place without mention of any god, so I definitely have it better than gay people today.
How would you draw the distinction?
Wouldn’t that make him a weak Atheist?
I agree. It’s a lot easier to add “…but I might be wrong” to the former.
Yes. The person started to argue that all religions were covered under the Establishment Clause. And since his belief was a religion, it, too, was covered.
The "(by atheists)’ is not the problem or the reason for this thread, though, is it? [Wait, does that sound snarky? It’s not intended to be.]
That’s a helpful start.
This seems to be the crux of it. Clearly stating what it means to be an Atheist, consistently, would be helpful. Maybe a formal organization would help. At worst, people’s fears are true and atheists are shifty, arrogant, andmorally bankrupt. At best it’s a PR problem, which is rather easily solved.
I’m going to hit the hay now. Thanks for the interesting exchanges, all.
He’s an atheist; his original statement was due to worries about religious harassment and his wife’s dislike of his atheism. He apparently got over the fear, and divorced his wife over it ( or she divorced him; I don’t recall ).
Tolkien wrote about Frodo the Hobbit. There was even a movie about it. Was Frodo real because of this?
Zeus did. Lots was written about him, too. Why do you believe different?
Actually, I’ll answer that question. The reason people believe the way they do is because of where they were born and who their parents worshipped. No other reason. If they were born in Yemen they’d be a follower of Islam. If they were born in certain parts of India they’d be a Hindu. And if you were born in any of those areas you’d be just as certain that you were right and those other people around the world were wrong. Anyone have any stats on how many people actually change their religion from the one they were born with? I’d hazard a guess to say it isn’t many who do.
For the last few centuries those questions have been getting answered. We keep finding out more information about the universe and are able to look further back than those who lived before us.
Unlike religion where everything remains static. Is God anymore proveable or do we have more knowledge of him today than yesterday?
People don’t trust Atheists because we are the child who points out the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. But unlike the ending in this story where the people agree that the child may well be right, the atheist is more likely to be chastised (if he is lucky that is all he gets) for saying such a thing.
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Frankly I don’t see that the American public has a choice in trusting atheists. It’s government is, by law, an atheist body that is disallowed to subscribe to or endorse any one religion–so it seems a little late to start distrusting now.
While I don’t want to argue with those people posting here about the differences between ‘strong athiests,’ ‘weak athiests,’ and agnostics, I think that most of us Dopers are missing a factor that would contribute to a general mistrust of atheists, such as this study has found.
Quite simply, it’s laziness: If you ask someone about their religious affiliation, one can usually make a large number of assumptions about how that person will behave. If one asks that question of an atheist, however, that shortcut is gone. Atheist individuals can range from very moral, to very immoral with all the shades in between covered as well. Not that this is different from theists, but it’s more obviously since a theist is supposed to adhere to a specific code of conduct. As this thread is in the middle of proving: There is no single moral code accepted by atheists.
I’m not saying that there aren’t other reasons that individuals may distrust atheists as a group. I’ve got a friend who claimed to me, for example, that, “It’s easier to rationalize kicking the product of an accident in the face, than to do it for a child of God.” I don’t agree with that reasoning, but I can see it being used by a lot of people.
Anyways, in the middle of the debate that seems to be growing here, I think that a lot of posters might want to back off a little, and remember the words of the wise man.
Or, to paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte: Never ascribe to malice that which may be adequately explained by laziness.
Alas, that leaves me with damn-all to give to the OP for suggestions to counter the trend seen in this study. Without a unified code, the laziness factor will always be in a position to affect the emotional response of the population to those who label themselves atheists.
“Atheists are certain there is no God” is an utter strawman. I am as strong an atheist as they come, yet entertain a tiny possibiliy of God’s existence (not that He could ever convince me that he wasn’t just using futuristic technology, of course), and know of few if any atheists who make so elementary an error as denying even the possibility that they are wrong.
Nobody knows for certain. Every reasonable person, be they theist or atheist, is an a-gnostic (“cannot know”).
I think you need more sugar on your poridge - it seems unnecessarily bitter.
The Big Bang is the entire universe: we’re in the Big Bang right now. And if the universe has never not existed, how could it be said to be “caused”? Exploring the nature of time itself from a physics perspective suggests that there need not be an “uncaused event”, given that both words are themselves time-dependent.
How do you draw a distinction between strong and weak sports fans or film buffs or wine afficianados? If our beliefs can be represented by a kind of needle on a Belief-O-Meter, we’re really talking about people who tend slightly towards the position that God is unnecessary and those, like myself, who are “adamant” (while still entertaining the possibility of error, you realise). I don’t think strong/weak is all that useful a threshold to place on what is basically a continuum, but perhaps my “futuristic technology” might help: There is literally nothing I can imagine which would constitute evidence of God before evidence of a highly advanced natural entity fooling me with technology (think the Matrix, holodecks or some 25th century Descartes’ Daemon). Even if a bearded miracle worker appeared and led me through memories only I could know of, I’d think he’d just wired my brain up to some amazing virtual reality. (For those interested, the argument is made succinctly by philosophy professor Nick Bostrum here.)
So, those who would be convinced by waking up in heaven can be “weak”, while those like myself who would spend their afterlife examining the wall panels for projectors and trying to kill themselves a la Groundhog Day can be “strong”. How’s that for a suggestion?
You forgot the infinitely irritating “soft” and “hard” definitions. 
The more I look at your definitions, the more they don’t look like the definitions I’ve used for these words.
I believe the true definition of atheist is that there is no god, and agnostics simply believe that the existence of god is unknowable. Of course, others will chime in and say that “their” version of all of these types of religious ideology is blah, blah, blah. We’ll have to decide on definitions and I’ve never seen THAT happen around here.
GIGObuster, that’s an interesting list of atheists and perhaps it’s accurate. But some on that list did at least believe in the survival of the spirit or soul after death.
I had always found it interesting that Mark Twain believed in reincarnation. When looking for a cite, I found these quotations:
Marley, it boggles my mind that my atheist friends would be persecuted for their beliefs. But now that I think about it, the one from New England was very hesitant in telling me about it. (We live in the South.) She shouldn’t have worried. I’ve never known a more generous or thoughtful person. Everyone who knew her adored her. But she did play her cards close to her vest.
And they are certain of this?
If so, what is the difference between that and being certain of no God?
I’m not worried about the atheiests or agnostics. I’m more worried and annoyed at the
reconstructionists
dominionists
theocrats
end timers
It isn’t the atheists or agnostics who are trying to turn us all into a theocracy, or sticking their noses into our private lives, or trying to twist and pervert our laws into some “biblical” endorsement of their own hatred.
Time to wheel out the Invisible Pink Unicorn. A strong atheist denies the possibility of the Invisible Pink Unicorn god. A weak atheist believes that there is no proof of such god but does not deny that it is unprovable.
To me, the distinction of weak atheism vs. strong atheism (as well as those who want to highlight the difference of agnosticism) is telling of where one’s religious positions originated. If I say to you that you are philosophically and logically unsound for denying even the possibility of the Invisible Pink Unicorm god, you have no problem brushing me off. Of course it’s ludicrous on its face, and it’s most likely that I contrived the very concept just to make a point. But then if I bring the Abrahamic god into it, suddenly it becomes Totally Different. Of course he’s as unproven as the IPU, but now we introduce a lot of epistemologicial restrictions that restrict us from saying that he Simply Doesn’t Exist.
To me, that somehow the Abrahamic god is less deniable than the Invisible Pink Unicorn is just a sign of ingrained religious and cultural baggage that one is not yet ready to set down. Yes, epistemologically speaking, we cannot rule the possibility that the universe is ruled by the Abrahamic god, allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or even the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover. But for all practical purposes, it’s safe to say that they’re next to impossible.
Is this true?
How odd.
Over here, in Holland, I don’t think anyone cares whether you believe, or don’t.
I’m an ‘atheïst’, but it’s no big deal. We don’t think, or talk a lot about it.
When discussing religion we do, ofcourse, but even then: It’s perfectly normal not to believe. [I prefer to say: “I don’t believe”, above: “I’m an atheïst”].
What if a person simply doesn’t care whether there’s a God, or no?
It’s not all that important, is it?
I’ve seen ‘believers’ with no morals at all and non-believers who are truly good people - and the other way around.
What a strange survey.
Do you really think there is as much literary “weight” behind Frodo as there is God? You can just stick to the Judeo-Christian God if you’d like? And this was offered as one reason, not THE reason.
You should read more carefully. The argument goes to the existence of A God, not any particular flavor of God. It could be that every interpretation of God ever imagined by man is 100% incorrect.
And perhaps he will never be provable. The fact remains that many cosmologists accept A God as the first cause. But, let’s end the hijack and either start a new thread or check out the many in which this has been explored to no consensus.
Do you think, just maybe, it can be an attitude thiing on the part of some atheists?
Come now. This is plain sophistry. The highest probability bay a mile is that the respondents to the survey, and you also, are talking about the Christian God. And they are also certain that their interpretation is correct.
May you more mind is capable of more than mine. But a fundemental tenet of science, maybe THE fundemental tenet is causality. That every event has a cause. Even taking into account Quantum Mechanics, Brane Theory, Multiverses, etc., there was a start. And something caused it to start. But let’s not go into a hijack.
The Weak/Strong distinction did not come from me. It was offered to me on these boards, if I remember correctly, by atheists. I agree that it is not that helpful.
“Strong” is not an adjective I would use to describe someone who woke up in heaven and tried to kill himself… 
It’s a nice way to flesh out the distinction a littler, though. Tell me, is there ANYTHING that might sway you into believing that there was a God?
If we’re talking about trust, and not dislike, I always supposed many theists distrusted atheists because they thought the only reason people didn’t always lie was because of the carrot of heaven and the stick of Hell. Hence, they see the atheists as having no reason to act in a trustworthy manner.