Both of these quotes seem to assume that atheists feel certain that their is no god (or other deity or “force” or whatever you want to call it).
As has been addressed many times, such a belief–a certainty that there is no god–is called “strong atheism”.
I am a “weak atheist”, meaning I don’t have any evidence for a god, so I don’t believe in one… just as I have no evidence that my toaster likes to hang out on my couch watching TV when I’m not home, so I don’t believe in that.
So, my question: is there such a thing as a strong atheist? Are there people out there who are certain that no deities exist?
If not, can people please stop arguing against these fictitious strong atheists? We atheists don’t have evidence to believe in your religions, so we don’t believe in them. We don’t have some alternate belief that isn’t backed up by evidence; we simply don’t have a belief.
I’m not so sure about the weak/strong arguement. Surely if you are atheist, you don’t believe in a Supreme Being, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t change your mind should something life changing event happen or you witness the second coming.
I personally am very sure that God doesn’t exist and the whole concept (admittedly heavily clothed in religion) doesn’t make sense to me. I can’t, however, rule out that fact that I may change my beliefs should the above mentioned events occur, although I’m 99.9% sure I won’t. I think you need to believe something is at least a possibility before it has a chance of happening.
I wouldn’t consider myself weak or strong in this belief - I have assumed all athiests are the same?
I think that perhaps the issue is one of personality. If you are more accepting of others’ beliefs, you are less likely to come across as ‘strong’ because you are not always refuting the godly/religious assertions they make. If you are intolerant, you may take every opportunity to tell people they are talking ‘hogwash’.
Have zero belief, but agree that I have no more evidence against than for the existence of a Supreme Being. But, that’s ok because even if I had proof one way or the other, I wouldn’t particulary care (unless he made me.)
But whether there are people who vehemently disbelieve…I would have to assume there are, though I would say that holding such a belief (without proof) would be as equally based on faith as believing is. So die-harders are probably closet believers with a complex that makes them have to deny any possibility of deital existence.
But that’s just personal conjecture.
Hmm, since I’m being quoted I guess I ought to explain what I understand by the term atheism; I always assumed that it was the specific belief that there is not a god or gods. Semantically this is quite distinct from a mere lack of belief either way, which I have always equated with agnosticism. A quick dictionary check seems to back me up, but a) I dislike dictionary debates and b) dictionary.com is a rubbish dictionary, so I’m not going to attach much importance to this. Anyway, in the case of my quote it’s a simple misunderstanding of terms; my atheist is your strong atheist, and my agnostic is your weak atheist, although I’m not sure where this leaves your agnostics (we don’t get out much, I guess ;)). Regardless, I certainly wasn’t arguing against any position, and I have no religion to plug, so I’m not sure how my post sparked off the latter part of your OP.
To answer your question though, I am certain that I have met people who specifically and unswayingly believe in the nonexistence of deities. In fact, I live with one. I wouldn’t want you to think I don’t respect his opinion, though. It’s just more than I’m willing to commit to. That’s all.
It’s certainly a minority position among atheists, but the strong atheists are certainly out there. Check out this site. Guaranteed to make your head spin, however!
The difference between strong and weak atheists, as best I understand it, is not simply a matter of degree (“weak” atheists are sure there’s no god, “strong” atheists are very sure). On the contrary, the two varieties of atheist take a different fundamental approach to the question. The weak atheists (probably the vast majority) simply state that they have seen no evidence for the existence of a god, and therefore don’t believe that any gods exist. The strong atheists take a more rigorous logical approach, and maintain that they can prove not just that there are no gods, but that there can be no gods, that the existence of gods is a logical impossibility. Different kettle of fish.
Agnostics simply say that they don’t know whether there are gods or not. They don’t have a very powerful opinion one way or the other, but they’re basically dubious about any claims that divine beings exist.
Agnosticism, like atheism, can have several meanings. Agnostic is sometimes used to describe a position that the existence or non-existence of God is intrinsicly unknowable; this form of agnosticism is arguably more closed to theism than that of a “weak” atheist, who would believe in God if he were shown any evidence or given an argument he found convincing. To the “strong agnostic”, no such evidence can exist.
Another complicating factor is that one person can fit several definitions, depending on how God is defined:
“God is the author of the Christian Bible (Protestant canon), which he made infallible and free of all error and contradiction. As described in the Bible, he created the world in six 24-hour days less than ten thousand years ago, as described in Genesis. In addition to the revelation of the Bible, empirical evidence for this creation, and for other miraculous events described in the Bible such as the Deluge, can be found by scientific investigation.” – For something like this definition of God, I am a “strong atheist”–I believe this God does not exist (because the Christian Bible is not free of contradiction, and “Young Earth Creationism” can be and has been disproved as a scientifically accurate history of the world, etc.)
“God is the creator or designer of the Universe, an intelligence vastly greater than ours, who conceivably may sometimes still intervene in the affairs of the Universe.” – For something like this definition of the word God, I am a “weak atheist”–I have no belief in such an entity, but some new evidence might cause me to believe in such a being.
“God is the being who created the Universe, which he did Last Thursday, complete with internal evidence of it being vastly older–trees with rings, humans and other animals of varying ages, books that talk about history, other artifacts, and people complete with memories of their previous lives. God has the power to totally control all aspects of the Universe, and has created things such that we can never discover any evidence to falsify the ‘apparent age’ of the Universe as being billions of years old.” – As absurd as such a definition of God might seem, we would probably have no choice but to adopt a position of “strong agnosticism”–there is no way to ever definitively say such a being does or does not exist.
I’m an athiest, and I believe there are no dieties. I’m as certain about it as I can be certain about anything in life. Which is to say that beliefs can change, and if circumstances were to lead me to another belief later in life, so be it. But honestly, I don’t know any athiests who say “even in the face of clear and convincing evidence I will continue to not-believe.”
This is one of the difficulties with so many of these discussions. Your assumption, that atheism means “a specific belief that there is not a god or gods” is not strictly correct (although quite a few dictionaries clumsily define it as such), and would be held only by someone holding a strong atheist position.
I suggest simply looking at the word composition of “atheism”: the prefix a-, meaning “not” or “without”, and theism, meaning “belief in the existence of god/s, especially as supernaturally revealed to man”. Atheist literally means “without belief in god/s”. It does not mean “belief in non-existence of god/s”. Atheism is simply an absence of the beliefs that theists take for granted.
What we need here to avoid this confusion is another word to enter common usage, perhaps something with a clear prefix that fits better, such as “anti-theist” (i.e., one who explicitly rejects god/s, perhaps based on articles of belief, as opposed to indifference or lack of belief). So, leaving aside the fact that strong and weak forms of atheism may be entertained by the same person quite easily, what would the difference between an anti-theist and a strong atheist be? I submit the strong atheist might, given enough qualified information, arguments, evidence, etc., be prepared to change his mind, whereas the anti-theist holds his position as a result of explicit belief and should therefore prove more resistant to rational arguments.
To answer the question, there are strong atheists.I strongly support Abe’s analysis of the meaning of atheism, by the way.
The reasonable arguments for strong atheism I’ve seen restrict the definition of god to include things that are logically contradictory. Both omnipotence and ominscience about the future are often used. We can argue for pages if these are truly contradictory, but the argument goes that no god worth the name isn’t both.
Pretty much all weak atheists are strong atheists with respect to some god or other. As are all theists.
Rather obscure argument by obscure analogy, which is seldom a good idea in these discussions given the tendency of too many people to latch irrationally on to analogies as substitutes for real arguments. In this case, what are you trying to say? That the differences between strong and weak atheism are unimportant? If so, your choice of analogy is a poor and misleading onee, since you would be equating extremely small differences in quantities (1 lb out of 250 and 0.1%) with a significant and defining difference in position (weak vs strong atheism, as already outlined).
Is there a Catholic/Protestant God? No.
Is there a Muslim God? No.
Is there a Jewish God? No.
Is there Hindu Gods? No.
Is there Greek Gods? No.
Etc etc.
I’m as sure as sure can be that no religion is right when it comes to the fairy tales they believe. They are belief systems based on nothing more than fanciful stories AFAIC and have as much relevance to me as the works of Lewis Carol of JRR Tolkein.
Now if you ask me what started everything off. What kicked off the big bang or something along those lines I’d have to say I don’t have a clue and it could well have been some form of intelligence/meaning behind it but I doubt that
That’s why I’m agnostic. It is unknowable. I have a strong suspicion there is no god, but there is no way of knowing. If I’m shown evidence to the contrary, I’ll be the first to admit it (and the first in line at the asbestos underwear store, where I’ll be frantically searching for something to cover my ass in hell).
If this means agnostic, then I’m not sure what the difference is. I consider myself a strong atheist, and you have perfectly summed up my position.
I don’t believe in god in the same way that I don’t believe that there’s a giant polka-dot wombat, orbiting the earth in a converted enchilada shell, controlling the stock markets. I’ve got no proof for or against either, but they both make about as much sense to me.
As to the OP, does “strong atheism” exist. I wasn’t aware of anyone who thought they had logically proved that god does not exist, but the world is a very big place.
I guess I can’t say for sure that there is no god, but I am very certain that the god described in the Bible is just the product of primitive societies and cannot be accurate. Same with Hindu and Muslim gods. It seems that the primitive concept of god, which explained everything that was at the time unknown (a vast domain), has shrunk to a much smaller position as we’ve learned more about how the universe works. Science keeps taking over, with natural explanations, the things that people used to believe were the result of god, effectively pushing their concept of god into a small corner. They have to keep re-defining god to fit with new understandings, so right now, if a god exists, he’s a timid underachiever who is afraid to show that he actually exists to his creations.
So as far as I’m aware, the concept of god can’t be falsified, but we can at least figure out some of his properties if he exists, and those to me are so absurd that I consider myself to be an atheist. But hey, if the big guy parts the clouds tomorrow and announces to me that he does indeed exist (and then I verify that I’m not hallucinating), I’ll be the first to admit my error.
No, that makes you a weak atheist (ignore the seemingly pejorative nature of the word “weak” - it doesn’t mean you’re a wuss about it!). The strong atheist would state that he can prove that there’s no god, using formal logic. He asserts that the non-existence of god is a knowable fact, and that he’s got the goods to back up that assertion.
