Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Intellectually lazy. I suppose that’s just a weak atheist who hasn’t thought through his beliefs, or lack of beliefs. He hasn’t seen anything that would indicate to him that gods exist, and jumps to the conclusion that it’s not possible for any gods to exist.
It appears that one or two have popped up in this thread since your post, but even they aren’t quite willing to go “whole hog,” and try to defend the idea that no gods can possibly exist. They stick to the idea that the non-existence of a specific god can be proven (like the Christian/Islamic god), and wisely point out that because one can define “god” in any one of a thousand different ways, it’s not really possible to formulate an argument that dispenses with all of them.
That, by the way, is why the Epicurian argument fails. It allows the possibility of a god that is powerful, but not omnipotent, or of a god that is malevolent. It’s entirely plausible that one could postulate a god that fit those descriptions.
Sounds truly grim! You’re a braver man than I.
Well, it’s an intellectual necessity when you get right down to it. Unless you can find a single, coherent definition of “god,” you can’t form any universal argument about it. And if you propose such a definition, someone’s going to come in screaming and yelling because that’s not how they define god.
The first matter in an argument over the existance of god is always “Define god.” And the argument usually degenerates because people want to adopt the tenets of a faith system without adopting a compatible view of god.
Hi there all.
Funny that “Early Out” posted www.strongatheism.com - as I’m actually the owner of that website.
Your presentation of our stance was very well done, thank you 
One thing to make clear toward one of the ideas expressed on here, however: there is no “belief” in atheism.
As all of you know, weak atheism is a lack of belief.
Strong-Atheism, however, is not a belief in the non-existence of Gods, it is a claim to knowledge. The Strong-Atheist does not say “I believe that God does not exist”, he says, “I know that God does not exist”.
Atheism is either a negative position lacking belief or a positive position asserting knowledge. There is no positive declaration or presence of belief from the atheistic position.
This is not to say that some atheists do not “believe” that gods do not exist, but in that way they are not Strong-Atheists from the commonly accepted definition of the term. They may apply, but they are not positing a knowledge claim of the non-existence of “God” as usually expected.
My site has a great team of writers. Many of whom are prominent members of the Infidel Guy . com Community. Some are published authors, known debaters, etc. I very much encourage you all to check it out regularly. Material floods in continually, and we’re constantly expanding. All the material there is 100% zero cost. So feel free to browse.
Also, on the Internet Infidels Discussion Boards (www.iidb.org), I should be holding a debate on the god-question (representing the site) sometime within the next few upcoming weeks. Please view, if you hold any interest.
Once again, thank you for the mentioning of our site, and the “Certain to make your head spin!” comment 
. We try to keep the material on SA.com as professional as possible.
Any questions on the Strong-Atheistic position, inquiries as to arguments, etc., check out the site or e-mail me at strongatheism@hotmail.com.
Thanx much,
- James Lazarus
I don’t buy into the “weak atheist” thing. The word “atheist” means:
-
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a god, or supreme intelligent Being.
-
A godless person.
Clearly, there’s a difference between “disbelieving” and “denying” the existence of god, but atheism…without theism…is pretty self-explanatory. I don’t know if there’s a god (and either does the Pope…even though he’s hell-bent on saying he DOES know). I, like CinnamonGirl, am fine with the fact that not only don’t I know everything, but that I can’t know everything.
I haven’t seen one shred of evidence in my life or anyone else’s life that would lead me to believe a god exists. When you’re talking about the supernatural (and I believe we are), it seems rather self-centered to believe that some of the creatures of a god’s creation would be more entitled to know of his existence than others.
I find it laughable that some people, when referring to their benevolent diety, apply human traits to him, and at the same time expect everyone to believe he’s something more than human. “He has his reasons, and you don’t need to know why he created a natural disaster that killed thousands of people.” Nope…sorry. That’s how the CIA operates – not a loving entity. You’re not going to get me to sign on with that kind of PR!
But I digress. I don’t use the “weak” and “strong” athiest thing because to me, there are only three choices: You either do, or you don’t, or you can’t know. There are specific words to describe these three stances, and I don’t feel they need to be modified.
Glad I was able to get it reasonably close to right, since I confess I haven’t actually made of study of the issue.
Someone (maybe you’d like to tackle it?) really does need to come up with better adjectives than “weak” and “strong.” As you can see from some of the posts in this thread (and others on this board), those words are too easily misunderstood, simply because they have meanings in everyday speech that don’t quite correspond to the way they’re being used as terms of art. It’s like folks who believe that “premium” gasoline is better than “regular:” the words themselves lead to misinterpretation.
I’m just grasping, here, but how about “evidentiary atheism” for “I’ve never seen any evidence of a god or gods, so I don’t believe in them,” and “logical atheism” for “I can prove that there are no gods, or that this particular god does not exist.”
Join up and stick around here, too - we can always use input from someone who actually does understand one of the established positions in a field (unlike someone like me, who struggles to explain what he thinks others are talking about!).
(BTW: in mathematics at least, weak and strong are used in a way that would make sense with this distinction.)
But as far as I can see there isn’t a universal consensus on what “strong atheist” and “weak atheist” mean - so I don’t get why people don’t just accept that, and rephrase their question.
I say “there is no god” in the same way I say “there is no unicorn.” (ie. If I see evidence, I’ll change my mind, but I currently don’t, and don’t spend my life waiting. To all intents and purposes, I’m certain there is no God - but, and with everything else, I recognise that it’s always possible I’m wrong.)
I’m not sure where this puts me on the scale.
Anyway, Leaving aside this fascinating but possibly hijacking discussion, what did the OP mean? Is there anyone who believes there CANNOT be a god? Anyone who is “certain” there isn’t?
#1 is broken down into two, as I understand it. The “disbelieving” folk and the “denying” folk. It’s not necessary to deny god’s existence to not believe in god. To deny the existence of god obviously requires some evidence to back up that position (albeit, a slippery slope). That’s precisely why it’s the extreme (strong) position. OTOH, one shouldn’t have to prove why a belief is lacking.
Exactly. That’s exactly the distinction between strong and weak. You got it.
This seems to be where agnosticism overlaps with atheism. Weak atheism appears in tandem with weak agnoticism when the non-believer says he personally doesn’t know whether god exists. Certainly, not the same as claiming a knowledge that god does not exist. Further, claiming that the Pope or anyone else can’t know either is a stronger agnostic position.
This is where you and I diverge a bit. I’m fully able to accept that what appears to be evidence for some, isn’t evidence for me. It’s a matter of perception and I can’t dictate others’ perceptions. The brain is a pretty complicated organ and I can neither competently explain why math clicks for some but not others any more than why god clicks for some but not others. I don’t think it has anything to do with being self-centered, but perhaps just more (or less) intellectually inclined to understand the concept of god. Could be just a matter of hardwiring in the brain. Or chemicals. Or something. What do I know?
I think it’s only natural for people to take something that is inherently different–perhaps beyond their understanding–and give it human traits. It’s a way of connecting with it. Tell me that people don’t do that with their pets. (Hell, the standard joke around here is that our cats are really sentient aliens collecting data about us or just screwing around with our lesser minds for fun. Sounds about like what humans would do.)
OTOH, the one belief I have stuck with pretty strongly throughout my forays into and out of religion is that everything happens for a reason. Whether the reason is apparent to me immediately or ultimately is beside the point. Everything that happens sets in motion a chain of events (or changes) that are likely dependent on that intitial event. Even bad things. Actually, I can see it in my own life as well as the world at large. It’s the bad things–in tandem with good things–in my life that directly caused the best things in my life right now. Lucky me, to have suffered and survived to see the flip side of that suffering.
I can understand why you’d have problems with the statement that you don’t need to know why, just accept God’s way. (That’s faith, BTW.) But it’s not much of a leap since you have already accepted that you don’t know everything, and can’t know everything. How about: “God/Universe/Life works in mysterious ways.” It’s true, isn’t it?
You forgot the part where you said you could a see a difference between “disbelieving” and “denying.” And, the third choice can go with either of the first two choices. It’s all about faith or lack thereof.
You are clearly and unequivocally a weak atheist. You have seen no evidence for the existence of a god, so you don’t believe in one. You match the definition perfectly.
There surely are such people, and J_Lazarus can lead you to them. Given that he owns the strong atheist website, I’d venture to guess that he is one of them! In that respect, I suppose, this debate is over. The answer is, “Yes, there are such people.”
I second that emotion! Stick around, J_Lazarus. I feel like I’m struggling with this one too. And I’m not nearly as good at is as Early Out, who I think has come up with an intelligent alternative to the strong/weak dilemma. But help me out here. Does every weak atheist base their belief on the lack of evidence? Or do some eschew God simply because it’s not important to them and they don’t care about evidence one way or another? If there are those who simply don’t care one way or another, what do call them? Ambivalent Atheists? 
Or rather *lack of * belief. :smack:
Sorry, it was simply a mistake. Not to say that atheists hold an alternate belief. Don’t want to upset anyone here. :o
Exactly. I’m not truly an agnostic, because I believe it’s possible to know whether or not deities exist; I just don’t have any evidence that they do, so I don’t believe in them. Therefore, I’m an atheist, not an agnostic. But I’m not a “strong atheist”; I don’t assert that deities don’t exist, I just don’t know that they exist.
I hadn’t really thought about that, but, yes, I’d assume some weak atheists are just atheists who don’t think about the question (that, in fact, is what I’ve been trying to move myself toward, since I decided a while back that the lack of evidence means I should probably drop the argument unless I see some; theological discussions are just too interesting for me to avoid, though :)). In fact, I’d guess that a large number of people fall into that category, including all babies (since it’s doubtful that they’re born wondering about god). I’m not sure we need to break them into another category, though.
Yup, the question is answered. It still looks like many more of us are in the “weak atheist” category, though, so I’d still appreciate it if any theists reading this thread would take that to heart for future debates
The way I see it, the fact that there *isn’t * evidence is all the evidence an atheist needs. It’s possible some evidence will turn up, and at that point, I’d have to change my stance on the subject.
What troubles me is the way the standards of evidence change…how the tooth fairy (or the boogey man) could be far-fetched concepts to a theist, but the idea of a benevolent diety is believable. Why the sharp difference?
Same here. But I do think it has to do with brain function and not divine intervention.
But if we understand that that’s what we’re doing, doesn’t it take the punch out of it?
I agree with you on this, however, I dislike the phrase “Everything happens for a reason” because it carries a connotation of having been divinely planned out. I don’t believe that “God/Universe/Life works in mysterious ways.” I believe that life is mysterious. I think there’s a distinct difference between the two statements.
I don’t/can’t KNOW if there’s a god, but I THINK there isn’t.
I should have clarified what I meant here. I don’t think the “disbelieve” part fits. I think it’s a distinction that was created to add a little wiggle room to the concept of atheism. I believe atheism is simply a flat denial of the existence of a god.
I can agree with Jon the Geek, that the OP has been answered. That being the case, we’re on an interesting hijack. Hopefully, you’ll grant me some additional latitude…
This is your perception. I reiterate that others may see the very same thing you see as their evidence of god. I’ve always viewed “evidence” of this nature as subjective. Our individual experiences are different, as well as our perceptions. Proof one way or another is an extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, assertion.
I daresay most people aren’t quite as affected by the tooth fairy and boogeyman as they are by the concept of god. What difference does it make what you call it? Maybe if we focused on these things as concepts they wouldn’t be in such dispute. Santa Claus as a concept is the spirit of giving and receiving. The tooth fairy as a concept is the idea of placing value on important events. The boogeyman as a concept represents things that scare us or can hurt us. God as a concept (for me) represents the things that ‘bigger’ than I am, things I don’t understand, sometimes things are right in the world, sometimes things that are wrong. I won’t go so far as saying that God, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, invisible pink unicorns and the like are actual physical entities, but that’s really beside the point, for me. If the concepts apply, why would I need evidence of some actual being? So, I agree with you to a point. In my mind, it’s unnecessary to personify God, even if I were a godly-type person.
So do I. That is, I think. Who knows what lurks in the mind and how it got there?
It does if one relies on concrete ideas, such as God is an actual supreme omnipotent being, as opposed to a concept that varies from individual to individual, culture to culture. If the spirit of God creates positive utility, it underscores its importance, on the contrary. Peace of mind is positive utility, don’t you think?
Well, that’s one way to look it at. I didn’t connect the two, personally. I don’t think there’s a divine plan or even a plan. The variables are too many to contemplate. This leads to the question, “Do I have free will.” I tend to think I do. Unless there was some grand plan for me to sit here ignoring my laundry to wax philisophical. But it would be a hoot if I avoided some major household catastrophe as a result.
Ditto. Ditto. You perfectly represent my understanding of an agnostic atheist, albeit not a strong atheist, but perhaps stronger in the agnostic position. But, hey, not to pigeonhole you or anything. You can call yourself the Easter Bunny, if ya like!
The deistic god is like that. But believing in deism keeps you from claiming that this, that, or something else is immoral because god doesn’t like it. No interference, no holy books, right?
What I’ve never understood about Christians (among many things) is that when asked why god or Jesus or Casper the Holy Ghost doesn’t make itself known so that all will have solid information to make a decision about repenting, etc., they answer that God showing himself will destroy faith. But god had no such problems during the Exodus!
You realize that this definition rules out polytheism, right? You can’t have more than one omnipotent deity. However, it is at least a clear definition, which is better than theists provide.
There are many other terms for “Weak” and “Strong” atheism besides these two terms.
Weak can also = Implicit or Negative
Strong can also = Explicit or Positive.
For someone wanting to do away with the “misinterpretation” of what each position means from the common day usage of terms, I’d suggest “Implicit” and “Explicit”, rather than “Negative” and “Positive”.
- JL