# Weak vs. Strong Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 12, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284 "2003-04-12T16:55:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/21 "2003-04-12T19:33:40Z")
“God” isn’t even a particularly well-defined concept. Could an unspeakably powerful but finite and limited entity be considered to be a god? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/22 "2003-04-12T19:41:02Z")
On thinking about it further, I am not sure that that the weak atheist position (under my definition) is very coherent. If you reject X , it’s hard to see any reason to say " I dunno" about not X. It’s not as if there any third possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/23 "2003-04-12T20:05:28Z")
Question: Will the Sun rise tomorrow? Question: If I drop this hammer will it fall to the ground? Question: Can I move my fingers through an act of will? Answers: Yes, yes, and yes. ---
**Author:** ![Foolonthehill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e274bd/32.png) [@Foolonthehill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foolonthehill)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/24 "2003-04-12T20:37:16Z")
So does this make the weak atheist a cynical agnostic: “There’s not enough evidence to know, and if there was I wouldn"t beleive it.” ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/25 "2003-04-12T20:45:03Z")
BTW as a matter of logic is it true that “not believing in X” is not the same as “believing in not-X”? The more I think about it the more it seems that the first implies the second. If you reject X it seems that you pretty much have to accept not-X since there is no third possibility. You can’t fudge the issue and say “I dunno” because that implies some positive probablity of X which means you didn’t really reject it in the first place. Of course if you are agnostic and say “I dunno” to both questions that is consisent. But you can’t reject one possibility and fudge the other one. So perhaps the distinction between weak and strong atheists is the process by which they come to their identical conclusions. The strong atheist believes he has positive evidence that God doesn’t exist. The weak atheist reaches the same conclusion but only by default because he hasn’t found any evidence that God exists. Another possible difference is in terms of probabilities. The strong atheist is 100% sure God doesn’t exist. The weak atheist assigns some small probability to God existing. This isn’t very satisfactory because I doubt there are too many people who are 100% sure God doesn’t exist. Alternatively you could assign some cut-off point in probability beyond which you become a strong atheist though this seems arbitrary. Of course then there is the whole issue of different definitions of God. It’s possible to be a strong atheist towards one definition and a weak atheist towards other definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/26 "2003-04-12T20:52:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Foolonthehill \* > \*\*So does this make the weak atheist a cynical agnostic: “There’s not enough evidence to know, and if there was I wouldn"t beleive it.” \*\* No. A weak atheist thinks: “There’s not enough evidence to prove God’s existance, so I will keep my default opinion that God does not exist.” There is a significant difference between absence of belief and belief of absence. Weak atheists simply have no reason to believe in God, whereas strong atheists have reason to actively _disbelieve_ in God. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/27 "2003-04-12T21:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **BTW as a matter of logic is it true that “not believing in X” is not the same as “believing in not-X”?** Not at all. You’re throwing off your logic a bit by adding “believe” into the mix. “I don’t believe X” is not the same as “I believe in not X”. Look at **Apos’** post above for a more symbolic approach. > [@](#): > > **If you reject X it seems that you pretty much have to accept not-X since there is no third possibility.** Weak atheists don’t reject the existance of God, though. Let me give you an example. “There is a guy named Zantarax who is actually a time traveller from the future. He visited me yesterday and told me all about what’s going to happen next year.” Before you read that sentence, did you believe that Zantarax had visited me, or did you believe that Zantarax had _not_ visited me? The answer, of course, is “neither”. You had no belief at all reguarding Zantarax. That state of lacking both belief and disbelief is the state that weak atheists are in with respect to God. > [@](#): > > **You can’t fudge the issue and say “I dunno” because that implies some positive probablity of X which means you didn’t really reject it in the first place.** It’s not about outright rejection for a weak atheist. It’s about suspending any decisions of belief pending more evidence. Until such evidence is presented, the weak atheist maintains a default stance of lack of belief. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/28 "2003-04-12T21:23:12Z")
“Look at Apos’ post above for a more symbolic approach.” I don’t think Apos offered a proof; he merely expressed the proposition using symbolic language. “You had no belief at all reguarding Zantarax.” The difference is I have never heard of Zantarax. But many weak atheists have heard of God, discussed his existence etc. “It’s about suspending any decisions of belief pending more evidence.” Fine but that would seem to indicate that they are agnostics; they neither reject X nor accept not-X. They say “I dunno” to both questions. What Apos seems to be saying is that you can reject X without having to accept not-X. That is what I am questioning. Can you give a definite answer to X and say “I dunno” to not-X. Seems contradictory to me. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/29 "2003-04-12T21:34:10Z")
Joe Random, To clarify the issue I think it’s necessary to distinguish between the conclusion and the process by which that conclusion. According to you are weak atheists different from strong atheists in both respects or just one? If just one, which one? Eg. Someone says “I have evidence that God doesn’t exist but that evidence isn’t perfect. I have 95% belief that God doesn’t exist” Weak or strong? Someone says “I don’t have evidence that God exists but my default position is non-existence so I have 100% belief that God doesn’t exist” Weak or strong? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/30 "2003-04-12T21:36:57Z")
That should be “process by which that conclusion is reached” ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/31 "2003-04-12T21:50:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **"Look at Apos’ post above for a more symbolic approach." > I don’t think Apos offered a proof; he merely expressed the proposition using symbolic language.** However, if you’re familiar with symbolic logic, it’s easy to see that B~X is not the same as ~BX, which is most definitely not BX. The addition of “belief” adds a third possibility. > [@](#): > > **"It’s about suspending any decisions of belief pending more evidence." > Fine but that would seem to indicate that they are agnostics; they neither reject X nor accept not-X. They say “I dunno” to both questions.** Actually, from what I’ve seen, agnostics don’t say , “I dunno” so much as they say, “I _can’t_ know.” Agnostics believe that God’s existance cannot be determined. Weak atheists believe that God’s existance (or lack thereof) _can_ be determined, and they just don’t have enough evidence to make that determination. > [@](#): > > \*\*What Apos seems to be saying is that you can reject X without having to accept not-X. That is what I am questioning. Can you give a definite answer to X and say “I dunno” to not-X. Seems contradictory to me. \*\* Weak atheists don’t reject X, because that’s the same thing as ~X. They reject BX, which, of course, results in ~BX. The confusion arises because people interpret their statement “I don’t believe that God exists,” as being the same as the strong atheist’s “I believe that God does not exist.” (B~X) ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/32 "2003-04-12T21:54:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **Someone says “I have evidence that God doesn’t exist but that evidence isn’t perfect. I have 95% belief that God doesn’t exist” Weak or strong?** Strong. > [@](#): > > \*\*Someone says “I don’t have evidence that God exists but my default position is non-existence so I have 100% belief that God doesn’t exist” Weak or strong? \*\* Strong. The weak atheist says “I don’t have evidence that God exists but my default position is non-existence so I have 0% belief that God exists.” I realize that the difference between what I wrote and your second statement is subtle, and might appear to be nit picking. However, I think that, on the philosophical level, the difference is quite large, as it represents an entirely different mindset. ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/33 "2003-04-12T22:12:50Z")
I am not sure how you can assign 0% to God exists and not assign 100% to God doesn’t exist. The two are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. What is the third possibility? ---
**Author:** ![CyberPundit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@CyberPundit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CyberPundit)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/34 "2003-04-12T22:15:30Z")
Or to put it another way: what probability does a weak atheist assign to “God doesn’t exist?” If it’s less than 100% where else does the positive probability go? ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/35 "2003-04-12T22:55:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CyberPundit \* > **Or to put it another way: what probability does a weak atheist assign to “God doesn’t exist?” If it’s less than 100% where else does the positive probability go?** The weak atheist assigns no probability at all to “God doesn’t exist.” Symbolically, that would be **~X** , and that hasn’t been mentioned at all. > [@](#): > > **I am not sure how you can assign 0% to God exists and not assign 100% to God doesn’t exist. The two are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. What is the third possibility?** If you focus only on whether or not God exists, you have two possibilities: **X** : God exists **~X** God doesn’t exist. However, we’re dealing with belief systems, not absolute facts. So you end up with four different possibilities, one of which makes very little sense: **BX** : I believe that God exists. **B~X** : I believe that God doesn’t exist. **~BX** : I don’t believe that God exists. **~B~X** I don’t believe that God doesn’t exist. The last two are based on lack of belief. **~BX** assumes a default belief of non-existance, while **~B~X** assumes a default belief of existance. I guess someone who is _really_ gullible could use the last one, since it would imply believing everything that you are told with no evidence (defaulting to “belief” for evey new idea which is presented). However, most people would ignore the last one, and we are left with three different possible belief systems. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/36 "2003-04-12T23:08:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Foolonthehill \* > \*\*Moe; > Doesn’t Faith=Certainty? Isn’t this the definition of faith; certainty in the face of the unknowable? Ask any Christian whether their faith is certain. If it isn’t, then from the other Christian’s point of view they are not Christian… > > To some degree this is obviously a semantics debate… > > \*\* My statement: > [@](#): > > A Christian who believes in god is not interested in certainty. The belief is based on faith, and their faith on belief. _Certainty in an objective, empirical sense_ doesn’t enter into it. Yes, I agree that you are simply playing with semantics regarding my first sentence. You conveniently ignored the last sentence quoted above which better defines what I was referring to with the word “certainty”. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/37 "2003-04-13T00:20:08Z")
CP: > [@](#): > > If you reject X it seems that you pretty much have to accept not-X since there is no third possibility. Possibility of what? You can also reject not-X at the same time. You seem to be forgetting that we are speaking not of truth, but of affirmations of truth claims. > [@](#): > > You can’t fudge the issue and say “I dunno” because that implies some positive probablity of X which means you didn’t really reject it in the first place. The thing with the probabilities is utterly beside the point: these are questions of existential knowledge, not belief in a proposition. We aren’t talking about anyone’s judgements of probability about something, we are simply speaking of whether one will positively affirm a truth claim. In other words, all that matters is the judgement of the PERSON as to whether they can say that they have or don’t have belief in a god. Either they are willing to affirm this proposition, or they aren’t. Likewise, between atheism in general and anti-theism in specific, the difference is simply whether the person can affirm “no gods exist” or not. I can’t affirm either proposition. > [@](#): > > Agnostic: not sure about X, not sure about (not X) “Doesn’t believe X/Doesn’t believe not X” is not significantly different from “not sure about X” Everything you say about an agnostic could be said about an atheist as well. > [@](#): > > The difference is I have never heard of Zantarax. But many weak atheists have heard of God, discussed his existence etc. But that difference doesn’t make any difference. The fact that I’ve heard about gods and discussed various claims about gods doesn’t mean I’ve moved from the original position I was in before I even heard those claims. I remain unconvinced that they should be added to my worldview of things I feel justified in affirming are true. JR: > [@](#): > > The weak atheist believes that it is not possible to make a definitive statement about God’s existance, and thus defaults to “God doesn’t exist”, as non-existance is the base assumption made about all things. No, the base assumption about all things is NO ASSUMPTION, not “assume non-existence.” I am an atheist (“weak” definition). I don’t have any belief about whether or not it is possible to make a definitive statement about God’s existence. I don’t “default” to a _claim_ (like "God doesn’t exist), I default to my _lack_ of the _positive_ claim. But don’t forget that I also, by default, give no creedence to the anti-theist claim either. > [@](#): > > The “probably” is the answer which best defines the weak atheist’s belief. Would it make you feel better if the answer was, “I dunno, but probably not”? No, it wouldn’t. Things like “probably yes, probably not” is utterly irrelevant to the distinction. All that matters is the self-identified prescence or abscence of ones’ belief in a god. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/38 "2003-04-13T00:22:56Z")
Moe: > [@](#): > > A Christian who believes in god is not interested in certainty. The belief is based on faith, and their faith on belief. Certainty in an objective, empirical sense doesn’t enter into it. Why are you telling Christians what they are or are not interested in? Not all Christians say that they believe on faith: you might disagree with whether their reason for believing is objective and empirical, but it hardly makes sense to say that the lack of empirical objective claims is what defines being Christian. ---
**Author:** ![Moe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moe/32/2972_2.png) [@Moe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moe)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/39 "2003-04-13T01:09:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*Moe: > Why are you telling Christians what they are or are not interested in? Not all Christians say that they believe on faith: you might disagree with whether their reason for believing is objective and empirical, but it hardly makes sense to say that the lack of empirical objective claims is what defines being Christian. \*\* First off, I am not telling Christians anything. My statement wasn’t directed towards Christians. Second, I never said that Christians are defined by their lack of empirical, objective claims. (wouldn’t that mean logically that anyone lacking empirical, objective claims is by definition a Christian? I certainly don’t think I was saying that.) I did say, though admittedly poorly worded, that a Christian’s certainty of god is not based on empirical, objective evidence, but ulimately on belief and faith. (Let me repeat, before the disparity becomes a focus of debate, I realize my original statement was less than clear, and could even be interpreted as contradictory to what I’m saying now. If it bothers you, just replace it with my current statements.) OK, so you seem to be contesting this claim. I was under the impression that faith is central to Christianity. If this is incorrect than I must admit I made a mistake. So I ask, is this true? Are there Christians whose beliefs are based not on faith but on empirical, objective evidence? Perhaps there are those who have encountered evidence which strengthens an already present faith, but I’m sure we agree that this is a different scenario. However, if the anwer to the question is “yes” wouldn’t it follow that stronger empirical, objective evidence to the contrary would affect one’s beliefs? Otherwise, aren’t we talking about subjective evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2003, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284/40 "2003-04-13T02:28:41Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, so you seem to be contesting this claim. I was under the impression that faith is central to Christianity. If this is incorrect than I must admit I made a mistake. It is certainly central to most Christians, but that doesn’t mean that statements like “a Christian’s certainty of god is not based on empirical, objective evidence” are _necessarily_ true either. It could be based in _both_ along various measures, or at different times. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weak-vs-strong-atheism/168284.md?page=3)