Talk:Negative and positive atheism/Archive 1

Belief

I think the page makes the point quite well, but I want to make something clear: Atheism is not a belief; it is a LACK of belief; belief in the religious sense, in that it is a type of faith. Atheists do not have faith - they typically use reason, evidence and rationality, NOT belief. The Rev of Bru

Well, that's debateable, which is why there's this strong/weak dichotomy. There are plenty of people out there who think that atheists can have faith in the absence of gods so we have articles describing both positions. Bryan 20:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, strong atheists do not have belief either. Neither strong atheists not weak atheists have beliefs about gods: strong atheists assert that such and such a god cannot exist, or that argument x means that rationally god W cannot exist, but it is not a belief in a religious sense. Many people may be under the delusion or misunderstanding that atheists 'believe that god does not exist' but not atheists themselves. So IMO it would be more honest to state that some people claim atheism is a belief, but that atheists and the definition of the word, and impartial observers disagree.The Rev of Bru

This seems to be using a definition of "belief" different than that in common usage. I believe that 2 + 2 = 4; I also know that 2 + 2 = 4 (for appropriate definitions of these symbols). The former does not contradict the latter.

Faith is not the same as belief; faith is, by definition, belief without (known) evidence. So for example, I do not have faith that 2 + 2 = 4.

I agree that most strong atheists (including myself) think that there is positive evidence that no god(s) exist. However, it is also logically possible to have *faith* that no gods exist (i.e. to think that there is no evidence for such but to believe it anyway). That would be a slightly odd position, but no less tenable than theism, and still a variant of strong atheism. David Hopwood 82.42.16.20 02:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have heard the term strong atheism used to describe this more often than positive atheism. Same for weak atheism and negative atheism. Google seems to back this up with both sources and hit counts:

• 772 hits for "weak atheism"
• 273 hits for "negative atheism"
• 826 hits for "strong atheism"
• 7,010 hits for "positive atheism"

The discreprancy with "positive atheism" is, I believe, due to a web site named that for other reasons, not because it is about strong atheism. They even use the terms "strong" and "weak":

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#STRONGORWEAK

Therefore, I am moving these articles. Daniel Quinlan 07:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

This page is utter nonsense. You're either an atheist or you're not! If you acknowledge that god/s *might* exist then you're not an atheist - you're an agnostic. Doh! Gene Poole

Just because you're either an atheist or you're not doesn't mean that there can't be various kinds of atheist. Weak atheists lack any belief in the existance a god, which fits under the definition of atheism. Strong atheists also lack that belief, and in addition to that they also believe that no gods exist. There is a significant distinction there. But in any case, both types of atheist are still atheists. An agnostic, on the other hand, is someone who believes that gods are unknowable. This is totally distinct from whether one believes they exist - one can be an agnostic atheist or one can be an agnostic theist, both are possible positions to take. Bryan

errr... did you actually read what you typed? ...because you've just proven my point. "Weak atheists lack any belief in the existence of a god" - well, obviously! "Strong atheists also lack that belief" - of course "and in addition to that they also believe that no gods exist" - and in addition? What the hell does that mean? You already stated that they lack any belief in deities in the first sentence. Why does stating the same fact twice - ie, "that no gods exist" prove that there are "degrees" or "types" of atheism? Short answer: it doesn't. An agnostic is someone who believes that supernatural beings MAY or MAY NOT exist. One simply cannot be an "agnostic atheist" - the term is an absurdity. Gene Poole

Because as I said above, there really is a distinction here. The two positions are not identical and the difference between them has important real-world implications. For example, finding someone "not guilty" in a court of law is significantly different from finding them "innocent." The "not guilty" verdict is analogous to weak atheism ("the charge has not been proven to the court's satisfaction"), and the "innocent" verdict is analogous to strong atheism ("the charge is definitely false"). By the way, the definition of agnosticism you state above is incorrect; what you're describing is weak atheism. The two terms are often used interchangably in casual conversation, but considering that an encyclopedia article on atheism is not casual conversaiton you should be more careful to get your definitions right.

Sorry to interrupt: I think this may help; Scottish Law has a unique verdict in addition to the standard 'Guilty/ Not Guilty set: Not Proven. This would make a better example IMO but I don't want to change someone elses speech. A 'Not Proven' verdict essentially means that the jury thinks the accused is guilty, but cannot prove it. The Rev of Bru

To put theism, weak atheism, and strong atheism in simple terms: if G is the existance of at least one god,

A theist would believe that G is true

A weak atheist would not believe that G is true, nor would he believe that G is false

A strong atheist would believe that G is false

Do you still need further explanation? Bryan

The definition of Strong Atheism here seems to be in direct conflict with essentially every other source I have seen defining Strong Atheism. The current entries for Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism are more correctly grouped under a single Weak Atheism. Strong Atheism posits an actual denial of the existence of gods. Otherwise, with your current definitions, what term do you propose to use to describe those who explicitly deny the existence of gods?

I'm not sure how your defintion conflicts with the one I mention above. To me, "actively denying the existence of gods" is synonymous with saying "I believe that no gods exist." So with the current definitions, I would indeed use "strong atheist" to describe those who explicitly deny the existence of gods. We seem to be in agreement as far as I can tell. Bryan 19:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the actual entry, which states "Strong atheism or positive atheism is the lack of belief in any gods with the strong conviction that no gods exist." This jives with the definition of Strong atheism given on the Atheism entry, and both your and my definitions.

Do you prefer that it state "with the absolute certainty that no gods exist" ? Yath 03:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

it's not so much the "absolute certainty" vs. "strong conviction" rather it's the "explicit denial" vs "lack of belief" - Anonymous

I think "strong conviction" and "absolute certainty" are different shades of the same general idea, and I'd prefer to leave it at "strong conviction" because that seems less likely to spark controversy. But my opinion on that particular matter is not strong. Bryan 04:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Bryan, I too think you are wrong. Atheism always means denial of god, and what you describe as the position of strong atheism here Therefore, it is the default belief of many strong atheists that things that cannot be observed and tested and proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt do not exist. - that's exactly what I would say to be the position of weak atheism. A weak atrheist is not someone who beliefs that god might or might not exist - because that would be an agnostic. The difference is that a weak atheist does not accept any assertion of any gods ever presented to him, as for none of them was presented evidence - in that manner he does indeed assume that no god exists, but he states that as a falsifiable theorem - and he acknowledges the possibility that he might be wrong. And thats the difference to strong atheism: The strong atheist claims the nonexistence in a non-falsifiable way, as an undoubtable fact. And this position indeed does require some kind of faith. --Caballito 12:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write that line. Other than that misattribution I agree with everything you wrote, so I'm a little confused as to what you think I'm wrong about. :) Bryan 15:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So I missinterpreted your contributions here in the talk. Sorry for that, and please call back the snipers ;-) --Caballito 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your definitions seem a bit off. First, atheism is not at all about denial of god. Atheism should be understood to be synonymous with weak atheism: lack of god belief. I think you are somewhat mistaken about strong atheism. A strong atheist does not "claim the nonexistence in a non-falsifiable way, as an undoubtable fact." First, the claim of nonexistence is not nonfalsifiable at all. Claiming that something does not exist is easily falsifiable--just show a bit of acceptable evidence of existence. It is claims of existence that are difficult to falsify, as they require showing that the thing does not exist at all places in the universe. This is the basis for burden of proof in theological discussions. Furthermore, the majority of strong atheists are just as agnostic about the idea of god as weak atheists or any other non-believers. They don't pretend to have knowledge that god does not exist, except perhaps for some specific gods for logical or a priori reasons. Strong atheism is simply the belief that no gods exist--it is not a claim of knowledge that no gods exist. For various reasons, this is not equivalent to having faith that something exists, as I and others have tried to explain in the article. User:Davin (usurped) 23:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then if that's strong atheism, I'd like t know what you would call weak atheism. A person, asked wether there is a god may answer yes, no, or don't know, and he is an atheist if and only if his answer is no. And just because something is easyly falsifiable does not guarantee that someone can claim this same something in an unfalsifiable way. For a claim to be falsifiable there must be a willingness to accept a falsification. And you can't deny there are atheists who indeed claim positive knowledge that no god exists, who are not willing to examine this claim - If there is any fundamental difference between atheists, then whether or not the claim of nonexistence is stated in a falsifiable way. So how will you call the ones claiming not falsifiable?

BTW: Even if you define strong atheism the way you do, it is still wrong to reject the critic the way you do: When one claims strong atheism to be a kind of faith, and he uses strong atheism the way I defined it, you cannot disprove his claim by providing a "counterexample" that isn't strong atheism by this definition, and that therefore wasn't meant by the statement. --Caballito 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already gave the definition of weak atheism: lack of god belief. The difference between weak and strong atheism is described very well at the beginning of the "Strong atheism" article, and those are the definitions I have consistently used. Regarding nonfalsifiability, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your statements here. First, a falsifiable claim is simply one for which evidence can be conceived of that would prove the claim false. If some people that make a claim won't accept evidence that would prove their claim false, then I agree that it is somewhat problematic for the validity of their belief in the claim, but it does not change the fact that their claim is falsifiable. However, this has no relevance whatsoever to strong atheism. You seem to be saying that because some strong atheists are very dogmatic about their "belief in nonbelief," this is how all strong atheists are, which is simply untrue. Also, I think one should be careful not to use "claim" and "belief" interchangeably. The former is usually concerned with knowledge, while the latter is not; it is merely "assent to a proposition." Strong atheism, as the belief that gods do not exist, is not making a claim of knowledge that gods do not exist. Belief as used in the definition of strong atheism is used in the sense that the probability of the claim being true (no gods exist) is greater than the probability of the claim being false (it is not the case that no gods exist [some god exists]). User:Davin (usurped) 23:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If weak atheism does mean "lack of god beilef", then what does mean "lack of god belief"? You define everyone to be "strong" atheist who does answer "no" to the existence question - but thats the definition of atheism, so you leave no place for anything to be weak atheism, except you widen the definition to include peple not answering "no" - but that would be agnosticism. I mean, of course you may denine as you like, but a definition not providing any difference doesn't look very usefull to me.

May be the error is on the the explanation of "weak atheism" at the beginning of the article, where it is described very wrong rather than very well, because the weak atheist does assert that they don't exist - he wouldn't be an atheist if he didn't.

Your claim on falsifiability also doesn't make its point, as it doesn't matter wherther its provable that someone's wrong, when he is not willing to accept this. Does it affect superstition that it's claims are proven to be wrong?

You seem to be saying that because some strong atheists are very dogmatic about their "belief in nonbelief," this is how all strong atheists are, which is simply untrue. And you are consquently arquing on a strawman here, because you ignore my saying this to be the definition of "strong atheism", and when strong atheism is defined to be that way, then it is true (by defintion!) that all strong atheists are so. You continue to alledge me alledging people to be dogmatic who are not, because you use your definition which does include them on my statement which does not include them, as I'm saying they are not (resp. should not be called) "strong" atheists. As long as you ignore that we are arguing the definition itself, you won't be able to understand what I'm saying.

As to your allegation of me interchanging "claim" and "belief": I did not do that. But I wonder in what meaning (unknown to me - you may forgive me that I'm not a native english speaker) you meant me having used it - the meaning I know (and all I found in dictionry) do simply mean in same way or another "(to state an) assertion" - and thats exctly the way I meant it. I wonder, though, whether you might have interchanged "claim" and "faith" ... --Caballito 12:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Addition: Let's reformulate a bit: the strong atheist does believe there is no god, the weak atheist does not believe there is a god. I think you can agree to that. Now lets talk about Santa: Are you a strong or a weak Asantaist? Do you believe Santa exists? Probably not. That would you make a weak Asantaist. But do you believe no Santa exists? Well, I don't - because I can see lots of Santas around christmas ... Obviously none of these is the "real" Santa, whom we agree to not exists. But to be able to say this, you have to know what the real Santa is. Now I imagine a future where there is a christmas tradition of red clothed men with white beards, called "Santas", distributing presents to children, while nobody can remember the origins of this tradition or the Santa tale ... could you honestly claim to a kid of that future, that Santa doesn't exist? Would you have to tell this kid the tale, only to say that it is not true, Santa does not exists and what it knows as Santa is not Santa? Point is: A strong atheist must have a god concept of his own, to be able to say that his neighbours dog called "god" is no god. The weak atheist may happily live without. --Caballito 13:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The definition accepted by the world at large and by strong atheists themselves is the one given in the article; I am not going to argue with you here about whether it should be. It would be like me trying to redefine theism as irrational belief in nonexistent beings. It might be how I view a lot of theists, but I can't just change definitions as I like. Strong atheism is nothing more than the belief that god does not exist; whether some strong atheists would reject evidence of gods is entirely irrelevant to the definition, just as it is irrelevant that some strong atheists probably don't like chocolate ice cream.

I have not mistaken "claim" for "faith," and I wasn't accusing you of making a similar error. I was merely trying to clarify my thinking as I was writing.

Concerning your addition: I would not need to tell the kid the history of santas if he asked me if I believed they existed. I would merely ask him what he means by "santa" when he asks if santa exists, and, based on that definition, would either say no, he doesn't (if the kid defines santa as someone who flies around the world in one night delivering presents to children) or yes, he does (if the kid defines santa as someone who wears red and a grows a white beard during winter). Strong atheists have a "god concept" in the sense that there is a list of attributes that deities are often claimed to have, but it seems that everyone, strong atheist or not, shares such a definition of what it means to be a deity. For a strong atheist to believe that a certain god does not exist, then obviously he or she would have a conception of that god. But being a strong atheist does not require a "god concept" any more than anyone else does. For someone--anyone--to be able to say that a dog is not a god, all it requires is an understanding of what people generally mean by the word god. I agree that a strong atheist has this understanding, or "god concept," but your claim that others don't, or don't require it, is not convincing. For weak atheists to lack belief in gods, they must have some understanding of what people mean by the word god, just as with strong atheists. Strong atheists simply believe that it is very probable that gods do not exist, based upon that generally accepted definition.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand the point of this argument. Do you propose a change to the article? If not, I don't think that this is the best place for this discussion. User:Davin (usurped) 01:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I may be so bold to say that in addition what Davin has just said regarding his last paragraph, which implies thus, regarded by many strong atheists I know including myself and those on the Infidel Guy web forums, that all humans are born as agnostics, that is, without knowledge of anything (bar instinctual urges), and once a god concept is born in the human, then a rebuttal can be made therefore on lack of evidence of said concept. That is, the claim that there is a god concept does not support theism, but instead, supports strong atheism, as a god concept is man-made. I am not saying because humans are born as a clean slate that god does not exist, but because humans are born as a clean slate, the god concept is completely and utterly an invention. WarringSerenity 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I added a section on criticisms of strong atheism (believing gods do no exist is just as dogmatic as theists' beliefs in gods) and strong atheist responses to those criticisms. Let me know what you think and where improvements can be made. Cheers. User:Davin (usurped) 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Spiritual Realm

Does strong atheism preclude belief in a spiritual realm, like heaven or eternity? Does strong atheism preclude belief in spirits? For example, if a person read dozens of near death experiences and came out convinced they were authentic, but still believed strongly that there were no God, could that person still be a strong atheist? Tom 20:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I don't believe there is any "authority" concerning such nuances, my opinion would be that, technically, no, it does not preclude such beliefs, but that in the vast majority of the uses of the term, yes, it does preclude such beliefs. That is: the vast majority of strong atheists would reject such beliefs, especially in "spirits," but belief in such things would not preclude someone from calling him- or herself a strong atheist. The only way I could imagine such beliefs not being somewhat incongruous would be among those who believe that specific ideas of god do not exist, as opposed to the more general strong atheists who simply feel that disbelief is the only reasonable position until evidence is given that suggests otherwise.

That being said, I know that such debates can be rather controversial, and I would like to hear others' opinions before any changes to the page are considered. User:Davin (usurped) 22:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does strong atheism itself preclude belief in a spiritual realm? No, BUT believers in such things are not likely to describe themselves as atheists. EG Buddhism is an atheistic religion, but would, obviously, describe themselves as Buddhists.

The Rev of Bru

The position of strong-atheism itself has nothing to say about the existence of supernatural beings. Perhaps you are thinking about Brights, but not all strong-atheists are Brights, and neither are all Brights strong-atheists.

The noncognitivist arguments certainly imply the non-existence of supernatural beings, but apart from that, I see no reason for a strong-atheist to reject all spiritual beings a priori. A strong-atheist who rejects noncognitivist lines of argument could still uphold supernaturalism. Franc28 02:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the word supernatural? Do atheists believe that god or gods are "supernatural"? or that nothing is supernatural? Is the belief in the existence of "spirit", or spirits, a belief in the supernatural? Just what does supernatural mean in this context?Pedant

Supernatural means : outside nature, or above nature, or greater than nature. By its definition it would be things that have no evidence for their existence, since if they exist without (outside of in some way) nature, they are not interacting with it. Anything natural can be detected, anything 'supernatural' cannot be detected.... or possibly doesnt exist.The Rev of Bru

This is not a definition of "supernatural" consistent with common usage (nor is "supernatural" meaningless as claimed below). In common usage, gods are supernatural, and this does not a priori imply the undetectability of gods.

The New Oxford Dictionary of English gives the definition "adjective (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature: [example] a supernatural being". That definition will do fine for this dicussion.

Personally, I am a strong asupernaturalist; that is, I positively believe that no supernatural entities or phenomena exist. This is not the same thing as strong atheism. If gods are by definition supernatural, then strong asupernaturalism implies strong atheism (and weak asupernaturalism would imply weak atheism). OTOH, if there may be "natural" gods (i.e. powerful beings that some religion may exhort people to worship but that are constrained by natural laws within scientific understanding), then strong asupernaturalism would not logically imply strong atheism with respect to such gods. David Hopwood 82.42.16.20 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Those are a lot of questions. The word "supernatural" in itself means absolutely nothing. It represents something above and beyond the natural world, but the nature of such a substance is a conceptual blank.

The concept of a Creator god is necessarily supernatural, since it must have created the natural world. Therefore it is "above and beyond" it.

As for "spirit", one would have to define it. Much like "supernatural", it seems to be nothing more than a conceptual blank, at least to most atheists (including myself). Franc28 18:08, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Strong, weak atheism = bogus terms?

Is there any authority behind this, or are the authors simply presenting their own views? I've never been able to find any evidence that the terms "strong" and "weak" atheism were in use anywhere except a couple of web sites. In addition, why are there articles on "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" independent of the article on "atheism" (which also defines these terms). It seems to me that this article, and its companion "weak atheism", is just a chat room.

"Strong atheism" gets more than 12000 hits in a Usenet search through Google. So, it's been used in more than a "couple of web sites", it's been used more than twelve thousand times. As for "authority behind this", do you have any factual disagreement with what's stated in the article? Which point exactly are you disputing? Aris Katsaris 17:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It seems to me that "weak atheism" was invented on the usenet and has spun off into various web sites, but there is almost no other basis for it at all. "weak atheists" might find some distinction between "weak atheism" and "agnosticism", but that distinction, if it can even be sustained, is vanishingly small. Terms like "strong", "positive", "weak", etc atheism, hardly advance the discussion at all. Moreover, it is confusing and disorganized to have separate articles dedicated to "atheism", "strong atheism", "weak atheism", "atheism and agnositicism", etc. This area of the Wikipedia is a mess, and basically it seems impossible to clean it up and consolidate it, because the only way to do that is to restructure and collapse articles, and that, of course, is going to lead immediately to reversion wars and cries of "vandalism" because each of these little articles has its own little constituency and police force.

Weak atheism is a legitimate phenomenon, and I for one consider myself a weak atheist. –Andre (talk) 17:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The origin and usage of the term being primarily on the Internet doesn't inherently lessen its worthiness of an article here on Wikipedia. The differences between agnosticism, weak atheism and strong atheism have been argued over frequently, and even if you can't accept the existence of those differences yourself it should be readily apparent that there are plenty of people who do see significant differences between those positions. Since this is all about philosophies and belief, the existence of these people justifies an article about their beliefs, IMO. Bryan 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Usenet is a real part of our world, so whether it was invented there or not is irrelevant -- it's still a widely used term which frankly has a much clearer definition than either agnosticism (which can refer to knowledge as a whole, not just belief about gods) or atheism (which again has multiple usages). And as a widely used term its meaning needs to be reported and detailed as much as can be, not just briefly mentioned. Your insistent "collapsing of articles" against the wishes of everyone else involved in the articles *is* vandalism given how you massively delete valuable information contained in them because you don't they're significant enough -- as if this was a paper encyclopedia. Aris Katsaris 17:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "weak atheism" is now prevalent enough that it should be acknowledged, since many people will encounter it at least on the Internet, if not anywhere else. But an entire article separate from Atheism and Agnosticism? Another entire article for "strong atheism". Its out of control. These distinctions and refinements should be compared and contrasted in a single article. That is how the Atheism article was 18 months ago, by the way, and it seems to me that Wikipedia politics rather than logic or clarity has dictated the current structure.

There is perhaps sense in saying that the articles about Strong and Weak atheism would be better off combined into one. Perhaps entitled "Strong and Weak atheisms"? But you shouldn't delete any information contained therein. and either way it would be too long to combine back into the main Atheism or Agnosticism articles.

If you can combine the two articles about Strong and Weak, *without* gratuitous deletion of information that you personally consider unimportant, few people would call you a vandal, I think. To tell the truth even though I don't have any objection to such a merger, I don't find much need for it either. Aris Katsaris 18:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is sufficient controversy in the literature on whether strong atheism is a species of weak atheism or not to make such a merger controversial. My personal position is that they are not conceptually related. Franc28 06:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

My conception is that they are both bogus, w the proper labels being "Atheism" and "Agnosticism". Sam [Spade] 12:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A conception on which you will find little or no agreement in the atheistic literature... I have never seen a serious philosopher propose that there is no difference between personal lack of belief (weak-atheism) and a claim of non-existence (strong-atheism). Such a claim makes no sense whatsoever. For one thing, they don't pertain to the same thing at all (one pertaining to someone's mind, and the other to a possible entity outside our mind).

But then again, Mr. Spade, you seem to be in the habit of proposing completely unsupported positions without any references. Franc28 21:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Of course that straw man claim makes no sense, and no one is bothering to make it. I point out that lack of belief = agnosticism, and a claim of non-existence = atheism, and you respond with attempting to reword my statement into foolish viewpoint which is easilly dismissed. Tack on the ad hominem, and we can see why atheist philosophy is so widely renowned for its insight... oh, thats right.. it isn't. Thank God its not our only source here, despite the misleading title of the article. Sam [Spade] 11:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All the major atheistic philosophers (Michael Martin, George Smith, Theodore Drange, etc) disagree with you. I have never read any serious atheological article that agrees that lack of belief is not a form of atheism, or that the weak-strong distinction is invalid. Provide evidence from the literature, or I see no point in this discussion. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not opinion.

Furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the existence of another person's position, even if you disagree with it, is a basic lack of respect. I don't go around saying that agnosticism doesn't exist, even though I think there is no logical support for the term to exist. At least have the same respect towards my position. Otherwise what are you doing on a collaborative effort ? Franc28 23:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Since when is agnosticism about "lack of belief"? -Sean Curtin 00:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Atheist philosophers are not the only source of info needed in this article. Sources outside atheist philosophy (like all other reference sources) agree with me about the definition of atheism. You are correct that I prefer not to believe other people are atheists, but are rather ignorant of proper terminology, but this is out of respect, not disrespect. True atheism, or rejection of God, is fundamentalist amorality in the view of many, and so I find it kinder to assume others have mistakenly mislabled themselves than to accept their self-disparagement at face value, particularly when their definition is ideosyncratic and in direct defiance of expert sources (like the dictionary). As far as agnosticism, try encyclopdia.com.

Sam [Spade] 15:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything on the link you provided that comes even close to suggesting that agnosticism is a "lack of belief" (your source actually states, "Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism", which you yourself seem to have done). -Sean Curtin 00:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Also, among the dictionary definitions for atheism in that first link is the following from Wordnet 2.0: "n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" - this is exactly the distinction between strong and weak atheism. The other two dictionaries use "disbelief or denial", which is less clear but which also seems to distinguish the two distinct subtypes of atheism IMO ("disbelief" being a less dogmatic state than "denial"). Bryan 01:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a recent article in the Secular Web from Anthony Flew, which acknowledges the positive/negative distinction (see http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 ). That makes ANOTHER proeminent atheistic philosopher who supports the distinction (even though he is a weak-atheist). We can add this to the list of top atheist philosophers composed of Micheal Martin, George Smith, Theodore Drange, all who discuss and support the distinction in their major works. The only atheological book I have read that does not explicitly support the distinction is Everitt's "The Non-Existence of God" (he simply does not talk about it). So where is the evidence that the distinction is not a commonly-accepted fact in the literature ? It's an absurd claim ! Wikipedia should follow the commonly-accepted technical nomenclature, not follow someone's uninformed opinion.

Franc28 14:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Strong atheism is a misnomer; it should be antitheism as opposed to atheism, a- meaning without and anti- meaning against of course. Nonetheless, thanks Bryan for disproving Sam again. In the article, scientific proof or disproof is irrelevant to the question of God; there's no such thing as scientific proof or disproof anyway as it relies on empirical foundation. it's logical, a priori, philosophical, semantic, ontological, and metaphysical arguments that can prove or disprove such things. lysdexia 02:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would strong atheism be construed as against theism? Some might be against it for various reasons, but many weak atheists might be as well. There is nothing about believing that gods do not exist that means that one is against religion. User:Davin (usurped) 23:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are no scientific disproofs of the god-concept ? What are the Argument from Evolution, the Argument from Scale and the Big Bang Cosmological Argument, meat gravy ? Whether you think they are valid or not, you cannot say that "there are no scientific disproofs". Any concept that is said to affect the universe is measurable scientifically, and it's silly to claim otherwise. 12:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

It may or may not be possible to disprove the god-concept as a whole (as opposed to specific types of gods, some of which are clearly disprovable). However, none of those three arguments you link to are a disproof, they're just arguments. They're based on premises that do not necessarily apply to all god-concepts. For example, the argument from evolution linked to above depends on the premise that complexity the product of conscious design or natural selection, disregarding the position of many theists that their god exists without being a product of anything in particular. The page on the argument from scale itself says "The Argument from Scale, unlike the Problem of Evil, is not a conclusive argument." The big bang cosmological argument article was too long for me to read in detail, but I note that we don't yet understand the big bang very well and a lot of the premises mentioned are of dubious certainty in modern cosmology (eg, the conditions necessary for the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems such as "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity holds true of the universe" and "Gravity is always attractive" - the first is known to be false because general relativity doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics, and the second has been questioned by some proposed theories explaining things like dark energy. Some of the premises mentioned appear to have been made up out of thin air, such as "No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe" - we don't currently have widely-accepted theories about how the big bang worked, sure, but what basis is there for saying that no such theories are possible?) Basically, it's really really hard for the scientific method to disprove something that proponents claim is omnipotent. :) Bryan 21:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact is, there are scientific disproofs of "god". The fact that they might not address all conceptions, or that you doubt some of the premises, does not mean they don't exist. And how does an argument being probabilistic make it dismissable ? That's a rather cavalier attitude you have. I think you simply don't want to accept that science has a lot to say about the issue. Franc28 12:42, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

You specifically implied that those three arguments you linked to were "disproofs of the god-concept," I pointed out how each of them appeared to be less than that (based on dubious or contested premises, not applying to all gods, etc.) When did I mention anything about dismissing arguments on account of them being probabilistic? Bryan 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, in your own post you say "The page on the argument from scale itself says "The Argument from Scale, unlike the Problem of Evil, is not a conclusive argument."", and that settles your dismissal of the argument. Obviously you were dismissing the Argument from Scale for being probabilistic instead of conclusive. Either way, my point is that regardless of your grievances against the arguments, they are still scientific arguments for strong atheism. 18:02, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Never said they weren't arguments, just that they weren't disproofs. Bryan 05:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now you're wriggling on words. For most purposes, they *are* disproofs, especially on Wikipedia, where the position of the three philosophers who wrote them is more important than yours or mine. 12:20, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Eh? The difference between an argument and a proof (or disproof, in this case) is rather significant, and one can hardly just jump from one to the other on the say-so of the person making the argument. Or would you accept that the various arguments at Arguments for the existence of God are proofs that gods exist? In any event (since you do mention Wikipedia) what exactly is the point of this argument? Lysdexia appears to be uninterested in adding anything to the article, just making comments here on talk:, but this is not a chatroom. Bryan 14:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. I do accept that the Arguments for the existence of God are considered proofs by many theologians, and that is all that is sufficient for them to be on Wikipedia. I simply consider them invalid due to a number of logical fallacies, which are well-known. As for the point of this argument, I was merely pointing out that there are many scientific disproofs - I don't know why you ran away with it, but here we are. 15:47, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Something worries me. While it is true that the weak/strong terminology is popular, especially on the web, it is almost impossible to find them in the literature (Dianna Narciso's Like Rolling Uphill seems to be an exception), where positive/negative is more commonly used. Does anybody have any more book or article references which use weak/strong? The history section implies that only "early" philosophy used positive/negative, yet they remain the main terms to this day. The distinction itself is an old one, but it's interesting to find such a difference in terminology between the web and the printed literature. --Dannyno 10:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BM Edits

Bryan, that last removal was a glitch which I didn't intend. Not quite sure what happened. I was editing a section, and the article ended up consisting of just that section. I was in the process of fixing the problem.

An attempt to refine the terminology

Consider two propositions and a question. The propositions:

(1) God exists. (2) God does not exist.

The question: do you accept the proposition as true?

A strong atheist does not accept (1) as true but does accept (2) as true. A weak atheist does not accept either (1) or (2) as true. And a theist obviously accepts (1) as true and does not accept (2) as true. Agnosticism, of course, addresses entirely different propositions regarding the possiblity of knowledge of God's exist. The opposite of agnosticism is not atheism or theism, it is gnosticism. One can be either an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist. One can even be an agnostic strong atheist, as I am. (This is because it is not at all inconsistent to affirmatively believe that no God exists, yet adhere to the belief that this can't be known with certainty. Not only do I feel this way about the existence of God, I feel equivalently with respect to the existence of leprechauns.) Unended 23:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

So is it not enough to say that a strong atheist is anybody who accepts as true the proposition, "God does not exist"? Any takers?

The answer is yes, a strong atheist is anyone who accepts as true the proposition "God (or gods) does not exist". Franc28 01:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Strong/weak to explicit/implicit

I've gone through article and have undone User:67.132.243.17's changes of strong/weak to explicit/implicit. Weak and strong are the more commonly used terms by a long shot. User:67.132.243.17 should seek consensus here before making such significant alterations to te article, and take the time to read the article's archived discussions; had he, he'd have seen that this issue was previously discussed and settled long ago. FeloniousMonk 07:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation for belief in supernatural

A citation has been requested for "While strong atheism does not necessarily preclude belief in supernatural entities or processes in general" - surely this follows from the definition "the philosophical position that no deity exists", and noting that clearly, there exist supernatural entities which one would not consider a deity (e.g., ghosts)?

If a citation is needed for this definition, then the tag should be moved to the first paragraph (though any dictionary will back up this definition for atheism in general). Mdwh 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that the majority of strong athiests do not believe in any supernatural entities, so such a statement seem like a misleading statement/original research to me. Either way, having many more direct inline citations would make this article less dubious. I'd like to see references to textbooks and papers that mention the phrase "strong atheism".

Some editors do not like to see the Unreferenced template in the main article so it was placed here. Shawnc 01:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

On alt.atheism, I asked the question, can one really be a strong atheist but also believe in "supernatural" things? Some negative replies were:

• I am a "strong atheist" because I do not believe *any* supernatural relm does or can exist. I would disagree with the Wiki entry.
• Not that I know of. As a strong atheist, I don't believe that wikipedia is right here. Supernatural entities are pretty much equivalent to deities.
• Wikipedia is a bad source of knowledge.

Due to these concerns, for the sake of NPOV, I suggest that the statement be rephrased. Shawnc 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statements are biased and lacking. The first statement is nothing but a personal anecdote; the second is simply a falsehood ("supernatural entities" is by definition not "equivalent to deities"!); and the third is accurate, but irrelevant (the fact that Wikipedia is a bad source of knowledge doesn't change the fact that alt.atheism is also a bad source of knowledge :) we need a reputable source, not a battle between unacceptable ones). -Silence 19:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What about McTaggart who was a positive/strong atheist and a believer in immortality? It ought also be possible to cite some Buddhist commentators who clearly reject theism... --Dannyno 08:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

gibberish

"Statements of nonexistence merit positive claims: The nonexistence of gods is currently not yet certain enough at this point to merit positive claims. As such, these nontheists may hold that to positively assert the nonexistence of deities requires the same type of "faith" as theism itself. In believing the existence of no gods, one assumes a burden of proof similar to the theist, and neither has satisfied this burden of proof. "

This is completely incoherent - the first two statements contradict eachother. "At this point"? "these nontheists"? If anyone knows what the intended meaning of this is, please re-write it in English. Otherwise I will just delete it. Poujeaux 13:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Since strong atheism and weak atheism are such closely-related terms (it is impossible to understand one without the other), with so much overlapping information, and since there is so little information on them (weak atheism is a stub, and strong atheism would probably be too if we removed all the unsourced statements), I suggest that the two be merged into a single article for Strong and weak atheism, on the same principle by which eutheism and dystheism were merged into Eutheism and dystheism. (And by which I plan to make a new article, Implicit and explicit atheism, if there is any support for this.) It will centralize the articles' information more, thus improving consistency and accessibility and overall benefiting our readers more. -Silence 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Impossible to prove a negative?

There's much duplication in the weak atheism section and the reasons for weak atheism subsection of the weak atheism section. I'm thinking about fixing that. When I do so, I'm thinking about losing this line: "Some [weak atheists]also base their rejection of strong atheism on the notion that it is impossible to prove a negative."

Is anybody fond of the line or particularly think it belongs there? Wiploc 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the edit. If people are wedded to the line, we can put it back in somewhere.Wiploc 03:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

_________________

Headline text

ADEISM___________________________________________________________________________

Greetings, I wish to propose a new term. For some time now there has been debate about how "Strong" Atheism makes this type of Atheism seem to have a bit of a superiority complex and the term "Weak Atheism" seems kind of derogatory to those Atheists. Therefore I would like to coin and propose a new term, a meme to put out into the memesphere and add to this article{or perhaps have an article on itself}; rather than use 'Strong" and "Weak", would it not make more sense to reeserve "Atheism" for those so-called{up to now} "Weak" Athiests/Athiesm, and exchange "Strong" Atheism into this new term I have coined{to my knowledge anyways}- "ADEISM". Which indicates the up to now so-called "Strong" Atheists not only disbelief in theistic deities, but even their denial of the plauability of a Deistic first cause?

This also must be said adding the importance of changing the definition of "Anti-Theism", which till now has been largely relegated to so-called "Strong Atheism". Anti-Theism is only indicative of opposition to "Theism", I am myself deistically based but I oppose Thiesm and revelation, and I know Agnostics and others whom also are opposed to "Theism" but are not themselves "Atheists".

Anyways, I thereby propose this new word for "Strong Atheism"-"ADEISM". And therfore w cna do away with this battle between "Strong Atheism{Atheists}" and "Weak Atheism{Ateists}", and the derogatory feel of it, particularly for some up to this point, so-called "Weak Atheists". And from hereon it, you will then have "Atheism" and "ADEISM".

Thoughts?

In Reason: the very irreverand Bill Baker, faithless missionary. ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why not just use "positive atheism" and "negative atheism"? They're the more common terms in academia anyway. -Silence 21:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

"positive atheism" and "negative atheism" still make one sound well...more "positive" than the other. Whereas "Adeism" puts to rest the appearance of "superiority' and describes two different{though similar} ideologies; one beeing a non-belief in theism or theistic gods{as well as deistic}, the other beeing a strong denial of the possibility of even so much as a first cause Creative intelligence{adeism}. Irreverand-Bill--Irreverand-Bill 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Adeism" sounds like absence of deism. Someone can be a non-deist and still be a theist. Too misleading. "Positive" and "negative" in this situation are the simple, neutral terms for what types of statement is being made (a positive statement is "I believe X"; a negative statement is "I don't believe X"). -Silence 01:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The definitions of words

It looks to me as though there is a unique use of the word 'atheism' amongst certain philosophers as well as others. Perhaps a distinction can be drawn between 'general acceptance' of the definition of a word and the peculiar use of a word within a given community or group. Would it be possible to re-draft this article to ensure that it is clear that the particular use of the term 'atheist' in this article is not generally accepted amongst the community at large? Both groups have every right to have their usage made clear but this article presupposes that the wider community's definition is wrong and the 'atheist philosophers' one is right.

-GuyIncognito 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have re-read my claim above and I now see that it is contentious in a number of respects. What I think is important is that there be some workable basis on which to determine the meanings of words. Does anyone have any expertise in this area? Is the distinction between the common and unique usage of words useful?

-GuyIncognito 16:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Which definition of "atheism" are you saying is not generally accepted amongst the community at large? Remember also that atheism has its own article, and this article is just about the concepts "weak" and "strong" specifically. Mdwh 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Crossing the border from fuzzy definition to outright contradiction

The section about Weak Atheism in existence of God describes it as the choice to disbelieve the existence of God or other deities on grounds milder than the outright rejection of the possibility, such as probabilistic considerations.

I went and fixed that.Wiploc 18:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet in this article it is described as essentially equal to agnosticism, preferring neither side of the existence of God question. We can't have both.

The solution, I think, is to dig up references from wherever these terms are used/originated from and validate either one of these interpretations. If one is clearly the right one then we stick with that one. If the issue is muddled (as a hunch tells me it is) then this article needs a complete rewrite acknowledging the vagueness of these terms, and all other articles using these terms must similarly be altered. --AceMyth 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheism and Agnosticism

I feel that this article should be redirected, "weak atheism" is the very definition of agnosticism and "strong atheism" is atheism by definition, if one accepts that god could exist but probably doesn't (no matter how unlikely one thinks his/her/its existence is) one is clearly defined as a skeptical agnostic. It is only the solid belief that there is no god and could be no god of any kind that defines one as an atheist. --Colin 8 23:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The definitions you use are good, but they aren't the only good definitions. I'd explain more, but it occurs to me that the other definitions are probably explained well enough in the article. If you have questions, I can elaborate. Wiploc 02:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that so-called "Weak Atheism" is different from agnosticism. For example, you could describe an new born child as a weak atheist - it has neither a belief in a God, nor a belief in a lack of God. The concept of a 'God' just has never occured to it. Whereas, an agnostic is someone who is not sure if they believe in God or not. I wouldn't say you could describe a newborn as agnostic. 80.93.170.99 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your definition of weak athiesm (~BG and ~B~G). "Agnostic" is either an exact synonym (describing everyone who is neither a theist nor a strong atheist) or it refers to something else altogether (lack of knowledge rather than lack of belief). I'm not sure which you are describing. But, given your description, a baby would qualify as an agnostic (babies aren't sure of anything but hunger). Wiploc 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

An agnostic, from the definition used on the Wikipedia on the subject, is generally understood to be someone who belives the question of existence of God to be either unknown or unknowable.

An agnostic doesn't know whether god exists. A strong agnostic not only doesn't know herself, she believes that nobody else knows either. A weak agnostic merely doesn't know herself. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not say that a newborn could be said to believe God to be unknown or unknowable.

And I wouldn't argue that. I merely pointed out that according to the definitions above, "An agnostic is someone who is not sure if they believe in god or not," babies would be agnostics. I wasn't saying that that's a good definition. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They have no idea what a 'God' is.

Right, they are implicit weak atheists. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Atheism on the other hand, to the strict definition of the term, is the lack of belief in a God. It would be more appropriate to describe a baby as an Atheist, as it lacks a belief in God. Additionally, some atheists not only lack a belief, but are convinced that God definitely does not exist.

I agree with all of that. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In order to distinguish these two kinds of atheist, the terms 'implicit' or 'weak' atheist can be used to refer to the 'newborn'-type of atheism and 'radical' or 'strong' atheist can be used to refer to the more assertive kind.

I just want to clarify that not all weak atheists are implicit atheists. I don't think you were making that mistake, so I'm just being sure. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The ultimate point being, weak atheism is not the same as agnosticism. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: Weak Atheists do not know they do not know. Agnostics know that they do not know. Marwood 12:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak atheism is definitely different from the kind of agnosticism we've been talking about. But there are people who use "atheist" to mean "strong atheist," and these people use "agnostic" to mean "weak athiest." So, for them, "agnosticism" is an exact synonym for weak atheism. Wiploc 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For those people, they may be synonymous - but those people are misunderstanding agnosticism. Unfortunately, the accepted terminology is poor, confusing and unhelpful. Someone who neither believes nor disbelieves is not automatically an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who will assert that the existence of God is unknown and/or unknowable. They may, additionally, neither believe nor disbelieve. But the emphasis in agnosticism is the conviction that the question of God cannot be answered, either now or forever. It is a subtle, but important distinction. Marwood 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms theist, atheist and agnostic are well-defined in philosophy and using "weak atheism" rather muddies the waters. Equally it is just not true that agnostics assert that the question of the existence of Gos is unknowable - some do (strong agnostics if you like) but an agnostic simply holds that (s)he does not know whether God exists or not. NBeale 13:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say agnostics believe the question to be unknowable. I said they believe the question to be unknown or unknowable, or both. That could be unknown to them, unknown to everyone, unknowable to everyone, etc. But definitely doesn't include Weak Atheism! Marwood 15:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Balancing the article

I had a go at balancing the article, by trying to have about as much on the suggested reasons against as for. user:Coelacanhas been removed as poorly sourced or allegedly WP:OR. I think we need to be consistent here, and apply the same standards of sourcing/OR to the suggested arguments for an against. I have had a go at meeting Coelacan's criticisms without deleting any of the "reasons for" but if some of the reasons against are to be deleted then the reasons for that are subject to the same, or worse, criticisms should be deleted as well, I suggest. NBeale 15:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Establishing basis for claim of "atheist regime".

The current article lists the following "atheist regimes",

"(such as those of the French Revolution, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler [9]) have been far more murderous than theistic regimes. "

The Pol Pot article does not mention atheist but actually mentions "The party adapted elements of Therawada Buddhism to justify their non-standard communism." so the regime cannot clearly be classified as atheist but Buddhist (equally an injust accusation but more accurate).

Hitlers regime was never "atheist". The issue is not his mishmash of christian and pagan symbolism but the if the word "god" was used by Hitler and the party and there are many instances when it was. To call Hitler's regime atheist is nonsense.

Mao - I presume we mean Mao Zedong Thought, is the doctrine that drove that regime. It is as atheist as it is a peasant revolution. This is not it's reason to be but the idea that combines political ideology with military strategy; "political power comes from the barrel of the gun". It is original research to conflate atheism (no belief in god or belief that there are no gods) with such a political ideology unless it is a core tenet of that ideology. Maos focus was military struggle not theocratic debate.

Stalin is a difficult one and I suspect added for effect. It was not he who started the squeeze on the Russian Orthodox Church but the Bolsheviks with the start of the Communist regime. That Stalin continued this was because as head of state he would have. Thus his entry here is not because of atheism but because of his communism.

The French Revolution is another odd one. Civil Constitution of the Clergy would have a number of drivers namely, "...there was enormous resentment of the Church, taking the various forms of atheism, anticlericalism, and anti-Catholicism." so to call this freedom movement an "atheist regime" is misrepresenting the drivers by adding too much weight to one aspect of the protest.

I vote these examples are all culled. I'm bold and have done that. Ttiotsw 09:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pol Pot, Buddhism is atheist. It includes lots of supernatural beliefs, but not belief in gods.

Instead of removing the examples I think well sourced explanations of their validity (or not), or links to articles about it, would be better. -- Jeandré, 2006-12-31t12:01z

Yes it would be better to have reliable sources that offer the case that the aforementioned regimes were atheist (i.e. it was their reason to be as opposed to a side-effect of policy). Most self-described atheists (e.g. Dawkins) have little time for Buddhism (or rather the idea of reincarnation) so to conflate atheism as a word that is representative of a Buddhism regime is a misrepresentation of both camps. It has been reverted without any discussion on this subject. I call it WP:OR and uncited POV until it is cited by a reliable source for each regime. That Hitler is included as being an "atheist" regime is utter nonsense and it is even confusingly argued in the cite from Dawkins that people are uncertain if he was a Christian or a lapsed Christian. No mention of "atheism". Ttiotsw 08:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

• I'm not sure it follows that the usage is controversial. In what way is it controversial, and what sources are there for this? The usage is not widespread, but "controversial" is a stronger claim.
• Did Richard Dawkins actually target his argument specifically at weak atheists, or was it talking about people who appease religion?
• The argument about "ignore the question" is a strawman, weak atheists do not ignore the question. If there were notable examples of people using this argument against weak atheists, that could be cited, but this is just original research.

Also I can't help feeling that a lot of the things being put into "references" are more really "notes", since they don't cite a reference. Mdwh 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If a world-leading philosopher like Kenny says, in a carefully argued book in 2006 "I am not a theist, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic" and a bunch of atheists on the internet say "O no you are not you are a 'weak atheist'" the use of the term is clearly(to say the least!) controversial. Dawkins targets everyone who is not a theist or an active (strong) atheist, so that includes weak atheists. By defintion anyone who ignores the question (ie has no opinion on whether God exists) is a "weak atheist" - obviously not all w.a.s ignore the question because w.a. is a portmanteau term, but an argument against a subset of w.a. is an argument against w.a. The number of writers who assert that this is too important to ignore is enormous, would CS Lewis and Nicky Gumbel do for starters.

The most fundamental problem with this article is that all the pro-atheist statements in it are un-sourced OR and if people then delete the balancing items alleging that some of them are OR it creates a very POV article. We should be consistent and either delete pro/anti material unless it is properly refed or (my preference) people who believe in the pro- arguments shouold source them properly. NBeale 18:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not everyone uses the terms and we should mention that, I guess I felt that "controversial" was too strong a word.

Okay, it's a subset of weak atheism, but it should be made clear that this argument is not true of all (or even most, I would say) weak atheists otherwise I think it may imply that weak atheists ignore the question. And it's still better to place content where it is most relevant - in this case I feel that would be the apatheism article.

Similarly with Dawkins, it should be made clear that it only applies to those people who do appease religion, rather than implying it is a criticism of all weak atheists. Do you have a quote for what Dawkins actually said out of interest?

I have no problem if the OR pro- statements are removed. Mdwh 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

All Possible Positions (and their labels)

It seems like the various positions it's possible to take get labeled differently by different people. I'm hoping to outline the different positions here and the different labels with the hopes that this will help clean up this topic. Here are the possible positions of belief I can see, with regards to some topic [T]. [T] could be, for example, "the Christian God", or "any/all gods", or "Zeus" or "Poseidon", or "teapot orbiting Pluto".

1. I don't know whether or not [T] exists; I won't commit either way
2. I'm not interested or researched enough on the subject of [T] to make a decision either way
3. I know with a certainity that it is impossible to know whether or not [T] exists
4. I believe that [T] does not exist based on current evidence; new evidence could change my mind
5. I know that [T] does not exist; no new evidence could change my mind

Some people seem to be labeling (1) as weak atheist, (2) as apatheist, (3) as agnostic, and (4-5) as strong atheist. Others seem to be labeling (4) as weak atheist and (5) as strong atheist. Others seem to lump (1-3) as weak atheist and (4-5) as strong atheist. And yet others label (1-2) as agnostic, (4-5) as atheist, and fail to see what the "strong"/"weak" discussion is all about.

Furthermore, although I think this covers all the possibilities of internal belief, there are also to possibilities regarding what others should do:

1. belief in [T] is harmful and should be opposed
2. belief in [T] may be harmful in some situations, but they may also be good in other situations

I think that both of these are compatible with all 5 internal beliefs, but you sometimes see people making a distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism based on these two issues; namely, that people in the first category are strong atheists, and people in the second category are weak atheists.

To even further confuse matters, sometimes people also make the distinction based on what [T] is. In other words, a person may describe themselves as a "weak atheist", but what they really mean is that they are #5 when [T] is "the Christian God", but #1 when [T] is "any supernatural being".

Now, as an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be the job of this article to determine which of the above definitions/categories is what really ought to be meant by "strong" or "weak" atheism, but rather to attempt to clarify that different people mean different things, and attempt to show the relative popularity of how each term is used (if at all possible). What do you all think? Did I miss anything here? Am I even barking up the right tree? --Dlugar 02:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2 and 3 are special cases of 1 (which is agnosticism) and 5 is simply irrational. Even Dawkins doesn't hold 5 - he merely thinks it very very unlikely that any new evidence would emerge that would change his mind. NBeale 07:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree with NBeale, few, if any, "strong atheists" would be '5', though never none as some people will believe that there are no gods as others believe that there are gods even though there is no hard evidence for either position. I wouldn't call #5 irrational though in the same way that I wouldn't call an unwavering belief in a god irrationally held; there is a delusion but it makes sense to the deluded so it is not irrationally held just that we can not understand the reason. Eventually I'm guessing we will understand the pathology of believe and manage this. The whole idea of being a #4 strong atheist is that there has been no evidence to date that makes belief in god a sensible belief to maintain and thus the current running hypothesis that they have is that there are probably no gods. Some gods have shot their chances more than others e.g. the Christian, Allah, and the Jewish one (all the same anyway ?) have had a good running so far and the blood still hasn't congealed on their proponent's arguments but this psychotic human artifact shouldn't detract from examining evidence for other supernatural entities. If and when that evidence arrives. Ttiotsw 09:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tiotsw, and Happy New Year. But I genuinely can't understand the "no evidence" trope. It's perfectly clear that lots of arguments and items of evidence exist both for and against the existence of God. On balance, theists judge the "for" arguments more weightly, and discount the "against" and vice versa. FWIW IMHO the idea that theism is clearly contradictory is obviously wrong (far too many intelligent people believe it) and all the other arguments for and against are debatable. The only knock-down argument (as far as I can see) is the argument from the resurrection, pretty much everyone agrees that if the resurrection of Jesus happened as claimed by Christians then Christianity must be true - but of course people who (on other grounds) do not agree with the truth of Christianity can dispute the resurrection just as one can dispute any (allegdly) historical event. NBeale 10:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, Tiotsw and NBeale. I don't want to get into a debate about the "no evidence" trope, but certainly there exist some people who believe that, given the evidence for and the evidence against the existence of God, that the more persuasive side is the evidence against. (And, certainly, there are people who believe the opposite as well.) In any case, I have never met anyone who falls into category #5; even Mr. Dawkins himself falls squarely into category #4, I would say.

But the article itself seems to bounce around what it thinks "strong" and "weak" atheism means. A few examples:

• Weak atheists, however can be either explicit or implicit atheists.

Under what definition of "weak atheist" (in the above five categories) can you be an explicit atheist?

• Some weak atheists feel that theism and strong atheism are equally untenable, arguing that if neither belief is sufficiently proven, then both are based on faith. Until one side or the other meets the burden of proof, these weak atheists would argue, neither side's argument should be assented to.

The idea that "strong atheism is based on faith" only makes sense if strong atheism means #5. If strong atheism is limited to #4, then it doesn't seem like it's "based on faith" in any meaningful sense.

• Weak atheists often argue that theirs is the default position: every person is born without belief in the existence or nonexistence of deities. Further, they argue, nobody should change from that default position in the absence of persuasive evidence.

This seems to say that weak atheism is #2, since that would be "the default position".

• Critics of strong atheism also argue that modern science sprang out of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and that the alleged warfare between science and religion is a myth

If "strong atheism" is simply #4 (or even #5), then the fact that modern science sprang out of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, or that the "alleged warfare" between science and religion is mythical has absolutely nothing to do with strong atheism. This sentence seems to imply that "strong atheism" is identical to the external belief #1 (as opposed to the external belief #2, which states that belief in [T] can sometimes be a good thing).

All in all, this jumping around makes for a considerably confusing article. --Dlugar 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think part of the problem is that your set of options is rather limited. A weak atheist I would say is someone who doesn't believe in T - since none of your options directly cover that, obviously people will differ in opinion over which option it fudges into. The second problem is assuming that terms are mutually exclusive - so whilst #2 may be apatheist, this doesn't mean it can't also be a subset of weak atheism. So as for jumping around, I think that's only because your choice of categories do not match up with what strong and weak atheism are about.

Now, an explicit weak atheist is someone who states "I don't believe in T", whilst an implicit atheist is someone who has made no statement about T at all. Both all implicit atheists, and explicit weak atheists, fall into the category of "people who do not believe in T", therefore, they are all weak atheists.

I imagine the "strong atheism requires faith" is aimed at those who say "I know God doesn't exist but am unable to prove it" - again, you don't have that option. Now yes, most strong atheists do not fall into this category, but as long as some weak atheists hold this view, Wikipedia can report that whether or not the view makes sense.

The "default" position is someone who makes no statement at all, or perhaps, falls into #2.

But yes, the argument about science v religion seems to assume strong atheism is equivalent to to antitheism, which doesn't make sense. Unless some notable source can be found for people making this claim, it should be removed I think. Mdwh 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Firstly, I think part of the problem is that your set of options is rather limited." Good! I was hoping that someone could point out more options that I missed, or options that are too broad and should be split into finer categories. (See, for example, my queries below.)

"A weak atheist I would say is someone who doesn't believe in T" If I understand what you're saying here, it's that anyone who lacks a belief in [T] at all is considered (at least) a "weak atheist". Therefore, all 5 categories I listed would be "weak atheists". Am I understanding you correctly?

"The second problem is assuming that terms are mutually exclusive" I didn't mean to imply that the labels had to be mutually exclusive, but it certainly seems like the terms are frequently used that way. For example, the idea that weak atheism is better because it's "the default position". Well, #2 is the default position, but #1-5 are also (at least) "weak atheists", so the argument should be that #2 (apatheism?) is better because it's the default position, not that "weak atheism" is better (since it is not necessarily the default position).

"Now, an explicit weak atheist is someone who states "I don't believe in T"" I'm looking at the article Implicit_and_explicit_atheism and I'm still confused as to how an explicit atheist (who makes "a conscious rejection" of [T]) can not be considered to be a strong atheist (assuming "strong atheist" means category #4).

Thanks for taking the time to discuss! Hopefully this will be of at least some use to the article. --Dlugar 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I should have said that a weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe in T without the belief that deities do not exist (i.e., weak atheism is not a subset of strong atheism, it is considered distinct). So 1-2 would be weak atheism, whilst 3 could be depending on the person (whether someone claims we can't know whether T is true is a separate issue to their belief on the matter).

I guess people would say that 1 and 2 are default positions, which are the ones which most closely correspond to weak atheism - but more specifically, I think the argument is that "not holding a belief" is the default position.

A strong atheist goes so far as to say "I believe T isn't true", where as an explicit weak atheist just says "I don't believe T is true" - the concept of strong and weak atheism relies on the idea that believing not-T is different to not believing in T (not everyone thinks there is a difference). Mdwh 03:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, at least from what I've read, that the difference must be greater than that. Let's imagine two individuals with two similar statements:

(a) I have researched the matter thoroughly and, based on current evidence, I believe Jupiter is not inhabited. I'm not making any definite claims on the matter, however; future new evidence could change my mind. But the burden of proof to change my mind is on the believer.

(b) I have researched the matter thoroughly and, based on current evidence, I do not believe that Jupiter is inhabited. I'm not making any definite claims on the matter, however; future new evidence could change my mind. But the burden of proof to change my mind is on the believer.

If I understand you correctly, you would have me believe that person (a) is a strong atheist and person (b) is a weak atheist (with regards to the habitation of Jupiter). This seems to fit well with the seven blog-type links I pasted below in the "Categorising others" section, actually--but the difference doesn't seem to be highlighted in the article. Instead, the article spends a lot of time discussing the parts that (a) and (b) have in common. Do I understand you correctly? Does this get at the core difference between the two?

On a slightly unrelated note, are there any sources that are Wikipedia-worthy (i.e. not blog entries or forum posts) that have an author self-describing as either a strong or weak atheist? So far I have been unable to find such a source, and I find that this article seems somewhat empty without them.--Dlugar 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is predicated upon the level of belief in society for the opposite case i.e. in this case the prevelance of the belief in god or gods. I can say that "I believe that Harry Potter does not exist" i.e. I am a strong "aPotter" and this position is not questioned as there are few in society that believe he does exist. He is a recently created fictional character. Maybe in 2000 years time this position will be questioned too (I would hope not !). The myths and legends of the Jewish god have been around for longer and as a "fictional character" it has had a number of incentives that have promoted this belief within society. It is still a belief without evidence but that it is more prevelant than belief in (my example) Harry Potter means that there is more distinction given to the presentations of the obverse to that belief (in our case strong atheism, weak atheism and agnostic).

Where an obviously crank idea can be doubted and there are fewer people to attack you then you can be a "strong" opponent of the belief without being questioned. Where a more longlasting, though equally crank idea (from a personal perspective) can be doubted but there are many people who will attack you then it is safer to go with the "weak" position. That is presumed that you care to answer the question anyway; until quite recently a "strong" position on this matter could have lead down the path of Blasphemy and this was (it may still be) a punishable offence in, for example, the UK. In a number of countries if such a strong position can be contrued as apostacy then it is an offence which can be punishable with fines, prison and perhaps death. When crank ideas need laws to protect them they persist in society (much to the harm of society I might add) and thus it is safer to use the distinctions as in this case it can be used as a protection from harm. Ttiotsw 10:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So given the above two individuals (a) and (b), from the descriptions I gave, are either of them definitely "strong" or "weak" atheists according to your definitions? Or, given only the information above, is it still ambiguous (i.e. either of them could be either strong or weak atheists; it depends on factors not listed in my description)?

Mdwh, I'm interested in your answer to the question as well. :) --Dlugar 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that (a) is strong and (b) is weak. The first sentence of the article states the definitions, where do you feel they are contradicted? Or do you feel that the article doesn't clearly describe the difference between the two definitions? Mdwh 02:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any contradictions in the article, I just don't feel the difference is well-described. I don't think someone would walk away from the article labeling (a) as strong and (b) as weak. (Perhaps I'm wrong here.) The second paragraph of the article, for instance, talks mostly about explicit and implicit atheism. This is fine, but I think it mostly just says "If you're an implicit atheist, then you must be a weak atheist" and ignores what the difference is between an explicit weak atheist and an explicit strong atheist (the difference between a and b). The first section under "Weak Atheism" makes this point again, and then says that weak atheists "hold neither belief", which I think is a touch misleading. (Given only that paragraph and the description of individual (b), I think most people would label (b) as a strong atheist.)

The "suggested reasons for weak atheism" section talks mostly again about implicit atheists, and doesn't discuss the fundamental difference between (a) and (b). Most of the reasons given in that section seem to be reasons for implicit atheism, or reasons against "faith-based atheism". While it's true that if you successfully argue in favor of implicit atheism, you've successfully argued for weak atheism--but likewise some of the arguments in the section are actually arguments against what I see as a reasonable subset of weak atheism. Ditto for the "reasons against".

The "strong atheism" section does a good job, I think, describing strong atheists in general. But many of the things ascribed to strong atheists could also be said of a subset of weak atheists (noting theist inconsistencies such as disease, holding a naturalistic worldview, etc). Furthermore, the arguments against strong atheism are arguments in favor of agnosticism and theism, not even addressing weak atheism or the difference between strong and weak atheism at all! Again the reader is left with the idea that "weak atheism" is all about agnosticism or apatheism; the impression is never given that a "weak atheist" could be, say, a naturalist who consciously rejects theism based on scientific evidence, who believes religion is harmful in all forms, and battles creationists in fierce debates. Of course, nothing in the article explicitly says that such a weak atheist can't exist--but it seems to me to at least give off the impression that such is not the realm of the weak atheist. --Dlugar 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference is the difference between "I don't believe in T" and "I believe T doesn't exist". If the difference between those is unclear, then I think it's simply that it genuinely is unclear - for example, some might say that there is no difference at all between the two. All we can do here is report the definitions that are used, whether or not they make sense.

I think the problems and disagreements come not with these original definitions, but trying to explain what those differences mean - some think there is no difference, some look at it in terms of how likely someone believes something exist - and so any attempt to write something on this would be difficult, not to mention original research (unless someone finds some sources).

The best explanation I can give is to look at one of the reasons why this distinction is made in the first place. Often, theists will claim that atheists have just as much "faith" as theists, in that they believe something without proof, and the burden is upon them to prove that God doesn't exist. In response, it is important to emphasise that those people who simply do not believe (weak atheists) are not making any assertions that God does not exist, so what the theists claimed is not true.

As for the arguments for/against, I agree that these are rather confused. Mdwh 00:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(starting again at a new indentation level)

Mdwh, I agree that the difference between "I don't believe in T" and "I believe T doesn't exist" is murky at best, but I think the article can do a much better job at getting at that difference. I have some ideas of some potential changes, but I'd really like some more sources, or this is likely going to end up being a very short article. (Already it seems to be shrinking by the day.) It may end up that anything useful we could write on the subject would be original research. :(

Regarding one of the reasons why this distinction is made in the first place, I think that's yet another misleading point. You're right that theists will often claim that atheists have just as much "faith" as theists, but I don't think that the strong/weak division plays into it. If you were to give a theist who makes this claim the description of the above (a) and (b) personas, I would say that this theist would say his claim applies equally to both individuals (that is to say, it applies to both of them or neither of them).--Dlugar 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to better explain the difference in the article.

Rereading (a) and (b) again I am less sure that (b) is a weak atheist or not. These are good examples of why the issue is confusing (and some feel that there is no difference at all), because often people use "I do not believe X exists" to mean "I believe X doesn't exist". To state things a bit more explicitly, a weak atheist is someone who does not make the statement "I believe God doesn't exist" (or the statement "I believe God does exist") - however, it's hard for them to make a statement about their lack-of-belief without it being misunderstood.

Perhaps another way to look at it is in terms of claims being made. A strong atheist claims that God does not exist (do people agree with this?), whilst a weak atheist makes no claim whatsoever; the only statement he perhaps makes is to say that he makes no claims (and hence, in response to the theist's argument, there is no claim which needs supporting with evidence). Mdwh 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that a weak atheist makes no claim whatsoever. They do make claims about belief--namely, that they don't believe in God. If you look at the self-describing weak atheist blog-type links I posted below, you'll see that each of them explicitly states this. But it's also true that not a single one makes the statement, "I believe God doesn't exist".

Regarding the strong atheist, I don't think to be a strong atheist you must make the claim "God does not exist", but merely the claim "I believe that God doesn't exist". From everything I've read thus far, all it takes to be a strong atheist is to utter that statement (sort of like the Shahada, I suppose)--everything else is just details.

Of course, I could be completely wrong about all of this. :) It would be really nice to have some sources, preferably published books, with people self-describing as strong or weak atheists, to get a better idea what the published thought on the matter is. In any case, thanks for helping me understand this issue better. It's been quite informative.--Dlugar 04:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorising others against their will should not be endorsed uncritically by Wikipedia

Describing people as X when they see themselves as not-X is something that needs to be done with extreme caution, and should not be endorsed uncritially by an NPOV encyclopedia. If I defined "weak heterosexuals" (or weak homosexuals) as "anyone who was not explicitly homosexual all the time" (or vice versa) or "weak theists" as "anyone who did not consciously reject theism and lead their lives entirely on that basis, never giving even the appearance of believing in God for one moment" a lot of people would rightly object. NBeale 08:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but you are using the word "weak" out of context. The term has been used explicitly in recent years to further define the nuances of non-belief in god/gods. It is original research on your part to presume that how this term gets used with respect to atheism can equally apply to other human traits. Wikipedia editors can call any group anything as long as it is cited by a notable person. With bio pages this applies too, though more strictly enforced. Ttiotsw 10:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but my point is that we should record the fact that the terminology is disputed/controversial esp in sensitive situations. NBeale 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you defined it, then it would be rejected from Wikipedia as a neologism, but if it was a notable definition, then Wikipedia should report that definition. But yes, if not everyone uses these terms, that should be mentioned too. I don't think it is describing people against their will, that is really only an issue if we name someone specifically and describe them with a label. Mdwh 16:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NBeale, thanks for bringing this up. This is part of what I was hoping to get at with the above list of categories. I believe that most people would accept which category they were placed in (in the above list), but not necessarily the label (weak/strong agnostic/atheist). Hence labeling (like for example, that Dawkins is a "strong atheist" or that he fights against "weak atheists") would be controversial and perhaps best left out of the article. A better tactic would be to look for people who self-describe as "strong atheist" or "weak atheist" and see what they mean by that label, and document the usage accordingly. I've taken the liberty of doing a bit of googling to see what I could find.

• "I am a strong atheist. Which means I affirmatively state “There is no God.” Looks to be squarely in category #4.
• Why I am a Strong Atheist Also #4.
• Jewish Atheist Again #4.
• I'm an atheist. "I'm an atheist. When I am giving God's existence the same probability I give Superman or Wonderwoman's existence, it's disingenuous for me to call myself an agnostic. I am a weak atheist" This writer seems to also be squarely in category #4, despite self-describing as an atheist.
• Comments in various blogs:
  • http://www.theatheistmama.com/2006/11/is-thinking-there-is-a-god-comforting.html
  • http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1877
  • http://www.allegro.cc/forums/thread/588913/4

All three commenters self-describe as "weak atheist", but all again appear to be in category #4. "The more I observed...the world’s great religions, I came to realize...they made no rational sense." and "I became an atheist many years ago due to a variety of reasons (mostly due to no supporting evidence for a *supernatural* being as described in the bible of my upbringing ) ... Perhaps here I should state that I am a weak atheist" and "I am a weak atheist. I will believe in God when there is sufficient evidence for me to do so."

It seems like most of the self-described "weak atheists" believe that strong atheists are category #5. And it seems that most of the self-described "strong atheists" believe that weak atheists are category #1. Does this seem accurate, or am I simply projecting my own biases into their writings?

In any case, it seems like there are a few possibilities here, one of which is that all strong/weak atheists are in category #4, and 1-3 are agnostic, and therefore the difference between "strong" and "weak" atheists is something more subtle than my categories. If this is so, I can't tell what the difference would be (at least not based on the above links). Perhaps the difference is that strong atheists believe the evidence against God is more overwhelming? Or some other subtlety I can't grasp?--Dlugar 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your categories, Dlugar. I'll reproduce them here.

  1. I don't know whether or not [T] exists; I won't commit either way
  2. I'm not interested or researched enough on the subject of [T] to make a decision either way
  3. I know with a certainity that it is impossible to know whether or not [T] exists
  4. I believe that [T] does not exist based on current evidence; new evidence could change my mind
  5. I know that [T] does not exist; no new evidence could change my mind

What distinction were you trying to achieve between 1 and 2?

#5 sounds something like my attitude toward the standard Christian god. I know he doesn't exist because he is a logical contradiction. Nothing can count as evidence of a contradiction. For instance, what would you accept as evidence of a square circle? Or what would you accept as evidence that on this coming Tuesday seven will be less than three? You can't have evidence of a logical contradiction, and the standard Christian god, as I understand him, is a logical contradiction. But, of course, if you actually came up with legitimate evidence, then I'd have to change my mind about that god being a contradiction. So I don't know whether I'm a 5 or not. But I'm clearly a gnostic strong atheist with respect to that god. And I'm an agnostic strong atheist with regard to others.

The phrase, "I don't know," seems to me ambiguous in #1. So many people say that when they mean they don't have a belief rather than that they don't have knowledge, which is the difference in atheism and agnosticism.

2 may be trying to conflate the ignostics with the implicit atheists? I don't know what you're after here.

What you want, it seems to me, is a set of categories that are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive (everybody fits in one of the categories, and nobody fits in more than one). #5 may be trying to describe gnostic strong atheists. #4 may be trying to describe agnostic strong atheists. #3 seemes to describe strong agnostics, but I don't know why you are breaking out the strong agnostics if you aren't also making a category for the weak agnostics. The first half of #1 may be describing agnostics, but the second half seems to be about some other topic, timidity or lack of candor, perhaps. #2 describes some weak atheists, but, again, I don't know why you break them out without provideing another category for the rest of the weak atheists. Wiploc 04:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Wiploc. What I'm "really after" here at the heart of the matter is trying to understand what people mean by "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". At the moment, it's very confusing to me, and the article does nothing to abate that confusion. I'm hoping that, once I work through my confusion on the subject, I can hopefully contribute to the article helping others to overcome that same confusion.

The set of categories I created is an attempt to figure out what exactly people mean by the labels. I think, based on what I've read by various authors and simply by your and Mdwh's (and others') discussion here, that different people may mean different things by the terms "weak" and "strong" atheist. At the moment I'm trying to work through that as well--are these seemingly different definitions simply due to my misunderstanding? or do different people really use them differently? And if the latter, what are the different ways people use them? Is one particular usage significantly more common? Are there contradictions in popular usage of the terms? All these are questions I seek to answer, I must confess primarily for my own enlightenment, but hopefully what I learn will be useful with regards to this article as well.

"What distinction were you trying to achieve between 1 and 2?" Someone who has exhaustively researched the subject of [T] but who feels the evidence is "too close to call" either for or against could fit into category #1, but certainly wouldn't fit into category #2. Someone who had never heard of [T] and never thought of it would fit into category #2, but I didn't intend category #1 to apply to them (although I can't think of a way to word #1 to purposefully exclude them).

"What you want, it seems to me, is a set of categories that are both mutually exclusive and exhaustive" That actually may be useful, but I think what I'm more after is a set of categories where, for any particular person's definition of "strong atheist" or "weak atheist", each definition encompasses a distinct subset of those categories. I don't think I've achieved that yet; it appears that #4 requires some breaking down into two or more categories.

Do you have any ideas for either categories I'm missing (e.g. "the rest of the weak atheists"? what would that be?) or better divisions altogether for the purpose of categorizing belief labels?--Dlugar 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Theists: they believe god exists.

Strong atheists: they believe god doesn't exist.

Weak atheists: everyone who is neither theist nor strong atheist.

Atheists: everyone who is not a theist.

Every instance I have found of a self-described "weak atheist" says that they don't believe that God exists, that the evidence is contrary to God's existence, that God is about as likely as Superman or Wonderwoman really existing. Do you feel that this sort of "weak atheist" fits in the above nomenclature? If so, I think the above definitions are terribly misleading; if not, do you have any examples of self-described "weak atheists" who do fit with the above nomenclature? Thanks! --Dlugar 16:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone is a weak atheist, then by the above definitions, they don't believe in God (they are not a theist), so it is not contradictory if they say that. As for the other two statements, some people may additionally those things, but not all (I don't). If there were self-identified weak-atheists who said "I believe God doesn't exist" then yes that would seem a contradiction. One possible explanation is that there are different meanings of the word "God" - for example, it is possible to hold a "strong" position with respect to say, the Christian God (you believe it does not exist), but a "weak" position with respect to the concept of a god in general. So such a person would identify as a weak atheist (for the concept of a god in general), but still say "God doesn't exist" when referring to the Christian God. Mdwh 02:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(I'm responding to Dlugar, two paragraphs above, but intenting two more than him to differentiate my post from MDWH's.) To know whether someone is a weak atheist, you have to know whether she is a theist or a strong atheist. If she is neither, then she is a weak atheist. The people you describe are hard to pin down, due to inexact language and beating around the bush, but let's see whether we can pin them down:

They "don't believe in god": This means they aren't theists. We are unclear on whether this makes them strong atheists. If we trusted the precision of their language, we would understand them to mean they are atheists, undifferentiated atheists making no attempt to identify themselves as either weak or strong. However, lots of casual speakers would use this "don't believe in god" language to mean that they do believe that god does not exist. Since we can't cross-examine them on their meaning, this doesn't tell us whether they are stong atheists. We just don't know.

"the evidence is contrary to God's existence": Again, this is not too revealing. Are they saying that they believe god doesn't exist? Or are they just saying that they are leaning toward believing that? This doesn't tell us whether they believe god doesn't exist, so it doesn't tell us whether they are weak atheists.

"God is about as likely as Superman or Wonderwoman": Well that would do it for me. I believe that Superman and Wonderwoman do not exist, so if they believe god is no more likely than Superman or Wonderwoman, why don't they believe god doesn't exist? But if they believe god doesn't exist, then why aren't they admitting that; why are they beating around the bush? But still, they aren't actually saying they believe god doesn't exist. What can I tell you; I know some careful people who are very reluctant to form beliefs. My suspicion is that these people are strong atheists who are for some reason reluctant to come out and say so. But there is some possibility that they are weak atheists of a very intellectually careful type.

Do I feel that these people fit my nomenclature? If they really believe god doesn't exist, then they are strong atheists misidentifying themselves as weak atheists. But if they are really weak atheists, then they fit the nomenclature perfectly.

I'll try to get you some examples. Wiploc 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's all there is to that, other than acknowledging that there is another system which uses some of the same terms but defines them differently:

Theists: they believe god exists.

Atheists: these are the people defined as strong atheists above.

Agnostics: these are the people defined as weak atheists above.

I call the first set the technical definitions and the second set the layman's definitions; I don't like those names, but I haven't thought of better.

If you use the technical definitions, then you are free to use the term "agnostic" in this much more useful way:

Gnostics: These people are sure they're right; they think they have knowledge.

Agnostic: These people don't know whether god exists.

Agnostics can be broken down into strong and weak:

Weak atheists: They personally don't know whether god exists.

Strong agnostics: Not only do they not know themselves, they believe no one else knows either.

Example: Lots of Christians believe on faith without thinking they know that god exists. They are, using the technical terms, agnostic theists. Wiploc 15:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This catches the two main nomenclature systems. Other definitions seem to me to be based on misunderstanding. Wiploc 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)