Do you believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism?

[Sunstone]

I learned a new word today from Crossfire. Transatheist. I'm more than half convinced by now that I'm best characterized as a transatheist.

 

[MrOmega]

I feel that... Theist has that hard core, multiple phd, and devotion to god, slant...

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Hey everyone. Do you, as an Atheist, believe in Strong Atheism or Weak Atheism. For the purposes of this thread Strong Atheism is the denial of the existence of any and all deities while Weak Atheism is a lack of belief in any and all deities. So, which are you? Please vote in the poll.

By these definitions, I'm neither, or both (?). I'm 100% certain none of the gods of any religion people follow exist. But that doesn't mean there definitely isn't another higher power, although I don't believe in one.

 

[Fraleyight]

I would consider myself a "strong atheist" or anti-theist when it comes to some claims of a particular god. For instance I can pretty much prove that there is no chance Zeus exists. I can for the most part prove that the Christian God is not very plausible and impossible if you believe this God to exist exactly as the bible says.

However, in general I consider myself a "weak atheist" or an agnostic-atheist given that at any point someone can come up with a claim to the existence of some kind of God you can not possibly test to either prove or disprove.

 

[Willamena]

Gnostic Atheism is someone who believes for a fact or "knows" that there is no god. The overwhelming vast majority of disbelievers are people who "doubt" the existance of god. So the term fits perfectly.

Doubt and knowing are not the same thing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Doubt and knowing are not the same thing.

Exactly. Gnostic Atheists "know" there is not a god. Agnostic Atheists simply doubt that there is a god. That is the key difference.

 

[Willamena]

Exactly. Gnostic Atheists "know" there is not a god. Agnostic Atheists simply doubt that there is a god. That is the key difference.

But then you claim "gnostic" atheists know something non-existent, and that's impossible. "Strong" atheism, on the other hand, is a firm belief, a much stronger position.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

But then you claim "gnostic" atheists know something non-existent, and that's impossible. "Strong" atheism, on the other hand, is a firm belief, a much stronger position.

He's not saying they "know something non-existent". He's saying they know it doesn't exist. Can you not see the difference?

 

[Willamena]

He's not saying they "know something non-existent". He's saying they know it doesn't exist. Can you not see the difference?

I understand. I'm saying that that's simple atheism, the negation of knowing god. The term "gnostic" atheist, on the other hand, implies knowing something.

"Gnostic" means knowing.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I understand. I'm saying that that's simple atheism, the negation of knowing god. The term "gnostic" atheist, on the other hand, implies knowing something.

"Gnostic" means knowing.

Then knowing that no gods exist still qualifies as gnostic atheism...

 

[Falvlun]

I learned a new word today from Crossfire. Transatheist. I'm more than half convinced by now that I'm best characterized as a transatheist.

What does it mean?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But then you claim "gnostic" atheists know something non-existent, and that's impossible. "Strong" atheism, on the other hand, is a firm belief, a much stronger position.

Not necessarily. Generally the wording of 'strong" and "weak" are meant to bring Atheists into a position in which they will have to defend a gnostic position with only agnostic reasoning. Thats why I avoid things such as "strong" and "weak".

I am fairly firm in my stance as an Atheist. In fact its is nigh unshakable without solid evidence to the contrary. That is because Agnostic Atheism is the default position that is usually arrived at through reasoning. Gnostic Atheism is every bit as foolish as theism as it assurts a claim without evidence. I agree with this.

That is why I find the "hard" atheism and "Weak" atheism definitions to be wrong and dishonest when used in an argument. As I am strongly an Agnostic atheist I also do not claim to know for a fact there is no god. The semantics of such context bring about a terrible and miselading conversation for both sides as they generally define both aspects differently.

Do you understand now why I dislike such terms?

 

[Willamena]

Not necessarily. Generally the wording of 'strong" and "weak" are meant to bring Atheists into a position in which they will have to defend a gnostic position with only agnostic reasoning. Thats why I avoid things such as "strong" and "weak".

I am fairly firm in my stance as an Atheist. In fact its is nigh unshakable without solid evidence to the contrary. That is because Agnostic Atheism is the default position that is usually arrived at through reasoning. Gnostic Atheism is every bit as foolish as theism as it assurts a claim without evidence. I agree with this.

That is why I find the "hard" atheism and "Weak" atheism definitions to be wrong and dishonest when used in an argument. As I am strongly an Agnostic atheist I also do not claim to know for a fact there is no god. The semantics of such context bring about a terrible and miselading conversation for both sides as they generally define both aspects differently.

Do you understand now why I dislike such terms?

As I have no idea what "agnostic reasoning" is, and as I know that no "gnostic" position could possibly need defending, I can't honestly say that I do. But I accept that you do.

I am a strong atheist not because of what I know but because of what I firmly don't believe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As I have no idea what "agnostic reasoning" is, and as I know that no "gnostic" position could possibly need defending, I can't honestly say that I do. But I accept that you do.

I am a strong atheist not because of what I know but because of what I firmly don't believe.

I am the same. But in the terms "strong" and "weak" atheist that is usually given by a theist as parameters for the discussion will differ from your own view. They mean to say gnostic and agnostic but instead have re-named them strong and weak which are misnomers. I am a strong atheist. But I am not a gnostic atheist.

Agnostic reasoning means the point of argument and defensable positions laid out by the stance that you are an agnostic atheist rather than someone who is claiming that god does not exist end of story and thats that. You and I don't seem to disagree on the overal stance of what we believe but I am saying that the terms weak and strong are being misused by those attempting to start the discussions. They are also relative terms with arbitarary meanings.

 

[Willamena]

I am the same. But in the terms "strong" and "weak" atheist that is usually given by a theist as parameters for the discussion will differ from your own view. They mean to say gnostic and agnostic but instead have re-named them strong and weak which are misnomers. I am a strong atheist. But I am not a gnostic atheist.

For that precise reason, I would have the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" atheist dropped, rather than those be the ones kept as you indicated In post #16.

Agnostic reasoning means the point of argument and defensable positions laid out by the stance that you are an agnostic atheist rather than someone who is claiming that god does not exist end of story and thats that. You and I don't seem to disagree on the overal stance of what we believe but I am saying that the terms weak and strong are being misused by those attempting to start the discussions. They are also relative terms with arbitarary meanings.

Ah, I see.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

For that precise reason, I would have the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" atheist dropped, rather than those be the ones kept as you indicated In post #16.

You have lost me. Can you re-state this in a different way?

 

[Cephus]

If I had to pick one, I'd say I'm a weak atheist for the overwhelming majority of deities and a strong atheist toward those that are demonstrably self-contradictory.

 

[Norrin-6-]

Weak atheism. The ground I'd have to cover to be a strong atheist is too vast for me to deny any and all gods at this point in time. Plus I'm still drawn to the concepts of gods even though I don't believe.

Although I suspect most atheists who identify as weak do so because they don't accept faith as a valid path to truth. While I don't accept it as a valid path to truth either, I am willing to take a leap of faith. In other words, I'm not afraid to be a strong atheist. I'm just not there yet, and don't want to be.

 

[Willamena]

You have lost me. Can you re-state this in a different way?

That "gnostic" and "agnostic" are religious terms, and utlized (misused) as parameters for the discussion. They mean to say strong and weak, but instead have re-named them gnostic and agnostic, which are misnomers and IMO abuses of those terms.

 

[Chalant]

Weak atheist. I am open to the existence of a God, but evidence suggests that there is no such thing.