Of all the posters in this forum, I find my thoughts most closely mimic Arouet's most of the time. However, in another thread he wrote the following, with which I disagree:

I am a strong atheist (I believe that no gods exist), and Arouet is correct that we are in the minority of atheists here (LLD and probably Eddi being the other two I can think of off the top of my head). I consider it a logical position. I responded (albeit to another of his posts, but this excerpt applies to the above quotation as well) with this:

Now, I am not claiming that weak atheism is the more or less logical position to take. I can understand it. I am asserting that strong atheism itself is a logical position to take. I cannot defend it as well as I can defend many other positions I hold to be true (I think it is more likely that the Earth revolves around the Sun than it is that a god/gods do not exist, for instance). But I do hold it to an equal level of confidence as I hold many other beliefs regarding claims of existence, such as my belief that leprechauns, the loch ness monster, and pixies do not exist. In fact, it may even be elevated to a higher level of certainty. This is because the evidence required for belief to be justified is inversely related to the plausibility of the claim. For example, pixies aren't really all that unbelievable if you get rid of the magical parts.

I generally avoid the label "strong atheist", as a lot of people seem to equate that to exactly 100% confidence and I can't think of a single statement about nature that I have 100% confidence in.

well what is your argument or defense for being a strong atheist?

When I talk about strong atheism vs. weak atheism I am talking about the difference between 'I do not believe a god exists' and 'I believe a god does not exist'. That's all. Neither position has anything to do with 100% certainty. The only thing I hold to 100% certainty is that I exist.

The claim that God exists is in many ways connected to claims about the universe, life etc. being designed, which are nowhere near as easy to address (by either side) as the existence of the loch ness monster.

I agree and I argued this point with Arouet in another thread. I have no idea why in all our efforts to define atheism on this forum we've conceded the assumption that a belief in no god implies certainty. Virtually any subject I've thought about I have some positive belief associated(not just a lack of one). For instance, I am an alienist, even though I might not even lay 3-1 that there's life on other planets. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow and that my girlfriend won't cheat on me. All of these things may be false. I would ask the weak atheists what reason they have to not believe that a personal god does not exist in the face of all inductive evidence to the contrary, and instead apparently hold no thoughts about his likelihood at all.

My argument is that because most supernatural claims that have been properly and thoroughly investigated have been demonstrated to have natural explanations, and that no claim of the supernatural has ever been demonstrated to be accurate, it is reasonable to conclude that all claims of the supernatural have been made up. This is strong evidence that the supernatural does not exist. By definition, for something to be real it must manifest within reality. If we have never observed something that manifests within reality which can reasonably be explained as the result of something supernatural, but that those things claimed to be the result of something supernatural have been demonstrated to not be, it is reasonable to conclude that the supernatural does not exist and is instead a product of our imaginations. This is the same reason that I (and most other people) believe that leprechauns etc. do not exist.

We once had a 'strong atheist" come to SMP who left in dismay as to what people perceived to be atheism. His approach, which is classical, is that there are no spirits, no gods,no supersensible entities,no demons,no souls, nor anything in thought nor action which was of a supersensible nature. This crashes down into a strict materialism( as he saw it) in which only the weights and measurements of materialism is hegemonic.

In effect, as above,we are only in past , present and future a conclave of elements of sodiums, potassiums, and magnesiums,etc. only to degenerate into the cosmic welter of materiality at our death.

Of course, from my perspective, the above is only theoretical materialism which gives some hope to proper sight. If one is an atheist as responsive personally to a particular religion such as Christianity then one must consider whether he is an AntiChrist or just doesn't happen to like the local Baptists.

I've enjoyed reading your words, Deorum and Arouet...very interesting people. Haven't seen much from Eddi yet.... some of the other aforementioned may have questionable methods to get their point across.

Lao Tzu wrote that a man who talks a lot...knows little and man who talks little...usually knows a lot.

I'm neither.

The only difference is that you are ascribing the existence of something (the universe) to a god. In other words, you are defining god as the creator of the universe, and then using the universe as evidence that he exists. This is circular logic. While the argument from design is a terrible one (let's not get off on a tangent here, this isn't what the thread is about), it is irrelevant to the point I am making. The argument from design does not imply that a god exists. It implies that a designer exists. It says nothing about the designer itself. If part of the definition of the loch ness monster were that she designed the universe, would that add any credibility to the claim of her existence?

we hold thoughts about his likelihood, im confused why you think weak atheists have no thoughts about this.

whats this "inductive evidence" you speak of? i hope its not the beauty of nature.

fair enough. i dont think its fallacious to conclude the supernatural does not exist since we have absolutely no reason to believe that it does.

i thought i'd have something more to say after you responded to me, but apparently not. carry on.

I fail to see the difference between those two positions.

And fwiw I don't hold my own existence to be 100% true, it's just a good starting point, that is all.

I find strong atheism to be pretty much just as silly as revealed religion.

The difference is that belief is the assumption that something is true. If the question is, 'Do you believe it is raining in Chicago right now?' and you do not assume that it is true that it is raining in Chicago right now, then you do not believe it is raining in Chicago right now. This is not the same as believing that it is not raining in Chicago right now.

As for holding your own existence to be true, this is the tenet behind Descartes' "I think therefore I am." In order to have conscious thought, you must exist in some sense.

Please, elaborate

No it isn't, and that's not quite the argument anyway.

If the universe was designed, that implies a Designer. It's that simple. While the designed nature of the universe being evident to many and refuted by none doesn't prove anything, it's in a better position than leprechauns.

Call it revealed atheism.

The last line was sarcasm. I'm sure you've thought a lot about the chances of god existing, which is why I don't know why you wouldn't have an active belief on the topic. Of course this reverts back to a definitional game again, but if I think X is unlikely to be true, I'd say "believing X is false" is closer to my position than "a lack of belief in X's truth." This makes sense whether we're talking about god, aliens, or your girlfriend. Do you not think a personal god is unlikely (and act as if he doesn't exist) or do you differentiate somewhere between thinking something is true and believing in it?

The inductive evidence is, as Deorum said, the lack of a confirmed supernatural event in recorded history. A weak atheist is something I might have been when I was 10, or if I was born 3000 years ago.

Oh, well I guess I was wrong then.

In the second half of my paragraph, I explained why the argument from design is irrelevant to this thread. To reiterate the important question at the end of it, if leprechauns were defined as they are now but also as the designer of the universe, would that make them any more likely to exist?

Do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? Why?

nice little insult at the end there. pleasure talking with you.

I don't think there is much to elaborate. A strong atheist makes assumptions about unknowns the same way a follower of revealed religion does. You might not deduce a lot of absurd rules from said assumption, but that something is more ethically edible isn't enough for me personally.

You say "belief is the assumption that smth is true" I assume by the same token "not believing is the assumption that smth is false" in which case "I do not believe it's raining in Chicago" is the same (well with minor issue with regards to what you mean by true, whether it's certainty or some confidence level) as "I believe it's not raining in Chicago".

Maybe you mean smth else by "not believing"?

Fwiw I can see difference in the two statements if we are not talking about certainties, but then which of the two is a stronger statement can vary and is not obvious.

As for existing - well, when you say "in some sense", that robs the sentence "I exist" of all meaning. You need to specify this "some sense" for that sentence to have meaning.

I should add that if by "not believing" you mean you are uncertain whether smth is true or false (which is the impression I get from the weather example), then "I do not believe in God" would be (or what I would call) the agnostic stance.

My understanding of the atheist stance is that likelihood of God existing is much smaller than likelihood of God not existing, with the strong atheists claiming that likelihood of God existing is 0.

In this sense I am not a strong atheist. And for the reference I am not a strong Sun-existentialist either in this same sense.

Maybe not, but leprechauns as they are is far less likely than if they were defined only as the designers of the universe.

The characteristics of leprechauns are far more available to science than those of God. The fact that they haven't been scientifically observed makes their existence unlikely.