Isn't there a bit of a problem with someone telling us HE knows what we can and can't know? I'm an agnostic atheist :-). shrug.

You can't say there was a "strong atheist" in a thread that is debating what that is. can you :-{

No - you can't know that 2+2=5.

Yes - I was specifically addressing Arouet's conception of the two and suggesting one possible 'use' of that distinction (which you seemed to imply was useless). There may be other conceptions sure but I can still talk about his.

This debate is killer yo! Moar hits yo!

That caption obviously had to be written by a human. Spurious attribution or unintentional irony?

Man-in-a-suit Big Foot and pie plate UFOs FTL.

Let's consult Wikipedia:

You are using nonstandard definitions.

We already have a word for being 100% certain of something - stupidity.

Very good.... lol

Does it really even matter what you are called? Strong or Weak atheist?
Isn't that still on the same team, so to speak.
A Baptist and a Methodist are still both Christians.

I mean...do strong atheist want to convert the weak ones? <---serious question.

Do the strong atheist fear that the weak ones may convert to becoming believers?

Yes, I want to convert weak atheists. Like I said, the main reason why religion remains so important is because it is considered immune to criticism. That creates an extremely productive breeding ground for dumb ideas. Weak atheists tend to be the silent victims of this intellectual crime.

Why don't we see anarchocommunism or astrology play a key role in the structure of our society? Because when I see someone express anarchocommunist ideas or insist that the position of planets has an effect on our future, I am allowed to mercilessly pick apart every single bit of this profound idiocy. Religion though? Suddenly I'm expected to just nod my head and say I'm not in a position to criticise. Yes I am! Your ideas are stupid and I can name a million reasons why!

No, I do not fear that weak atheists may convert to becoming believers.

"Suddenly I'm expected to just nod my head and say I'm not in a position to criticise."

I don't think that's right...at least in a free Country. You should be allowed to disagree with any religious belief.

Again, strong atheism does not, in the slightest, imply a harsher stance towards religion.

Yes it does.

agree

Affirmation: 1. The act of affirming or the state of being affirmed; assertion.
2. Something declared to be true; a positive statement or judgment.
3. Law. A solemn declaration given in place of a sworn statement by a person who conscientiously objects to taking an oath.

I'm reading affirmation as stronger than what Deorum has been describing. Even though he is using the language of I believe there is no God, he's putting the proviso that it is "most likely" that there is no God. To me that's soft atheism. Hard atheism says It is true there is no God, not It is most likely true there is no God.

I stand to be corrected and will accept if I am wrong here, but "affirmation" seems to imply a level of certainty.

No I think it becomes a useless term because we all agree that you can't be 100% certain about anything.

No one can rationally be a hard anything so what's the point of even discussing atheism in this context.

People often claim to be 100% certain. More theists than atheists, but I've certainly heard people peg the probability of God's existence at 0%.

I think there needs to be a disambiguation here.

I think that the existence of a god is greater than 0.

The existence of the Judeo-Christian god is exactly 0. As the concept is logically inconsistent and self defeating.

This does throw a wrench in the strong vs. weak atheist debate.

Some people believe that, yes. Others believe the existence of any god is logically inconsistent. The point being that, irrespective of how reasonable we think the confidence is, some people do claim to be 100% certain about things so it's not meaningless to have a word for them when they do.

Please to be defining God(s). It makes no sense at all to be an atheist of any sort if the concept "god" can refer to anything. There must be a consistent standard for something to be called a god or the term is meaningless. Is the concept of god coherent? Is the term atheism coherent?

Thoughts on this?

I think deities -(Wiki) a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers. Deities are depicted in a variety of forms, but are frequently expressed as having human or animal form- is a better word to use than gods. Although maybe not literally, we [most of us] do understand them to be the same.

Again, I think it boils down to tangibility (if that's a word). Some people who are believers, believe their god is tangible in a metaphysical state (in the heart or soul). Others believe he or she or it is "out there" (not tangible, but existing nonetheless).

I think SOME weak atheists might feel a "connection" of sorts to something (they just can't explain it in words). It's not necessarily a god though. Others might just believe in karma n sht like that. But imo, strong atheists separate themselves from all of that. They are hardcore "no beliefers". They don't believe in sht, or the possibility of anything supernatural.

To me, and I'm not going by standard definitions, strong atheists are the true non believers. The weak atheist (IMO) is more like a hardcore agnostic (or strong agnostic). That's what I would most likely label myself. Then you have the regular agnostics who most likely just don't care one way or the other.

Then there are the religious folks. You've got "lipstick" believers who most likely don't believe in God (or gods) but want to fit in or appease someone they like (so they act like they do). Then you have your average church goer who might have some doubts and then those who really don't doubt. And last, you have semi-hardcores and straight out radical, "I'll kill you sinners, because that's what my god wants" types.

It's a [beautiful] rainbow of beliefs. Just like there are so many wonderful species of animals on this planet. Some are harmless, some are poisonous, and some are just born to kill. A perfect balance if you ask me.


Life and death is the ultimate dualism. And friction is what makes everything gel together. It's what keeps everything in motion.. and it slows it down at the same time.

You're crazy if you think that if you ask me.

"Most likely" = strong level of certainly. I would not have expected anyone to not get caught up in this as much as you have.

I defined supernatural earlier, it's the first one on dictionary.com under supernatural. As far as deistic gods go, that's a bit more difficult. I am on the fence about whether or not I believe they do not exist. On the one hand, I think that the lack of supernatural explanations suggests that nothing was created by the supernatural, the universe included (although now we are in the 'did the universe have a beginning' territory, which is a whole different can of worms). It also does not quite agree with my definition of 'exist' (that which manifests within reality). I am mostly talking about personal gods when I refer to theism (ie. I am a strong atheist, not necessarily a strong adeist). On the other hand, one could argue that reality itself would be a manifestation within existence. My objection would be to place reality in the category of those not determined to not have a supernatural origin, but that that does not lend credence to the deistic side. There are still a myriad of things demonstrated to not have a supernatural origin whereas nothing as of yet has been demonstrated to have one. But I freely admit that my position on deism is not nearly as solid as my position on theism. I would not object to somebody calling me weak with respect to deism. I do not know anything about the kid with the chemistry set idea.

be⋅lieve /bɪˈliv/ -lieved, -liev⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).

This is from dictionary.com and the reason I removed the first definition is because it was the form of the verb 'to believe' used without an object (and in this case we are using an object).

The standard definition of 'strong atheism' is the belief that no gods exist.

I too. Those people are not being rational either. I completely agree that defining something as describing a conviction with 100% certainty is nearly useless.

I loosely defined god earlier as what I think most people think of when they hear the term 'god.' That is, a supernatural, conscious being who is in some way responsible for the creation of the universe and/or has some form of authority over mankind.