Talk:Weak and strong atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Weak and strong atheism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

Archives

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Complete Rewrite 1.1 Recent Edits 2 So am I a strong atheist or a weak atheist? 3 Weak atheism and likelihood 4 Weak Atheist vs. Mild Atheist 5 The concept of "proof"- simplistic

[edit] Complete Rewrite

I haven't heard anything for a few days, so I jumped in and did a complete rewrite of the article, keeping some sections largely intact, borrowing material from other sections, and completely changing other parts. I think the article has an entirely new flavor now, one which I'm for the most part pleased with, but I have some concerns.

My most severe concern is the lack of sources. Although I've sprinkled sources around in various places, there are still many parts that seem to qualify as original research, and even some of the sourced parts seem to be using the sources merely as "reference text" for original research.

I'd appreciate it if everyone could take a hard look at this article and see what claims I've made that are simply unsupportable without external sources. That material can either be removed or, preferably, we can find sources to support it. (I've unfortunately been unable to.)

Also, while I think I've managed to condense what I've learned from the discussion on this talk page into an article that is mostly uninflammatory, I realize that that of course may not be the case. If you see any claims I've made that seem to be misleading or downright incorrect, please flag those as well, either by changing them directly or through discussion here. I think I've managed to make only fairly benign claims that don't seem to be hotly debated, but I suppose we'll see!

Thanks again all. --Dlugar 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. any chance of archiving some of the old talk page material? I assume my changes will spark plenty of new discussion, and I'm getting kind of tired of wading through the pages and pages already here.

[edit] Recent Edits

I have some comments about some of the recent edits here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weak_and_strong_atheism&diff=99494200&oldid=99267193

• god vs God

Capitalized "God" typically refers to a Supreme Being (not necessarily Jehovah), and seems to be most commonly what is referred to when discussing weak and strong atheism. Most people do not seem to include minor deities or the like when discussing the division; if they did, the article would more properly state "gods do not exist", which I think is not a very common way of expressing the concept. I'd prefer to revert back to using the capitalized "God", but want to hear what others think.

I've always heard that God is capitalized when it is the Christian god, and otherwise not. I think NPOV requires us not to capitalize unless specifically referring to Jehovah. Otherwise, we will seem to suggest that if there is a god, that god is probably Jehovah. Wiploc 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The God article disagrees with you. In any case, I don't see any POV issue here. Rather, I think we should decide whether [T] for purposes of this article will be "all gods" or "God" (some supreme being). I think the latter is far more commonly seen, so using it exclusively with a note that some atheists disbelieve in "all gods" is, IMO, sufficient.--Dlugar 05:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the God article supports me: "Because the development of English orthography was dominated by Christian texts, the capitalization (hence personalization and personal name) continues to represent a distinction between monotheistic "God" and the "gods" of pagan polytheism. <paragraph>"The name "God" now typically refers to the Abrahamic God of Judaism (El (god) YHVH), Christianity (God), and Islam (Allah)." If we capitalize, we are taking sides. If we don't capitalize we are neutral.

You have persuaded me on the constistency issue. I think "god" is neater, easier to read and conprehend, than "all gods," but I am against capitalizing. Wiploc 06:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone else weighs in on the subject. I'm not particularly torn either way, as long as we're consistent. (Many of the other atheism articles use "God" at least in some cases as well, but are not consistent.) --Dlugar 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• those who believe that God's existence is supremely unlikely
• those who implicitly do not believe that God exists

These were removed from the "weak atheist" section. Is there some debate that these are weak atheists? Also, I think the change to the paragraph below re-introduces the very ambiguity that I sought to erase.

I didn't remove the implicit atheists. I combined the two references. Instead of having two lines, one about those who have never been introduced to the concept of God and another about implicit atheists, I combined them: "those who have never been introduced to the concept of God (implicit atheists)" Wiploc 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As for those who believe that god is supremely unlikely, they are going to believe that god doesn't exist, right? If not right, if we are going to include such people, then in fairness we should also include those at the opposite extreme, those who think god extremely likely. While it is conceivable that there could be weak atheists like that, "Yes, it's likely that god exists, supremely likely, more likely than water running downhill, but I still haven't formed an opinion based on that likelihood," it will only confuse people if we mention such uncharacterisic people here. Wiploc 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that including uncharacteristic people here will confuse people, which is why I explictly included "People who believe that God's existence is supremely unlikely." The only self-describing weak atheists I have seen fall into this category, not any of the other categories. Hence I feel it is important to emphasize that category in this article rather than remove it completely. --Dlugar 05:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=191844 to where I've been trying to rustle up some regular weak atheists for you. The showing isn't as good as I'd hoped, but there are some there. The poll says there are thirteen, for what that's worth. Wiploc 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, I don't disagree that weak atheists are "who believe neither that god does exist nor that god doesn't exist". I agree that that's pretty much the definition of "weak atheist". Rather, I'm looking for someone who self-describes as a weak atheist who doesn't believe that "the existence of a God of any sort is highly improbable", as your first responder says. (The same category that you removed completely from the article.) --Dlugar 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, changing the wording in the Strong Atheist paragraph seems to also re-introduce some ambiguity. (The phrase "The only requirement is to believe that god does not exist", while technically correct, might be misread as some as "... is to not believe that god exists".)

Anyone care to discuss? --Dlugar 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you feel about, "...is to believe that god is nonexistent"? Wiploc 05:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the original: explictly accept as true the proposition "God does not exist".? It's unambiguous, straightforward and to the point, and much less likely to be misunderstood. I think "...is to believe that god is nonexistent" is subject to the same misunderstandings that "believe that god does not exist" is. --Dlugar 05:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original is clunky, pointlessly hard to read. But it isn't wrong, so you can go ahead with it. If you want to compromise, you can kill the word "explicitly," which, in addition to making the sentence harder to read, may suggest to some people that it would be possible to implicitly accept that proposition. Wiploc 06:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the "explicitly" was unnecessary. However, I feel like setting off the proposition with quotes is important to help reduce misunderstandings. Went ahead and made the change. --Dlugar 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to kill these lines too:

1. those who believe that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists (strong agnostics)
2. those who haven't made up their minds."

I don't like them at all, but I much prefer them separate than combined in such a way as to suggest that gnostic strong atheists are irrational. Wiploc 05:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you're saying here. Did you really mean to refer to "gnostic strong atheists" or is that a typo? If it's not a typo, I'm not sure how it relates to the agnostic weak atheists in the above two lines (nor why you don't like listing them).--Dlugar 05:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criminelly! Forget everything I said. These are the two lines I want to kill:

1. people who would change their belief based on new evidence
2. people who would not change their belief regardless of new evidence

I apologize for the screw-up. Wiploc 06:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Suddenly what you said makes a lot more sense! :-)

I agree that this is a little clunky, but the point I'm trying to make here is that although some strong atheists might be "irrational" (in the sense that they would refuse to change their minds even when presented with evidence that a more impartial third-party might accept), that isn't necessary to be a strong atheist. You can be a strong atheist, even a gnostic strong atheist, and still accept the fact that there's an infinitesmal chance that God might really exist. (And, of course, you can also be a strong atheist because you believe you can logically prove that God doesn't exist, hence also no evidence would sway you, but I think that's a third category, and different from the one I think both of us would say is "irrational".)

Any ideas for trying to get that point across while not going too far in the other direction? --Dlugar 07:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to tag the strong atheists as possibly irrational? Why not the weak atheists or theists? Wiploc 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My intention isn't to tag the strong atheists as possibly irrational. What I see as a common misunderstanding is that all strong atheists are "irrational" in the sense that no amount of evidence could sway them. This is certainly not the case--as Silence mentions below, you can be a strong atheist and still not be 100% sure. However, I don't know how to call attention to this subset of strong atheist (probably the most common?) without differentiating it from the "no evidence can alter my position" subset (probably not very common). --Dlugar 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weak_and_strong_atheism&diff=99497343&oldid=99494200

This edit completely changes the meaning of this paragraph, again implying that a weak atheist is the exact equivalent of an agnostic.

Furthermore, it removes one of the few references that I was able to find for this article. The reference is one of the only non-personal-web-page articlesthat I was able to find addressing the difference between strong and weak atheism. The article stated that explicit atheism and strong atheism are identical, and likewise implicit atheism and weak atheism.

I felt that I was cheating a bit by saying that this was not the only position to take (without having references to the contrary). This recent edit goes to the complete other extreme, denying that the position exists at all without providing any references to the contrary, and deleting the reference to the position. I will definitely revert this edit without seeing some sort of reference, or at least discussion. --Dlugar 05:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"Agnostic" has two meanings. It can refer to the fence sitters who believe neither that god exists nor that he doesn't. It can also, as Huxley intended, refer to people who don't know whether or not god exists. In the old nomenclature, the theist/agnostic/atheist system, the word agnostic was ambiguous; it carried both meanings, and you had to guess which meaning was intended at any given time. The new nomenclature, the theist/weak atheist/strong atheist system, the word "agnostic" only carries one of those meanings, because "weak atheist" carries the other. So it is true that that "weak atheist" for some people carries the same meaning as "agnostic" for other people.

I understand very well the two meanings of agnostics. (I, incidentally, prefer the original meaning.) However, I have never seen any self-describing "weak atheist" who sees the term "weak atheist" as identical to either meaning of "agnostic". I've never seen an instance of someone saying, "I'm a weak atheist" to mean "I'm a fence-sitter" or even, as you mention below, "I'm not sure whether God exists". In every single instance, it's more like, "I'm a weak atheist because, even though the existence of God is really unlikely, I don't want to go out on a limb and explicitly say he doesn't exist."--Dlugar 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I changed the meaning of the paragraph, aside from deleting the reference to the confused guy at about.com. Weak and strong atheism are distinct concepts. The fact that somebody says he can't tell them apart doesn't mean they are aren't distinct. There may be people who can't tell zebras from gorillas, but we wouldn't put them in an encyclopedia under "Zebra."

You might if he was the most reliable source you could find talking about zebras and gorillas!

These sources that contradict him seem as reliable as he does:

Weak atheism is the sceptical "default position" to take; it asserts nothing.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

"Atheism is commonly divided into 'weak' and 'strong.' Weak atheists have no faith, simply because the feeling is not there. Strong atheists conclude, from existing evidence and arguments, that gods do not exist." (Winston 2004, p. 299)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-winston

In recent years, some atheists have adopted the terms strong and weak atheism to clarify whether they consider their stance one of positive belief (strong atheism) or the mere absence of belief (weak atheism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-winston

The Presumption of Weak Atheism

Some weak atheists argue that atheism is the default position because he who asserts must prove. Theists make the positive claim that God exists. Weak atheists do not make the positive claim that God does not exist, but merely withhold their assent from the theists’ claim that God does exist.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

Someone who doesn’t have an opinion about religion, having never really thought about it, lacks belief in God and is therefore a weak atheist.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html

One who does not believe in god. This is not the same as saying that god does not exist. This is often what agnostic is treated as meaning.

Essentially, it is not asserting any belief. You're not claiming anything about the existence of any gods, just that you have no reason to act as if they exist.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=147765

Weak Atheism

The weak atheist position does not need a justification - it is the default position. One should not accept a position unless there is some rational reason for supposing it true. For a weak atheist it is sufficient to say: "I don't know what a god is", or "I have never heard of a god". Unless theism can be proved in some way, the weak atheist position is the preferred position. This is often confused with agnosticism.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html

Weak atheism is a negation: "I don't believe that it is true that god exists"

Strong atheism is a positive claim: "I believe that it is true that god does not exist"

Most people don't know this, and weak atheists often call themselves agnostics,

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/atheism.htm

Weak atheists, however can be either explicit or implicit atheists. Implicit atheists don't have theistic beliefs, but they have not consciously rejected those beliefs (possibly because they haven't heard of them). Some people consider infants to be implicit atheists (and therefore weak atheists); others maintain that to be considered any kind of an atheist, one must be old enough, (and otherwise have the mental capacity) to be able to believe or disbelieve in gods if the idea of gods should be presented.

Weak atheism

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, without the belief that deities are non-existent. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that no deities exist, and with theism, which is the belief that there is at least one deity. Weak atheism may either be a form of explicit atheism, that is, a conscious rejection of belief in deities, or implicit atheism, an absence of belief in deities without a conscious rejection of theism.

Restatement of the concept: Where theists believe that one or more deities exist and strong atheists believe that no gods exist, weak atheists hold neither belief.

http://www.blinkbits.com/en_wikifeeds/Weak_Atheist

"weak" atheist:

I am now an atheist, as I see no solid proof of the existence of any gods. I do not even need any deities in my life right now, though if any were so inclined to reveal themselves to me, they would find someone receptive to real, solid evidence, and not the sloppy apologetics I grew up with.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/stories/ByWhatNow.html

and

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/stories/0076.html

Therefore, "strong" atheism is the belief that the statements "A deity exists" and "Deities exist" are false statements, while "weak" atheism is the simple absence of a god belief for whatever reason (including having never heard a god claim).

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9102.htm

The weak atheist may say, “I’m not sure whether gods exist so I don’t worship any. “ The strong atheist comments: “There is no god.”

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm

Weak Atheism

A weak atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief, without the positive assertion that deities do not exist. This may seem the same as implicit atheism, but there's one important difference: A weak atheist can have consciously rejected theism, but not adopted the viewpoint that deities definitively do not exist. Thus, all implicit atheists are weak atheists, but weak atheists can be either implicit or explicit atheists.

http://www.pkblogs.com/fargazmo/2006/09/primer-on-atheism-and-agnosticism.html Wiploc 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What the about.com author is saying is that all explicit atheists (those who consciously reject theist belief) are strong atheists.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

This article only talks about implicit weak atheists, and therefore doesn't contradict the about.com author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#_note-winston

Same here. It only talks about weak atheism as the "absence of belief", "the feeling is not there", not a conscious rejection of theist belief. No contradiction.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html

Someone who doesn't have an opinion about religion, having never really thought about it, is an implicit atheist--no conscious rejection of theist belief--no contradiction.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=147765

Again doesn't address explicit atheists. No contradiction.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/definitions.html

Again implicit atheism. No contradiction.

http://www.blinkbits.com/en_wikifeeds/Weak_Atheist

LOL, this is a copy of the Wikipedia article that I changed. We can hardly use this as a source.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/exchristian/stories/ByWhatNow.html

http://www.pkblogs.com/fargazmo/2006/09/primer-on-atheism-and-agnosticism.html

These two sources actually address the "explicit weak atheist". Unfortunately, they're both basically blog entries (the second looks like it may have used Wikipedia as a source), and I don't think we can use either as reliable references.--Dlugar 16:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But in any case, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to convey with the original paragraph. Weak atheism is nearly identical to implicit atheism. Strong atheism is nearly identical to explicit atheism. The only difference is in a narrow subset of people who are explicitly atheist (they've made a "conscious rejection of theistic belief", according to Implicit_and_explicit_atheism), but who have phrased that conscious rejection in such a way that they fail to explicitly affirm the statement, "God does not exists".

Anybody who has heard about gods without coming to believe in them is an explicit atheist. That is, anyone who has been given the choice of whether or not to believe, anyone who has contemplated the issue, is an explicit atheist if an atheist at all. Anybody who has heard of god without becoming either a strong atheist or a theist is an explicit weak atheist. So that is not a "narrow subset." Wiploc 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Examine the two examples of explicit atheists in the explicit atheism article:

a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being"

b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible"

(a) would be a weak atheist, while (b) would be a strong atheist.

(a) is ambiguous. It could be weak or strong, because it could mean, "I believe that god does not exist." But if it doesn't mean that, if it just means the person is an atheist, then it still doesn't specify what kind of atheist, whether weak or strong. Every person who can say (b) can say (a). Wiploc 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people group (a) with the strong atheists rather than with the weak atheists, thus making the two classifications identical.

Of course they will, because some people will read, "I don't belive," as meaning, "I believe it is not true."

The about.com article writer appears to be in this camp. Until that reference becomes one of the least reliable sources in this article, I am reinstating his opinion, incorrect though it may be. It's certainly a prominent enough opinion to at least get a mention.--Dlugar 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll get back to you with more references. Wiploc 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Change of topic: Under "Common Misconceptions," the headline, "Weak atheists aren't sure whether god exists." That sounds closer to a definition than a misconception. And yet the material below it is good. How would you feel about changing the headline to, say, "Weak atheists are unsure, confused, or afraid to take a position." That's really rough, but you get the idea. Wiploc 06:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that weak atheists aren't sure whether God exists. At least as used colloquially, "aren't sure" means something different from "99% sure". A weak atheist can be 99% sure that God doesn't exist, so I think it is a misconception to say that a weak atheist must necessarily be "not sure whether god exists".--Dlugar 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to say to this. You think weak atheists are sure that god doesn't exist? If so, you think they are strong atheists. You shouldn't be writing the article if you can't tell them apart. Wiploc 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that while, from a strictly logical position, "X is not sure about Y" means exactly the same thing as "It is not the case that X is sure about Y", that is not how the phrase is typically understood.

In other words, "Bob is not sure whether God exists" and "Bob is 99% sure that God doesn't exist" don't, from a strictly logical perspective, contradict each other. However, from a "common usage" perspective, I think that they do give the appearance of contradiction.

In any case, I certainly don't think that all weak atheists are 99% sure that God doesn't exist, but I think a significant majority of self-describing weak atheists are. Hence, I see "Weak atheists aren't sure whether God exists" to be a misconception of weak atheists. (Just like I think, "Strong atheists are 100% sure that God doesn't exist" to be a misconception of strong atheists. Certainly some strong atheists fall into that category, but not all of them.) --Dlugar 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dlugar, strong atheism doesn't mean being 100% sure that God doesn't exist; it simply means having the belief that God doesn't exist. Belief exists every day without complete sureness; I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist, for example, even though I'm uncertain of that and could very well be wrong. It is simply impractical to withhold belief on everything for which there is no certainty. -Silence 22:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Silence, I'm well aware that strong atheism doesn't mean being 100% sure. That's one of the things I'm trying to highlight in my recent changes. In fact, I think it's a lamentable misunderstanding that I'm trying to correct by explicitly stating such in the article. --Dlugar 22:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dlugar, the semester's starting, so I have to bow out of this discussion. Wiploc 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So am I a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

For weak atheism:

those who have made up their minds, deciding that the evidence doesn't warrant belief

For weak atheism:

those who believe that God does not exist based on current evidence

people who would change their belief based on new evidence

If somebody could develop a method of testing for such a deity, and repeated trials confirmed the possibility, and if from what I know, the method was valid and without confounds allowing for other explanations, then I would be inclined to change my mind.

I do not, however, believe that any scientifically valid method can test for such a deity,. And, as the studies purported to demonstrate the existance of certain manifestations of a deity, when I can find the details (which is rarely, I suspect for good reason), these tests generally appear to be unreliable or invalid.

Basically, I might believe it if were tested accurately and precisely, and would try to be open-minded in looking at such an experiment. I just don't think it's even remotely probable, based on my knowledge of the scientific method.

So am I a strong or a weak atheist? --71.192.116.43 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Strong and weak are largely silly distinctions. I hold precisely the same view as you do, and I describe myself as either a weak atheist or a strong atheist, depending on how people define those terms in different contexts. For example, many weak atheists believe that strong atheists are just atheists who are "certain" that deities don't exist; they consider strong atheism dogmatic, and consider it the opposite of theism, with weak atheism directly in the middle. (For the sake of clarity, a better term for referring to atheists who deny the possibility of deities existing is "closed atheism", not "strong atheism".) Many weak atheists, like theists, claim that because strong atheists make the positive claim that God does not exist, strong atheists have the burden of proof to disprove God, whereas weak atheism is the "default" position, simply skepticism of God's existence based on an absence of compelling evidence for theism. On the other hand, strong atheists view weak atheism as a "wishy-washy" position of undue indecision, and in some cases even as a hypocritical position, demonstrating a double-standard towards theological claims that does not exist for ordinary claims. Strong atheists, of course, do not view themselves as being "certain" that gods don't exist—that's just a myth. Rather, most of them view the absence of evidence for gods to be sufficient grounds not only for being skeptical of theistic claims, but for going so far as to make the positive assertion that no gods (probably) exist. They do not view this as shifting any of the burden of proof onto themselves, merely as taking the commonsensical position that it is perfectly acceptable to deny the existence of extraordinary entities which there is no evidence for—for example, we regularly deny the existence of Santa Claus, unicorns, and elves, yet such denial is not seen as constituting a shifting of the burden of proof. In practice, there is no real difference between "I don't believe that Santa Claus exists" and "I believe that Santa Claus doesn't exist"; the two phrases are semantically indistinguishable. The sharp distinction that some atheists have drawn between "I don't believe that God exists" and "I believe that God doesn't exist" is thus a largely artificial one, serving mainly to try to manipulate the framing of the theist-atheist debate (much like the redefining of atheism as negative rather than positive), not to elucidate genuine differences of opinion. In the end, it's all just semantics; most people who call themselves "strong atheists" couldn't be picked out from "weak atheists" in a crowd, and vice versa. What you believe has little to do with whether you happen to prefer to call yourself "strong" or "weak". -Silence 00:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking that more rhetorically, as an indication that the dividing line ought be clearer. It sounds like this is one of those "I'm gonna try to categorize things so minutely that I can no longer make a clear distinction" issues which so many people (including, I confess, myself) seem to have. Or maybe it's just any issue with that "any logical system must be contradictory or incomplete" axiom that my father loves to quote. Any rate, thanks. I usually don't call myself anything with regards to religion so no matter.

~Luke (I really need to found myself a cult. . .) --71.192.116.43 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weak atheism and likelihood

From the "misconceptions" section:

"Weak atheists think the existence and non-existence of God are equally likely Again, while this may be true of some weak atheists, it is not a requirement. An individual can believe that one is vastly more likely than the other and still be a weak atheist."

But a paragraph later the article points out this exact state of belief, believing the lack of God to be vastly likelier than the existence of one, as a subset of strong atheism that isn't a faith-based position. Now, seeing as the whole point of this weak/strong dichotomy is that you can't be both, I changed this to say "An individual can believe one to be likelier than the other, but still not to what they see as a sufficient degree to warrant belief in either". --AceMyth 04:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's quite possibly one of the worst sentences I have ever read. --Dannyno 22:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, excuse me while I curl up in a corner and cry. That's what you get when you attempt to strip the fuzzy doublespeak from an article that seems to uphold the view that the definitions of "truth", "belief", "theory" and "likelihood" are completely subject to the whims of whoever wants to use them in any way they see fit. Thus you can apparently see something as "vastly more likely" than some other thing yet still fail to "accept" or "believe" it in any way because it is not absolutely certain. While Descartes' Demon points at you and laughs. --AceMyth 20:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is accurate. Sad mouse (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weak Atheist vs. Mild Atheist

I've noticed that with regard to Agnosticism instead of using Strong/Weak to define the opposite extremes of the persuasion they use Strong/Mild. I like this much better and was wondering how others feel about this distinction. "Weak" seems to indicate a weakness of the individual, whereas "Mild" seems to be more of a commentary on the strength of their opinion on the matter. Also, "mild" in many instances can actually be a compliment, whereas "weak" is almost never a flattering adjective. Which would you rather be ... a mild athlete or weak athlete ... a mild intellectual or a weak intellectual ... a mild atheist or a weak atheist? Which is more accurate?

I think another thing that really bothers me about the "weak" nomenclature is that by definition "weak" is generally considered subjective and inferior to "strong". I think "strong" is a good adjective for those who are 100% confident in the non-existence of God, but that position does not make them superior to those who only believe it is unlikely that God exists. Davea0511 (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a tertiary source Wikipedia (WP) summarizes other reliable sources (RSes) - if "mild" replaces "weak" in RSes WP can then indicate that, but WP is not the place to make that change first. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-19t20:56z

[edit] The concept of "proof"- simplistic

I'm not happy with the way the atheists concept of "proof" is portrayed. No scientifically trained person would claim that it is possible to "prove" anything by means of inductive logic based on empirical observations. We are merely able to justify some degree of likelihood. Thus, the case for high likelihood of the existance of other people's minds can be made by pointing out their anatomical/physiological resemblance to oneself and to behavior that one recognize as indicators of consciousness based on ones own conscious experience. The same logic should be applied to the question of the existance of a theistic god-concept. We cannot demand proofs, but rather arguments for different degrees of likelihood.

--217.68.116.150 (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Kolbjørn S. Brønnick

I have to disagree with you there. The term "likelihood" will get you laughed out of any scientific journal. For the purpose of maintaining objectivity the scientific method implicitly states that all knowledge is based on proofs. Every scientifically trained person bases all their work on that one principle. Although knowledge as defined by the scientific method changes over time that does not mean that proofs are irrelevant or faulty, it merely means exactly that knowledge changes over time as new proofs emerge. The scientific method is not an exercise in likelihood. It's a method to determine discretely whether a hypothesis or a tenet of large hypothesis is true.

Here's why you have to do it that way: "likelihood" cannot be measured or quantified in any way. "Likelihood" is intrinsically a subjectively perceived value. So in the common pursuit of truth we must break things down into hypotheses which are either true, false, or unknown, and you use proofs to make that determination for each hypothesis. If a hypothesis has more proofs than a competing hypothesis one might consider it more likely to be valid, but still that's a largely subjective analysis - and subjectivity is not allowed in the scientific community.

In the discussion of God it's easy to think proofs are worthless because the scientific method is so often wrangled (by both sides). There's however ample evidence that spiritual matters are a different animal than temporal matters, and so it's reasonable to hypothesize that the proofs used would be of a different nature than proofs used to determine the veracity of temporal matters. Call it "spiritual proof" if you may. Such a thing wouldn't be tangible though ... so for those unwilling to accept a spiritual manifestation, for them spiritual matters would indeed be unprovable to themselves.

Davea0511 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)