(November 3, 2011 at 1:57 pm)NathanielFisher Wrote: I've never understood strong atheism. Why would I be able to say I'm a strong atheist based on the above? At the moment I just lean lightly towards atheism.
Strong/positive/gnostic atheism makes the counter claim that there is no god, to the theist assertion that there is a god. Weak/negative/agnostic atheism makes no claim but says there is no reason to believe in a god and challenges the theist to make its case. Strong atheism (or just simply atheism) makes a claim and offers atheological apologetics put forward the truth value of atheism. Does this mean that strong atheists, now have a burden of proof ? No. This seems to be a widespread fear, but why should we fear this? Atheists still don’t have the burden of proof. The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality. Strong atheists claim reality is absolute (axiomatically) and therefore do not make a claim per se about reality. But until theists can give a meaningful account of their belief and give some actual evidence for said meaning, atheists have nothing to prove. All that positive arguments provide are a reiteration of this burden of proof, as well as some other fatal problems with certain assumed properties of the god concept
I cannot speak for agnostic atheists in why they prefer to adopt that position. From what I can gather it is because in reality we can never know/rule in/out the supernatural, and thus there has to be an element of uncertainty. Therefore however atheist you become, you can only approach 100% certainty but never reach it. In short it’s the intellectual honest position. To some extent there is also a disliking or a fear of other people putting the burden of proof on the agnostic atheist to deny what are by any measure fantastic (not in a good way) claims.
But is there really a distinction? Rather, “weak” and “strong” atheism are in fact the same thing, two sides of the same coin. The basic reasoning is that, if you don’t believe in “God”, then the absence of evidence for “God” necessarily entails that you also affirm the non-existence of “God”. For example we can never be certain that L.Ron Hubbard wasn't right about Thetans (as we have never travelled to such far off places), and therefore we cant be sure Scientology isn't true, but it is true that both weak and strong atheists adopt a stance of 'its basically bonkers'. So on and so forth for Santa, Unicorns and the Tooth Fairy (more traditional fare). Strong atheism therefore would consider itself more consistent as we summarily dismiss such notions, not because we can 100% prove/evidence there truth or falsity, but because we are not JUSTIFIED in believing such abject nonsense. And strong atheism maps that approach to Theism and reserves no special reverence for its claims over any other delusional truth claim. When all is said and done whatever type of atheist you are only a Believer is deluded enough to look past the total lack of evidence and reasoning.
There are many strong atheological arguments. Most are served up as rejoinders to theistic claims about cosmological origins, design, morality, personal experience, historicity of Jesus, TAG or whatever is the theistic claim. Some however directly challenge theism and can be rendered without theism making the fist move (as it were). The argument from non-cognitivism (meaninglessness) of god, the hiddenness of god, the problem of evil/innocent suffering (inductive and deductive forms), the incoherency and self contradictions of god, the main-brain dependence, the essential presumption of naturalism. There are others.
Oh and welcome.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
