(October 6, 2008 at 3:06 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:(October 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm)Ace Wrote:(October 6, 2008 at 12:52 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Me tooTotaly agree.and by the way Dawkins in the God delusion does state what you said Ace....
But basically what I'm saying I don't like the definiton that Gnostic Strong Atheism which 'knows' there are no Gods or atleast 'knows' some of them don't exist....
Because I think that is in fact weaker than your atheism and my atheism....I think de-facto atheism leaning towards gnostic atheism but never reaching it is much stronger than that.
So what I mean is if you and me are strong atheists...that IS strong...but the definition of a Gnostic strong atheist in 'important information for theists' on this site.....is weaker than our less gnostic atheism....so why is that definition called strong and ours called weak?
"so why is that definition called strong and ours called weak?"
Not really sure about that.
I mean if the about 0.0.1111111111111% belief in god of a de-Facto atheist is stronger than 0% belief in God shouldn't de-facto atheists be strong atheists and gnostic atheists be (atleast somewhat) weak atheists? Considering de-facto atheism is stronger because it's more based on evidence?
A bit controversial I know...but so is the criticism of religion.
Quote:From wikipedia: Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.[1] Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others.
Also it talks about explicit or implicit atheists.
Basically what I'm saying is I'm not happy with the above definitions...I think 'weak' atheism CAN be weak but it can also be (if it's a de-facto but leaning towards a gnostic) strong...
I think what wikipedia defines as a 'strong' atheist...isn't strong...I do agree that it's a more explicit atheist...but I don't think it's stronger than a de-facto-almost-gnostic atheist for instance.
To conclude: I think a gnostic atheist could be called an explicit atheist.....but strong seems wrong to me because I think a 'weak' ,'negative' atheist can be stronger.
'I've got strange ideas anyway'.
Ah I see, Well I think weather 99% or 100%, your still classed as a strong atheist.
I class myself as a strong atheist. Since I'm 99% sure there is no god.
I agree with you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
