Is 'Strong' atheism weak?

[Edwardo Piet]

I used to be what you would call a 'strong' atheist; because I believed 100% there was no God...because I disliked the idea and I also thought it was stupid....

However I never looked for evidence of my belief and evenutally because of this I became an agnostic and then a believer....

Now however I know of evidence against God...the evidence that there is such a lack of evidence and the idea of God is so complex and absurd he's extremely improbable....

I don't think this lack of evidence for God and the unlikelyhood of his existence will ever be shaken in me....I feel I am much stronger than when I was a Gnostic 'strong' atheist.

Now I am very CLOSE to a Gnostic 'strong' atheist....but I am still agnostic because my beliefs are now based on evidence rather than hating God or simply 'thinking the idea is stupid'.

I am now a slightly agnostic De-Facto atheist leaning towards gnostic 'strong' atheism; BUT I will probably never get there and I never WANT to get there because ruling out possibilites is very unscientific.

Someone who 'knows' 100% there is no God...is in fact denying possibilites and therefore denying evidence (or lack of evidence) atleast somewhat...IMO

[Ace Otana]

I am a strong atheist.

Not to the point where I am 100% of there being no god but to the point of 99%.

I have to leave that little 1% out to allow some room for religion to be right.

99% sure that there is no god, If I add one more percent, I'd be claiming! Since I would then be saying that I know there is no god. If I leave that little gap, I'll be just on the very edge of claiming.

So I see in my view that the existance of god is extremely improbable. I do not claim that he is impossible.

So I am a strong atheist but only one percent from claiming that there is no god.

If I was asked of just how sure I was I'd say 99.99% sure that there is no god. So yer, I'm a strong atheist.

If I was 100% sure, I'd be claming that there is no god and that would mean for me to prove it and you can't dis-prove a negative.
So I'm at 99%, where I'm leaving that little gap that seperates claiming and strong dis-belief.

I am a strong 99% sure atheist.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am a strong atheist.

Not to the point where I am 100% of there being no god but to the point of 99%.

I have to leave that little 1% out to allow some room for religion to be right.

99% sure that there is no god, If I add one more percent, I'd be claiming! Since I would then be saying that I know there is no god. If I leave that little gap, I'll be just on the very edge of claiming.

So I see in my view that the existance of god is extremely improbable. I do not claim that he is impossible.

So I am a strong atheist but only one percent from claiming that there is no god.

If I was asked of just how sure I was I'd say 99.99% sure that there is no god. So yer, I'm a strong atheist.

If I was 100% sure, I'd be claming that there is no god and that would mean for me to prove it and you can't dis-prove a negative.
So I'm at 99%, where I'm leaving that little gap that seperates claiming and strong dis-belief.

I am a strong 99% sure atheist.

Yes well by your definition of a strong atheist I'm a strong atheist to the extent that you are....

But I read on this site that a Gnostic Strong Atheist is someone who thinks that the existence of atleast some Gods is impossible.

Gnostic (strong) atheist
Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

I see that this definition - which is in 'important information for theists' in the feedback and suggestions forum - of Strong Atheism is in fact a form of weak atheism...IMO; because it's weak to think that way.

[Ace Otana]

I think I heard somewhere (It may of been Richard Dawkins) where being 99% sure is where you see gawd as extremely inprobable since you cannot dis-prove it, you cannot know there is no god and so being 100% atheist would be claiming that you know there is no god.

I was once 100% definite with no question or any kind of doubt. but when you look at it, You notice that you cannot dis-prove a negative and by being 100% means your claiming there is no god. I didn't like the idea of dropping one percent but I now know why.

I cannot dis-prove god but I can reject the claims of his existance. God has the same likely hood of existing just as santa claws. So that makes god extremely improbable.

The thing about the internet and some dictionarys is that they can contradict each other. I have a dictionary right here and it states that atheism is a religion. See?

I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that there is no such thing as a god. And I'm only leaving 00.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent chance of their being a god. I'm happy with that

[Edwardo Piet]

Me too 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?

[Ace Otana]

Me too 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?

Totaly agree.

"so why is that definition called strong and ours called weak?"
Not really sure about that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Me too 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?

Totaly agree.

"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.

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'.

[Ace Otana]

Me too 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?

Totaly agree.

"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.

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.

[Edwardo Piet]

Me too 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?

Totaly agree.

"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.

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.

Yes I agree; I'd say 99% is strong...but I think 100% is atleast somewhat weak because it rules out possibilites so it is actually... partly 'faith' based.