So-called "strong" atheisim is a myth, isn't it?

Question

I keep seeing posts distinguishing between "weak" atheists and "strong" atheists, both of which are different from agnostics. Agnostics sit on the fence and say it's not possible to know whether a god exists (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not one). "Weak" atheists say that there is no evidence to support a belief in god, but would look seriously at any evidence if it came along. "Strong" atheists, apparently, are CERTAIN that there is no god and would not consider any evidence to the contrary.

I'm as certain as it's posssible to be that there is no god but I know of no atheist who would refuse to consider evidence if it was presented. That's what atheists go by - evidence. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges that he would scientifically consider evidence for god if it was forthcoming. So would I.

I'm of the view that "strong" atheism is therefore a non-existent position proposed by theists to ridicule atheism (how uncharacteristic of them, eh?). I'm happy - because I always like to look at evidence - to be told otherwise. Would anyone like to defend the "strong" atheist position? From either atheist or theist positions? Or is it a non-existent stance used as a strawman by theists?

Answer 1

sounds nonsense to me
you either believe or dont believe in a deity
how can that be weak or strong .... it just is

Answer 2

David Hume demonstrated that no form of evidence would suffice to demonstrate God exists (1), therefore weak Atheists make an openness (to evidence) claim that is vacuous. Someone taking a strong position on atheism may simply recognize that a supposed being which cannot be empirically addressed is meaningless to humanity. If I can't address it through experiential means, it also (by definition) cannot influence me, and is not worth putting my attention on. Think about it this way; if God has some influence on the universe that influence should be measureable. If not, I have no reason to consider whether God does or does not exist, because he/she/it has no 'practical' existence for me.

Now, my personal belief system is compatible with both atheism and theism, depending on what one emphasizes, but I can see the strong Atheist position.

Answer 3

I agree with you, I was between Agnostic and Atheist for a while. However, now I know I am an Atheist, because to me evidence is important. I have learned not to trust witness accounts long ago. I'm also an existentialist, I cannot conform to just anything and settle with it, I will ponder on it untill I positively have an answear. As an atheist I do not believe in G-d but I am not completly rulling out the posibility. I'm am not hard headed enough to have proof in front of me and still deny the truth. And even if there is a day where there is proof that a G-d exists I'm not sure if I will worship it.

Answer 4

It's really very simple. All Atheists reject the existence of god(s). However, an Atheist, being (by definition) an individual capable of independent thought, would always be open to provable evidence to the contrary. It is a trait of theists to reject anything that might contradict their pre-conceived notions. Labels like "strong" and "weak" are just artificial devices created by theists to construct divisions among Atheists.

.

Answer 5

I'd say you have what I call a fair stance.

In my mind, weak atheists are those who have no philosophical or reasonable backing for what they believe. They're an atheist because they don't want to believe in a God.

There are strong and weak Wiccans; those who perhaps read a portion of a single book and decide they are "Wiccan", and those who have done some serious study.

Perhaps the "weak atheists" are those who have just recently adopted that philosophy, or those who don't have the intellect to study their position thoroughly.

I certainly don't consider having an open mind as being "weak". Indeed that is a strength and the basis of scientific investigation.

Answer 6

You are right, of course. Any atheist confronted with actual evidence of a god would surely use common sense to review their position. Many theists, sadly, are SO confident of their position that they will die believing the mythology they have swallowed. Sadder yet, it's not very likely they will be aware of the error of their ways! This would be acceptable if religious faith were always, or even "mostly", a power for good, but that does not currently seem to be the way it is. When we have elected leaders like Virgil Goode of Virginia complaining that one of his impending team-members wants to take his oath "on the wrong book" (gasp! horrors! a muslim in government! my fairy tale is much more valid than his fairy tale!), something is awry!

Answer 7

I would agree that most atheists fall under the definition of weak/soft/agnostic atheism.

However, just as there are extremes to every position on the spectrum of belief, I am sure there are those that proclaim, as if they know, that there is no god and no possibility, and so on and so forth.

I hesitate to say any position is a myth, as I can't know the minds of all people.

Answer 8

I think you may (perhaps) be confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Atheists do not believe in God.

Agnostics are open to the concept of God, but await some sign or proof.

This is my understanding based on alleged atheists and agnostics I have known.

Answer 9

The evidence is all around you. The bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God. man's wisdom is foolish and the things of God are simple and easy enough for a child to understand. Athiests choose to be willingly ignorant of the truth because you want physical evidence. How proud of you to say to the God that gave you life, You dont exist. Well you are wrong and we will all see the truth on the day of judgement. read the bible I dare you.

Answer 10

If I had to label myself, it would be an agnostic atheist. A Higher Power doesn't make any sense to me, but of course nobody is 100% sure.

Everybody is partly agnostic.

A strong atheist/christian/muslim etc, etc, is somebody who claims to know the truth, a 'weak' one is not so sure. "Strong" sounds more like "arrogant" to me.