Talk:Strong atheism

Contents

1 Belief 2 Article Expansion 3 Spiritual Realm 4 Strong, weak atheism = bogus terms? 5 BM Edits

Belief

I think the page makes the point quite well, but I want to make something clear: Atheism is not a belief; it is a LACK of belief; belief in the religious sense, in that it is a type of faith. Atheists do not have faith - they typically use reason, evidence and rationality, NOT belief. The Rev of Bru

Well, that's debateable, which is why there's this strong/weak dichotomy. There are plenty of people out there who think that atheists can have faith in the absence of gods so we have articles describing both positions. Bryan 20:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, strong atheists do not have belief either. Neither strong atheists not weak atheists have beliefs about gods: strong atheists assert that such and such a god cannot exist, or that argument x means that rationally god W cannot exist, but it is not a belief in a religious sense. Many people may be under the delusion or misunderstanding that atheists 'believe that god does not exist' but not atheists themselves. So IMO it would be more honest to state that some people claim atheism is a belief, but that atheists and the definition of the word, and impartial observers disagree.The Rev of Bru

I have heard the term strong atheism used to describe this more often than positive atheism. Same for weak atheism and negative atheism. Google seems to back this up with both sources and hit counts:

• 772 hits for "weak atheism"
• 273 hits for "negative atheism"
• 826 hits for "strong atheism"
• 7,010 hits for "positive atheism"

The discreprancy with "positive atheism" is, I believe, due to a web site named that for other reasons, not because it is about strong atheism. They even use the terms "strong" and "weak":

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#STRONGORWEAK

Therefore, I am moving these articles. Daniel Quinlan 07:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

This page is utter nonsense. You're either an atheist or you're not! If you acknowledge that god/s *might* exist then you're not an atheist - you're an agnostic. Doh! Gene Poole

Just because you're either an atheist or you're not doesn't mean that there can't be various kinds of atheist. Weak atheists lack any belief in the existance a god, which fits under the definition of atheism. Strong atheists also lack that belief, and in addition to that they also believe that no gods exist. There is a significant distinction there. But in any case, both types of atheist are still atheists. An agnostic, on the other hand, is someone who believes that gods are unknowable. This is totally distinct from whether one believes they exist - one can be an agnostic atheist or one can be an agnostic theist, both are possible positions to take. Bryan

errr... did you actually read what you typed? ...because you've just proven my point. "Weak atheists lack any belief in the existence of a god" - well, obviously! "Strong atheists also lack that belief" - of course "and in addition to that they also believe that no gods exist" - and in addition? What the hell does that mean? You already stated that they lack any belief in deities in the first sentence. Why does stating the same fact twice - ie, "that no gods exist" prove that there are "degrees" or "types" of atheism? Short answer: it doesn't. An agnostic is someone who believes that supernatural beings MAY or MAY NOT exist. One simply cannot be an "agnostic atheist" - the term is an absurdity. Gene Poole

Because as I said above, there really is a distinction here. The two positions are not identical and the difference between them has important real-world implications. For example, finding someone "not guilty" in a court of law is significantly different from finding them "innocent." The "not guilty" verdict is analogous to weak atheism ("the charge has not been proven to the court's satisfaction"), and the "innocent" verdict is analogous to strong atheism ("the charge is definitely false"). By the way, the definition of agnosticism you state above is incorrect; what you're describing is weak atheism. The two terms are often used interchangably in casual conversation, but considering that an encyclopedia article on atheism is not casual conversaiton you should be more careful to get your definitions right.

Sorry to interrupt: I think this may help; Scottish Law has a unique verdict in addition to the standard 'Guilty/ Not Guilty set: Not Proven. This would make a better example IMO but I don't want to change someone elses speech. A 'Not Proven' verdict essentially means that the jury thinks the accused is guilty, but cannot prove it. The Rev of Bru

To put theism, weak atheism, and strong atheism in simple terms: if G is the existance of at least one god,

A theist would believe that G is true

A weak atheist would not believe that G is true, nor would he believe that G is false

A strong atheist would believe that G is false

Do you still need further explanation? Bryan

The definition of Strong Atheism here seems to be in direct conflict with essentially every other source I have seen defining Strong Atheism. The current entries for Strong Atheism and Weak Atheism are more correctly grouped under a single Weak Atheism. Strong Atheism posits an actual denial of the existence of gods. Otherwise, with your current definitions, what term do you propose to use to describe those who explicitly deny the existence of gods?

I'm not sure how your defintion conflicts with the one I mention above. To me, "actively denying the existence of gods" is synonymous with saying "I believe that no gods exist." So with the current definitions, I would indeed use "strong atheist" to describe those who explicitly deny the existence of gods. We seem to be in agreement as far as I can tell. Bryan 19:05, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was referring to the actual entry, which states "Strong atheism or positive atheism is the lack of belief in any gods with the strong conviction that no gods exist." This jives with the definition of Strong atheism given on the Atheism entry, and both your and my definitions.

Do you prefer that it state "with the absolute certainty that no gods exist" ? Yath 03:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

it's not so much the "absolute certainty" vs. "strong conviction" rather it's the "explicit denial" vs "lack of belief" - Anonymous

I think "strong conviction" and "absolute certainty" are different shades of the same general idea, and I'd prefer to leave it at "strong conviction" because that seems less likely to spark controversy. But my opinion on that particular matter is not strong. Bryan 04:11, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Bryan, I too think you are wrong. Atheism always means denial of god, and what you describe as the position of strong atheism here Therefore, it is the default belief of many strong atheists that things that cannot be observed and tested and proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt do not exist. - that's exactly what I would say to be the position of weak atheism. A weak atrheist is not someone who beliefs that god might or might not exist - because that would be an agnostic. The difference is that a weak atheist does not accept any assertion of any gods ever presented to him, as for none of them was presented evidence - in that manner he does indeed assume that no god exists, but he states that as a falsifiable theorem - and he acknowledges the possibility that he might be wrong. And thats the difference to strong atheism: The strong atheist claims the nonexistence in a non-falsifiable way, as an undoubtable fact. And this position indeed does require some kind of faith. --Caballito 12:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write that line. Other than that misattribution I agree with everything you wrote, so I'm a little confused as to what you think I'm wrong about. :) Bryan 15:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So I missinterpreted your contributions here in the talk. Sorry for that, and please call back the snipers ;-) --Caballito 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your definitions seem a bit off. First, atheism is not at all about denial of god. Atheism should be understood to be synonymous with weak atheism: lack of god belief. I think you are somewhat mistaken about strong atheism. A strong atheist does not "claim the nonexistence in a non-falsifiable way, as an undoubtable fact." First, the claim of nonexistence is not nonfalsifiable at all. Claiming that something does not exist is easily falsifiable--just show a bit of acceptable evidence of existence. It is claims of existence that are difficult to falsify, as they require showing that the thing does not exist at all places in the universe. This is the basis for burden of proof in theological discussions. Furthermore, the majority of strong atheists are just as agnostic about the idea of god as weak atheists or any other non-believers. They don't pretend to have knowledge that god does not exist, except perhaps for some specific gods for logical or a priori reasons. Strong atheism is simply the belief that no gods exist--it is not a claim of knowledge that no gods exist. For various reasons, this is not equivalent to having faith that something exists, as I and others have tried to explain in the article. Davin 23:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then if that's strong atheism, I'd like t know what you would call weak atheism. A person, asked wether there is a god may answer yes, no, or don't know, and he is an atheist if and only if his answer is no. And just because something is easyly falsifiable does not guarantee that someone can claim this same something in an unfalsifiable way. For a claim to be falsifiable there must be a willingness to accept a falsification. And you can't deny there are atheists who indeed claim positive knowledge that no god exists, who are not willing to examine this claim - If there is any fundamental difference between atheists, then whether or not the claim of nonexistence is stated in a falsifiable way. So how will you call the ones claiming not falsifiable?

BTW: Even if you define strong atheism the way you do, it is still wrong to reject the critic the way you do: When one claims strong atheism to be a kind of faith, and he uses strong atheism the way I defined it, you cannot disprove his claim by providing a "counterexample" that isn't strong atheism by this definition, and that therefore wasn't meant by the statement. --Caballito 00:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already gave the definition of weak atheism: lack of god belief. The difference between weak and strong atheism is described very well at the beginning of the "Strong atheism" article, and those are the definitions I have consistently used. Regarding nonfalsifiability, I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your statements here. First, a falsifiable claim is simply one for which evidence can be conceived of that would prove the claim false. If some people that make a claim won't accept evidence that would prove their claim false, then I agree that it is somewhat problematic for the validity of their belief in the claim, but it does not change the fact that their claim is falsifiable. However, this has no relevance whatsoever to strong atheism. You seem to be saying that because some strong atheists are very dogmatic about their "belief in nonbelief," this is how all strong atheists are, which is simply untrue. Also, I think one should be careful not to use "claim" and "belief" interchangeably. The former is usually concerned with knowledge, while the latter is not; it is merely "assent to a proposition." Strong atheism, as the belief that gods do not exist, is not making a claim of knowledge that gods do not exist. Belief as used in the definition of strong atheism is used in the sense that the probability of the claim being true (no gods exist) is greater than the probability of the claim being false (it is not the case that no gods exist [some god exists]). Davin 23:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If weak atheism does mean "lack of god beilef", then what does mean "lack of god belief"? You define everyone to be "strong" atheist who does answer "no" to the existence question - but thats the definition of atheism, so you leave no place for anything to be weak atheism, except you widen the definition to include peple not answering "no" - but that would be agnosticism. I mean, of course you may denine as you like, but a definition not providing any difference doesn't look very usefull to me.

May be the error is on the the explanation of "weak atheism" at the beginning of the article, where it is described very wrong rather than very well, because the weak atheist does assert that they don't exist - he wouldn't be an atheist if he didn't.

Your claim on falsifiability also doesn't make its point, as it doesn't matter wherther its provable that someone's wrong, when he is not willing to accept this. Does it affect superstition that it's claims are proven to be wrong?

You seem to be saying that because some strong atheists are very dogmatic about their "belief in nonbelief," this is how all strong atheists are, which is simply untrue. And you are consquently arquing on a strawman here, because you ignore my saying this to be the definition of "strong atheism", and when strong atheism is defined to be that way, then it is true (by defintion!) that all strong atheists are so. You continue to alledge me alledging people to be dogmatic who are not, because you use your definition which does include them on my statement which does not include them, as I'm saying they are not (resp. should not be called) "strong" atheists. As long as you ignore that we are arguing the definition itself, you won't be able to understand what I'm saying.

As to your allegation of me interchanging "claim" and "belief": I did not do that. But I wonder in what meaning (unknown to me - you may forgive me that I'm not a native english speaker) you meant me having used it - the meaning I know (and all I found in dictionry) do simply mean in same way or another "(to state an) assertion" - and thats exctly the way I meant it. I wonder, though, whether you might have interchanged "claim" and "faith" ... --Caballito 12:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Addition: Let's reformulate a bit: the strong atheist does believe there is no god, the weak atheist does not believe there is a god. I think you can agree to that. Now lets talk about Santa: Are you a strong or a weak Asantaist? Do you believe Santa exists? Probably not. That would you make a weak Asantaist. But do you believe no Santa exists? Well, I don't - because I can see lots of Santas around christmas ... Obviously none of these is the "real" Santa, whom we agree to not exists. But to be able to say this, you have to know what the real Santa is. Now I imagine a future where there is a christmas tradition of red clothed men with white beards, called "Santas", distributing presents to children, while nobody can remember the origins of this tradition or the Santa tale ... could you honestly claim to a kid of that future, that Santa doesn't exist? Would you have to tell this kid the tale, only to say that it is not true, Santa does not exists and what it knows as Santa is not Santa? Point is: A strong atheist must have a god concept of his own, to be able to say that his neighbours dog called "god" is no god. The weak atheist may happily live without. --Caballito 13:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The definition accepted by the world at large and by strong atheists themselves is the one given in the article; I am not going to argue with you here about whether it should be. It would be like me trying to redefine theism as irrational belief in nonexistent beings. It might be how I view a lot of theists, but I can't just change definitions as I like. Strong atheism is nothing more than the belief that god does not exist; whether some strong atheists would reject evidence of gods is entirely irrelevant to the definition, just as it is irrelevant that some strong atheists probably don't like chocolate ice cream.

I have not mistaken "claim" for "faith," and I wasn't accusing you of making a similar error. I was merely trying to clarify my thinking as I was writing.

Concerning your addition: I would not need to tell the kid the history of santas if he asked me if I believed they existed. I would merely ask him what he means by "santa" when he asks if santa exists, and, based on that definition, would either say no, he doesn't (if the kid defines santa as someone who flies around the world in one night delivering presents to children) or yes, he does (if the kid defines santa as someone who wears red and a grows a white beard during winter). Strong atheists have a "god concept" in the sense that there is a list of attributes that deities are often claimed to have, but it seems that everyone, strong atheist or not, shares such a definition of what it means to be a deity. For a strong atheist to believe that a certain god does not exist, then obviously he or she would have a conception of that god. But being a strong atheist does not require a "god concept" any more than anyone else does. For someone--anyone--to be able to say that a dog is not a god, all it requires is an understanding of what people generally mean by the word god. I agree that a strong atheist has this understanding, or "god concept," but your claim that others don't, or don't require it, is not convincing. For weak atheists to lack belief in gods, they must have some understanding of what people mean by the word god, just as with strong atheists. Strong atheists simply believe that it is very probable that gods do not exist, based upon that generally accepted definition.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand the point of this argument. Do you propose a change to the article? If not, I don't think that this is the best place for this discussion. Davin 01:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Expansion

I added a section on criticisms of strong atheism (believing gods do no exist is just as dogmatic as theists' beliefs in gods) and strong atheist responses to those criticisms. Let me know what you think and where improvements can be made. Cheers. Davin 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Spiritual Realm

Does strong atheism preclude belief in a spiritual realm, like heaven or eternity? Does strong atheism preclude belief in spirits? For example, if a person read dozens of near death experiences and came out convinced they were authentic, but still believed strongly that there were no God, could that person still be a strong atheist? Tom 20:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I don't believe there is any "authority" concerning such nuances, my opinion would be that, technically, no, it does not preclude such beliefs, but that in the vast majority of the uses of the term, yes, it does preclude such beliefs. That is: the vast majority of strong atheists would reject such beliefs, especially in "spirits," but belief in such things would not preclude someone from calling him- or herself a strong atheist. The only way I could imagine such beliefs not being somewhat incongruous would be among those who believe that specific ideas of god do not exist, as opposed to the more general strong atheists who simply feel that disbelief is the only reasonable position until evidence is given that suggests otherwise.

That being said, I know that such debates can be rather controversial, and I would like to hear others' opinions before any changes to the page are considered. Davin 22:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does strong atheism itself preclude belief in a spiritual realm? No, BUT believers in such things are not likely to describe themselves as atheists. EG Buddhism is an atheistic religion, but would, obviously, describe themselves as Buddhists.

The Rev of Bru

The position of strong-atheism itself has nothing to say about the existence of supernatural beings. Perhaps you are thinking about Brights, but not all strong-atheists are Brights, and neither are all Brights strong-atheists.

The noncognitivist arguments certainly imply the non-existence of supernatural beings, but apart from that, I see no reason for a strong-atheist to reject all spiritual beings a priori. A strong-atheist who rejects noncognitivist lines of argument could still uphold supernaturalism. Franc28 02:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about the word supernatural? Do atheists believe that god or gods are "supernatural"? or that nothing is supernatural? Is the belief in the existence of "spirit", or spirits, a belief in the supernatural? Just what does supernatural mean in this context?Pedant

Supernatural means : outside nature, or above nature, or greater than nature. By its definition it would be things that have no evidence for their existence, since if they exist without (outside of in some way) nature, they are not interacting with it. Anything natural can be detected, anything 'supernatural' cannot be detected.... or possibly doesnt exist.The Rev of Bru

Those are a lot of questions. The word "supernatural" in itself means absolutely nothing. It represents something above and beyond the natural world, but the nature of such a substance is a conceptual blank.

The concept of a Creator god is necessarily supernatural, since it must have created the natural world. Therefore it is "above and beyond" it.

As for "spirit", one would have to define it. Much like "supernatural", it seems to be nothing more than a conceptual blank, at least to most atheists (including myself). Franc28 18:08, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Strong, weak atheism = bogus terms?

Is there any authority behind this, or are the authors simply presenting their own views? I've never been able to find any evidence that the terms "strong" and "weak" atheism were in use anywhere except a couple of web sites. In addition, why are there articles on "strong atheism" and "weak atheism" independent of the article on "atheism" (which also defines these terms). It seems to me that this article, and its companion "weak atheism", is just a chat room.

"Strong atheism" gets more than 12000 hits in a Usenet search through Google. So, it's been used in more than a "couple of web sites", it's been used more than twelve thousand times. As for "authority behind this", do you have any factual disagreement with what's stated in the article? Which point exactly are you disputing? Aris Katsaris 17:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It seems to me that "weak atheism" was invented on the usenet and has spun off into various web sites, but there is almost no other basis for it at all. "weak atheists" might find some distinction between "weak atheism" and "agnosticism", but that distinction, if it can even be sustained, is vanishingly small. Terms like "strong", "positive", "weak", etc atheism, hardly advance the discussion at all. Moreover, it is confusing and disorganized to have separate articles dedicated to "atheism", "strong atheism", "weak atheism", "atheism and agnositicism", etc. This area of the Wikipedia is a mess, and basically it seems impossible to clean it up and consolidate it, because the only way to do that is to restructure and collapse articles, and that, of course, is going to lead immediately to reversion wars and cries of "vandalism" because each of these little articles has its own little constituency and police force.

Weak atheism is a legitimate phenomenon, and I for one consider myself a weak atheist. –Andre (talk) 17:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The origin and usage of the term being primarily on the Internet doesn't inherently lessen its worthiness of an article here on Wikipedia. The differences between agnosticism, weak atheism and strong atheism have been argued over frequently, and even if you can't accept the existence of those differences yourself it should be readily apparent that there are plenty of people who do see significant differences between those positions. Since this is all about philosophies and belief, the existence of these people justifies an article about their beliefs, IMO. Bryan 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Usenet is a real part of our world, so whether it was invented there or not is irrelevant -- it's still a widely used term which frankly has a much clearer definition than either agnosticism (which can refer to knowledge as a whole, not just belief about gods) or atheism (which again has multiple usages). And as a widely used term its meaning needs to be reported and detailed as much as can be, not just briefly mentioned. Your insistent "collapsing of articles" against the wishes of everyone else involved in the articles *is* vandalism given how you massively delete valuable information contained in them because you don't they're significant enough -- as if this was a paper encyclopedia. Aris Katsaris 17:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The term "weak atheism" is now prevalent enough that it should be acknowledged, since many people will encounter it at least on the Internet, if not anywhere else. But an entire article separate from Atheism and Agnosticism? Another entire article for "strong atheism". Its out of control. These distinctions and refinements should be compared and contrasted in a single article. That is how the Atheism article was 18 months ago, by the way, and it seems to me that Wikipedia politics rather than logic or clarity has dictated the current structure.

There is perhaps sense in saying that the articles about Strong and Weak atheism would be better off combined into one. Perhaps entitled "Strong and Weak atheisms"? But you shouldn't delete any information contained therein. and either way it would be too long to combine back into the main Atheism or Agnosticism articles.

If you can combine the two articles about Strong and Weak, *without* gratuitous deletion of information that you personally consider unimportant, few people would call you a vandal, I think. To tell the truth even though I don't have any objection to such a merger, I don't find much need for it either. Aris Katsaris 18:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is sufficient controversy in the literature on whether strong atheism is a species of weak atheism or not to make such a merger controversial. My personal position is that they are not conceptually related. Franc28 06:07, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

My conception is that they are both bogus, w the proper labels being "Atheism" and "Agnosticism". Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 12:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A conception on which you will find little or no agreement in the atheistic literature... I have never seen a serious philosopher propose that there is no difference between personal lack of belief (weak-atheism) and a claim of non-existence (strong-atheism). Such a claim makes no sense whatsoever. For one thing, they don't pertain to the same thing at all (one pertaining to someone's mind, and the other to a possible entity outside our mind).

But then again, Mr. Spade, you seem to be in the habit of proposing completely unsupported positions without any references. Franc28 21:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Of course that straw man claim makes no sense, and no one is bothering to make it. I point out that lack of belief = agnosticism, and a claim of non-existence = atheism, and you respond with attempting to reword my statement into foolish viewpoint which is easilly dismissed. Tack on the ad hominem, and we can see why atheist philosophy is so widely renowned for its insight... oh, thats right.. it isn't. Thank God its not our only source here, despite the misleading title of the article. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 11:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All the major atheistic philosophers (Michael Martin, George Smith, Theodore Drange, etc) disagree with you. I have never read any serious atheological article that agrees that lack of belief is not a form of atheism, or that the weak-strong distinction is invalid. Provide evidence from the literature, or I see no point in this discussion. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not opinion.

Furthermore, refusing to acknowledge the existence of another person's position, even if you disagree with it, is a basic lack of respect. I don't go around saying that agnosticism doesn't exist, even though I think there is no logical support for the term to exist. At least have the same respect towards my position. Otherwise what are you doing on a collaborative effort ? Franc28 23:14, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Since when is agnosticism about "lack of belief"? -Sean Curtin 00:15, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Atheist philosophers are not the only source of info needed in this article. Sources outside atheist philosophy (like all other reference sources) agree with me about the definition of atheism. You are correct that I prefer not to believe other people are atheists, but are rather ignorant of proper terminology, but this is out of respect, not disrespect. True atheism, or rejection of God, is fundamentalist amorality in the view of many, and so I find it kinder to assume others have mistakenly mislabled themselves than to accept their self-disparagement at face value, particularly when their definition is ideosyncratic and in direct defiance of expert sources (like the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism)). As far as agnosticism, try encyclopdia.com (http://encyclopedia.com/html/a1/agnostic.asp).

Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 15:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything on the link you provided that comes even close to suggesting that agnosticism is a "lack of belief" (your source actually states, "Agnosticism is not to be confused with atheism", which you yourself seem to have done). -Sean Curtin 00:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Also, among the dictionary definitions for atheism in that first link is the following from Wordnet 2.0: "n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" - this is exactly the distinction between strong and weak atheism. The other two dictionaries use "disbelief or denial", which is less clear but which also seems to distinguish the two distinct subtypes of atheism IMO ("disbelief" being a less dogmatic state than "denial"). Bryan 01:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a recent article in the Secular Web from Anthony Flew, which acknowledges the positive/negative distinction (see http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369 ). That makes ANOTHER proeminent atheistic philosopher who supports the distinction (even though he is a weak-atheist). We can add this to the list of top atheist philosophers composed of Micheal Martin, George Smith, Theodore Drange, all who discuss and support the distinction in their major works. The only atheological book I have read that does not explicitly support the distinction is Everitt's "The Non-Existence of God" (he simply does not talk about it). So where is the evidence that the distinction is not a commonly-accepted fact in the literature ? It's an absurd claim ! Wikipedia should follow the commonly-accepted technical nomenclature, not follow someone's uninformed opinion.

Franc28 14:13, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Strong atheism is a misnomer; it should be antitheism as opposed to atheism, a- meaning without and anti- meaning against of course. Nonetheless, thanks Bryan for disproving Sam again. In the article, scientific proof or disproof is irrelevant to the question of God; there's no such thing as scientific proof or disproof anyway as it relies on empirical foundation. it's logical, a priori, philosophical, semantic, ontological, and metaphysical arguments that can prove or disprove such things. lysdexia 02:54, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why would strong atheism be construed as against theism? Some might be against it for various reasons, but many weak atheists might be as well. There is nothing about believing that gods do not exist that means that one is against religion. Davin 23:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are no scientific disproofs of the god-concept ? What are the Argument from Evolution (http://www.strongatheism.com/atheology/evolution.html), the Argument from Scale (http://www.strongatheism.com/atheology/argumentscale.html) and the Big Bang Cosmological Argument (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html), meat gravy ? Whether you think they are valid or not, you cannot say that "there are no scientific disproofs". Any concept that is said to affect the universe is measurable scientifically, and it's silly to claim otherwise. 12:01, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

It may or may not be possible to disprove the god-concept as a whole (as opposed to specific types of gods, some of which are clearly disprovable). However, none of those three arguments you link to are a disproof, they're just arguments. They're based on premises that do not necessarily apply to all god-concepts. For example, the argument from evolution linked to above depends on the premise that complexity the product of conscious design or natural selection, disregarding the position of many theists that their god exists without being a product of anything in particular. The page on the argument from scale itself says "The Argument from Scale, unlike the Problem of Evil, is not a conclusive argument." The big bang cosmological argument article was too long for me to read in detail, but I note that we don't yet understand the big bang very well and a lot of the premises mentioned are of dubious certainty in modern cosmology (eg, the conditions necessary for the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems such as "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity holds true of the universe" and "Gravity is always attractive" - the first is known to be false because general relativity doesn't mesh with quantum mechanics, and the second has been questioned by some proposed theories explaining things like dark energy. Some of the premises mentioned appear to have been made up out of thin air, such as "No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe" - we don't currently have widely-accepted theories about how the big bang worked, sure, but what basis is there for saying that no such theories are possible?) Basically, it's really really hard for the scientific method to disprove something that proponents claim is omnipotent. :) Bryan 21:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fact is, there are scientific disproofs of "god". The fact that they might not address all conceptions, or that you doubt some of the premises, does not mean they don't exist. And how does an argument being probabilistic make it dismissable ? That's a rather cavalier attitude you have. I think you simply don't want to accept that science has a lot to say about the issue. Franc28 12:42, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

You specifically implied that those three arguments you linked to were "disproofs of the god-concept," I pointed out how each of them appeared to be less than that (based on dubious or contested premises, not applying to all gods, etc.) When did I mention anything about dismissing arguments on account of them being probabilistic? Bryan 15:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bryan, in your own post you say "The page on the argument from scale itself says "The Argument from Scale, unlike the Problem of Evil, is not a conclusive argument."", and that settles your dismissal of the argument. Obviously you were dismissing the Argument from Scale for being probabilistic instead of conclusive. Either way, my point is that regardless of your grievances against the arguments, they are still scientific arguments for strong atheism. 18:02, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Never said they weren't arguments, just that they weren't disproofs. Bryan 05:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now you're wriggling on words. For most purposes, they *are* disproofs, especially on Wikipedia, where the position of the three philosophers who wrote them is more important than yours or mine. 12:20, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Eh? The difference between an argument and a proof (or disproof, in this case) is rather significant, and one can hardly just jump from one to the other on the say-so of the person making the argument. Or would you accept that the various arguments at Arguments for the existence of God are proofs that gods exist? In any event (since you do mention Wikipedia) what exactly is the point of this argument? Lysdexia appears to be uninterested in adding anything to the article, just making comments here on talk:, but this is not a chatroom. Bryan 14:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. I do accept that the Arguments for the existence of God are considered proofs by many theologians, and that is all that is sufficient for them to be on Wikipedia. I simply consider them invalid due to a number of logical fallacies, which are well-known. As for the point of this argument, I was merely pointing out that there are many scientific disproofs - I don't know why you ran away with it, but here we are. 15:47, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

BM Edits

Bryan, that last removal was a glitch which I didn't intend. Not quite sure what happened. I was editing a section, and the article ended up consisting of just that section. I was in the process of fixing the problem.