From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:16:55 GMT

In article 19427@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>According to the FAQ, atheism is usually defined in this group as 
>the "absence of a belief in any gods" (so-called "weak atheism"), rather
>than the "belief in no god(s)" (so-called "strong atheism").

You got it. That's the operative net.definition.

>I had never come across this definition of atheism (i.e. weak atheism)
>before seeing it in this newsgroup.  Atheism, as I understood it, always 
>meant strong atheism.

Hmmmmm. Might I ask where you got your previous understanding?

>To use the word "atheist" for "weak atheism" can be confusing.  For
>example, using this definition, an agnostic (one who believes that it is
>not possible to know if God(s) exist(s) or not) is an atheist.  Since an
>agnostic admits the *possibility* of God existing, when one speaks of 
>atheists in general (as we are including "weak atheists"), an
>atheist may believe in the possibility of God existing.

I dont buy this one.

I'd say agnosticism was still separate, as they do not take sides on
the issue- they hold it undecidable- whereas atheists (including weak
atheists) do take sides, and consider it decidable (against gods).

They merely do not believe that the existance of gods can be disproven
in general. But they (err, well I) consider the sheer lack of evidence
a good reason not to believe in gods.

Of couse, this kind of pidgeonholing never works anyway. :)
For instance, I'm a weak atheist in general but a strong atheist
wrt the Traditional Christian Type God- ya know, Mr. All-Loving
All-Powerfull Father Figure, who did all that stuff in the Bible.
I think any such figure contradicts itself in its definition, but this
does not apply to all gods- not even all Christian Gods- just this very
specific one.

Kind of annoying, isn't it? :)

>I don't know, this definition of atheism to me seems to be one not used
>in the general community, at least in my experience.  Am I alone in
>thinking that the commonly used definition of "atheism" is assumed to be
>"strong atheism"?

Errr, my impression is that most pay no attention to the term at all,
and so when they use it they could very easily miss the difference between
strong and weak muffed up. It's not a big difference after all.

>(To say that an atheist believes that God *may* exist seems an alien
>concept to me, as I had always considered atheists and agnostics to be
>distinctly different groups.)

Atheists do not believe that God *may* exist exactly. They don't believe
in God at all, but weak atheists feel they could be proven wrong in the
future (however unlikely that may be)

At least, that's my interpretation of the "not believe in God"/"Believe
in no God" distinction. No doubt someone can better it.

Also, my apologies to anyone I just painted plaid with my very broad
brush here. [waves 3-mile-wide metaphorical paintbrush]
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.