From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:45:54 GMT

In article <ednclark.724465029@kraken>, ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
|> 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").
|> 
|> >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.

I have experienced the same.  To the Christians (not fundies) that I've
encountered in every day life (i.e. not on the net) the term atheism
always implies strong atheism, and the term agnostic implies weak
atheism, sort of.  The Christians I know look upon agnosticism as "I'm
unsure, but open minded or still looking," and atheism as "I've given up
looking; I believe there is no god."  The point is not whether their
definitions are right or wrong (although they are obviously wrong), but
rather that in order to have a conversation that is of any worth with
these Christians, I must adapt and use their definitions.

|> >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 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"?

I agree 100%. The definitions used here differ from the "general community"
which happens to be comprised primarily of theists.  I guess it is usually
the majority that gets to label the minority, no?  It is true, as someone
posted, that the closer you look at people, the harder it is to get them
into neat piles.

But, in regards to picking a new name for ourselves (another thread)
such as "objectivists" or "materialists" or "realists", I object.
Atheist is good enough for me.  Being politically correct is of no
importance to me.  We've seen another minority go from Negro to black to
African-American.  It's just a name.  And while I respect the right of a
group to name themselves in the manner which they deem fit, I suggest
that *we* keep the term "atheist" and be proud to be without theism,
rather than renaming ourselves every 15 years. No matter what name you
choose, the majority will place the same stereotype on it.

|> >(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.)

As do most Christians, I believe.

|> Good to have some intelligent questions on the group. Unfortunately they
|> normally get ignored because it's so much more fun to flame fundies.
|> 
|> Basically, there are so many brands of atheism (ie of not beleiving in a god
|> or gods) that we have decided to use the most defensible definition of
|> atheism as our definition. Atheism (ie strong type), is basically
|> indefensible. Note that this is our newsgroup and we resort to shoring up
|> our defenses whilst exploiting the weakest of the christian ones (ie
|> fundamentalism). I think the majority of us are here for the rare feeling of
|> fellowship not enjoyed by thinking atheists generally and the opportunity to
|> logically pulverise and artistically flame those poor fundamentalist sods
|> who to their horror discover an atheism newsgroup and decide it is their
|> duty to (ho hum) give us the good word.
|> 
|> So getting back to your question, we in no way say this is the legal
|> definition (or gospel definition if you like :-)), just the one that will
|> make sure we win the most arguments.

We do, after all, have the right to define ourselves.  I for one am in a
neverending search to hold the most defensible position (i.e. the most
logically sound and reasonable position).  That is why I became an
atheist (weak).  If further evidence presents itself, I will consider
it.  If Christ knocks on my door, I will follow him, as that will then
become the most defensible position (from my point of view at least).
But until then, logic prevents me from "believing".

|> Jeff.

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.atheism