From: T.G.Nattress@newcastle.ac.uk (Graeme Nattress)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Strong vs. Weak atheism
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:45:56 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

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.

>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"?

>(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.)

> Fred Rice
> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au

I seem to agree with your thoughts on the definitions of atheism, although
thinking about it the weak defn seems more correct an opposite of theism.
Maybe the roots of the word atheism do not show it's exact meaning.

Would I be correct in saying that:

Either,

    1) God can be proven to exist,
    2) God can be proven to not exist.
    3) God's existance (or non-existance) cannot be proven either way.

Then if case 1 applied:

    There would be no need for faith or belief in God because proof would be
given.
    Therefore what was proven to exist would not be a God because faith wouldn't
be needed to acknowledge it's existance.

case 2:

     Then strong atheists were correct all along.

case 3: (which seems to prevail)

    Splits up in 3 ways:

           1) It will never be proven any way.

                Therefore whether you choose to be atheist or theist
                you won't be proved wrong.

            2)  In the future god will be proven to exist.

                case 1 applies

            3)  In the future god will be proven to not exist.

                case 2 applies.


So you can be a strong atheist and have the chance of been proved correct,

or be whatever you want and never be proved wrong.

So if you're going to be an atheist you may as well be a strong one!

Well, that's how I see it.

If anyone sees some gaping flaw in the logic please point it out.  I just
thougt of the argument this morning!

Graeme,

{---    T.G.Nattress@uk.ac.ncl -----------------------------------------}
{-----Hitler is Nibor from the Planet Vashir, the Galactic     ---------}
{---  shape-changing psychopath. ---------------------------------------}
{-----John, The Tomorrow People, Hitler's Last Secret.------------------}