Weak atheism is not a view, it is simply a fact, someone that have never heard about gods, and hasn’t invented any for himself, is a weak atheist.

Agnosticism, as asked about earlier, is not a question of atheism or theism, it is not a question of faith, but an epistemological question, a question of knowledge - about what we can know. Agnostics claim that they have no knowledge of the existence of gods, or that knowledge cannot be had, this however does not stop them from being either theists or atheists.

That’s atheism, not weak (or negative) atheism. That definition includes strong atheists too.

Try this:

- The theist believes that god exists.
- The Strong atheist believes god doesn’t exist.
- The weak atheist doesn’t believe that god exists, and also doesn’t believe that god does not exist. They are the undecideds, the fence sitters, the people who have never heard of god, and anyone else is neither a theist nor a strong atheist.

“Statement (2) is the claim of the positive atheist. The positive atheist is making claim to two different arenas: her belief state and existence. The positive atheist is declaring what she believes and is also stating a claim concerning God’s existence.”

No, I’m a strong atheist if I believe god does not exist. I don’t have to make the claim that god does not exist. I don’t have to make any claims at all. I can secretly believe that there is not god, and never tell anyone.

“1. The Negative Atheist: I don’t believe God exists= ~B:G
2. The Positive Atheist: I believe God does not (or cannot) exist= B:~G”

Make it:
- Negative atheist: ~B:G ~B:~G

Otherwise, the positive atheists are a subset of the negative atheists.

crc

Nick, while in a core idea of this type of statement is technically correct, ignoring any and all nuances about what we believe (and why) can be dangerously reductionist. Parsimony is useful as a rule of thumb, but does have its limits. Especially when something as complex as the brain is involved.

Unfortunately, it just isn’t that simple. You may, under some circumstances, defend a claim that positive atheism is a religion: there is a positive belief in a proposition for which that is (as far as I know) no proof or evidence. Negative atheism is not, under any circumstances or in accordance with any acceptable use of the word, a religion.

It may look like hair-splitting to some people, but as a negative atheist myself I am irritated by claims that I maintain a positive belief in something that I have no evidence or proof of. And when religious leaders write articles in newspapers (http://tinyurl.com/59uwyn) they sometimes like to take a swipe at atheists. One of their favourite attacks is that atheists are inconsistent; that on the one hand atheists criticise theists for believing something without proof or evidence but on the other hand believe something themselves without proof or evidence. You may be able to attack positive atheism on that basis, but you simply cannot attack negative atheism on that basis.

The distinction is important.

However, if it was just for fun, then, I have no further comments. My FUN rests else where. Not in this. But I understand for those who find this fun. Whatever makes you happy man.

Thanks,
Nick

How then would you define an agnostic? As a deist? Or as an atheist? I’d argue that there are indeed levels of “atheisticness”. The article is trying to define just that - there is a spectrum of atheism, just like there’s a spectrum of deism.

And come on, this is the Internet. There’s nothing more fun than examining issues in nano-sized detail!

~ Nick