Strong and weak atheism

Due to the flexibility of the concept of “ God ” itself, it is possible that a person can be a positive / strong atheist in relation to certain ideas about God , while remaining a negative / weak atheist from the point of view of others. For example, God in classical theism is regarded as the Supreme Personality, who is omnipotent , omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent , caring for people and human affairs. One may be a positive atheist of such a deity (when viewed from the side of the problem of evil ), but at the same time he is a negative atheist in relation to the deistic concept of God, rejecting faith in such a deity, but not explicitly claiming that this would be a lie.

Michael Martin proposes to directly correlate the very concept of “ atheism ” in the meaning of the belief that there is no god or gods with the concept of “ positive atheism ” for the convenience of demarcation . Moreover, a positive atheist is always negative , but not vice versa ^[5] .

Weak and strong atheism differ from the lesser-known categories of explicit and implicit atheism of the philosopher George Smith ^[6] , because they are in connection with the statement - is it true that the gods do not exist from the side of a particular view of the individual. “ Positive explicit ” atheists claim that the existence of any deities is a lie. “ Negative explicit ” atheists claim that they do not believe in the existence of any deities, but do not claim that this is true. Those who do not believe in the existence of any deities, but are not affirmed in such unbelief, are among the implicit atheists. Thus, implicit atheists sometimes include the following categories: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who heard about the deities, but never attached any significant significance to it; those agnostics who have suspended faith in deities, but do not give up such beliefs. All implicit atheists are included in the category of negative / weak atheists.

According to the positive / negative classification, some agnostics will be classified as negative atheists. The validity of this categorization is disputed, however, some well-known atheists, such as Richard Dawkins , avoid this. In “ God as an Illusion, ” Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is described by the words “ very high ” and “ very low, ” as “ agnostic ” and “ convinced atheist, ” respectively, while the latter claim to know that God does not exist . At the same time, Dawkins classifies himself on this scale as “an actual atheist, ” and not as “ convinced ” ^[7] . In negative atheism, the philosopher Anthony Kenny further distinguishes between agnostics who find the statement " God exists " indefinite, and theological non-cognitiveists who consider all discussions of the gods meaningless ^[8] .

Jacques Maritain used the positive / negative values ​​back in 1949 , but in a different meaning and in the context of Catholic apologetics ^[9] . By negative atheism, he understood the destructive process in which the idea of ​​God, replaced by emptiness, was discarded. Positive atheism, in turn, implied a struggle against everything that recalls God, a kind of heroic efforts aimed at remaking and restoring the human values ​​system in this “ war ” against God. As vivid examples of positive atheism, he cites Nietzsche's “ lonely and tragic ” atheism, the fashionable atheism of existentialism, and the revolutionary atheism of dialectical materialism .

Goparaju Ramachandra Rao (1902-1975), known by the nickname "Mountain", was an Indian public figure, atheist, and an opponent of caste division . He proposed the creation of a philosophy of “ positive atheism, ” which considers atheism as a way of life, which was described in his 1972 book Positive Atheism ^[10] .

The Atheist Community of Austin (ACA ) uses the term positive atheism in a different sense. The ACA lays the positive face of atheism in this concept and dispels the false and negative image portrayed by religious people, especially in places of worship, veneration and worship ^[11] .

, an American publicist who hosts the show, illustrates the burden of proof and the difference between strong and weak atheism by giving an example of a large can of sweets that can contain either an even or an odd number ^{[12] [ 13] [14]} . Before we get any information about the number of sweets, we have no way to check any of these two statements, in this case we postpone making a judgment in favor of one of the statements. From the point of view of epistemology , when there are no personal preferences towards opposing statements, it makes sense to be skeptical of both statements ^[15] . This example shows that when an assertion is controversial, the burden of proof lies with the approver, because if the approver does not have sufficient evidence to support his assertion, such an assertion can be considered an argument for ignorance . In relation to atheism, the position not to believe the statement that the number of candies is even is similar to weak atheism, and the position to accept the statement that the number of candies is odd is similar to strong atheism. Obviously, not accepting one statement does not mean automatically accepting the opposite statement.

• Agnosticism

• Ignosticism
• Neteism