Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism

[Aeternitas]

Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.

Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist. [...]

More here...

If you are an atheist, what category do you classify yourself under, based on these definitions? Please take the poll.

I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe in any god(s), but I'm not concerned with proving that god(s) doesn't/don't exists(s). I just simply don't believe in any. I haven't come across any convincing facts to make me think otherwise.
So, I may be wrong and consider the possibility that I am wrong.
I'm not religious and I feel fine that way. I don't need a "god" in my life. But I am fine with religion and religious people as long as they don't try to impose their religion on others at any cost.

[Pervitinist]

I'm a strong atheist concerning the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) God because I find the very concept of a monotheistic God to be self-contradictory while being a weak or agnostic atheist concerning most other Gods in most senses of the word.

Besides, I think the crucial (and tricky) point about a-theism is not so much its epistemic status as a belief or lack thereof, but rather the definition of its object.

[Nekron]

there is no God, but if there is one, it would not matter

[Thruthheim]

The whole term "Atheism" implies we are Religious by default, or from birth. I'm not Religious, I'm not anything in that regard, labelling me something and calling it a belief only gives the question an unnatural bias towards the concept of Religion. Which is man-made.

[Aupmanyav]

I am a strong atheist, but I am quite religious. In India, this sort of belief is known as 'Advaita' (non-dualism) in Hinduism. Advaita believes in a universal substrate, 'Brahman'. But 'Brahman' is not a God, it does not need to be worshiped, it does not interfere in human affairs. It is the quantum field constituting all things in the universe which also creates space-time.

In this theory, there is no soul, no karma, no heaven and hell, reincarnation is only changes in the field, and Nirvana is the understanding of this scheme of things. Of course, there are rules of social conduct, which Hinduism calls 'Dharma', and everybody is supposed to follow them. I do not have any problem with the Hindu myths, since I take them to be stories created to impart social sense and wisdom of life.

So for me, being religious is being cognisant of the scheme of things in the universe, and caring for our society and environment,

[SineNomine]

Personally I am agnostic, but leaning towards deism. As a "religion" I like Satanism and its egotheism best.

[Patrioten]

Strong atheist. I can't see any logic behind claims of the existence of gods and what more. In my opinion religion is a product of human fantasy and imagination, created to quench the human mind's thirst for an explanation for everything's existence and meaning, back when science wasn't around to give an explanation. That's a basic instinct of humans, the need and desire to understand ones surroundings and the conditions, occurrences and patterns that helps to dictate life itself.

Even if there was a god it would be ridicilous for anyone to claim that their god or gods are the "right ones", on what criteria would you claim such a thing? The oldest religion? The religion with the most scriptures and relics? The religion with the most followers? The religion that just so happened to be the dominant one where you live and being the one your parents belong to even though some thousand years ago your ass would have been doomed by default for all eternity since your precious god didn't consider it worth the effort to spread his word to every continent at the same time and hence ensuring that you were believing in the wrong blasphemous faith?

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I am a strong atheist, but I am quite religious. In India, this sort of belief is known as 'Advaita' (non-dualism) in Hinduism. Advaita believes in a universal substrate, 'Brahman'. But 'Brahman' is not a God, it does not need to be worshiped, it does not interfere in human affairs. It is the quantum field constituting all things in the universe which also creates space-time.

In this theory, there is no soul, no karma, no heaven and hell, reincarnation is only changes in the field, and Nirvana is the understanding of this scheme of things. Of course, there are rules of social conduct, which Hinduism calls 'Dharma', and everybody is supposed to follow them. I do not have any problem with the Hindu myths, since I take them to be stories created to impart social sense and wisdom of life.

So for me, being religious is being cognisant of the scheme of things in the universe, and caring for our society and environment,

This isn't bad! Here is how I explain myself. Imagine walking through a park and two old men are playing chess on a table and arguing. As you walk by, they stop you and want you to decide the argument. One says the world is flat and the other says the world is hollow. They grab you by the arm and won't let you go until you tell them which one is the truth.

Atheism is a reaction to religion. If there is not god, there is no religion and so the reaction of atheism is superfluous. If the concept of "god" does not ever originate in your mind, if, in your daily internal dialogue the word "god" does not ever arise, then there is no need to call upon some other external entity (atheism) to counter it.

This does not mean religion can not be appreciated in others or that it has no cultural value. For Germanics, especially, it is a link to our cultural heritage and for that reason alone it has value. Also, some practices of Germanic belief have real, practical outcome and so have value in themselves.

[Aupmanyav]

Dr. Solar Wolff, I would not agree that atheism is only a reaction to religion. How and why the world was created, how and what makes it go, are very valid questions. As Patriotpatrik said, trying to understand things is a normal human instinct. My atheism is my search for truth and answer to these problems. It is simple, not confusing, and quite satisfactory.

[Blood_Axis]

I'm a weak atheist. I don't believe in any god(s), but I'm not concerned with proving that god(s) doesn't/don't exists(s). I just simply don't believe in any. I haven't come across any convincing facts to make me think otherwise.
So, I may be wrong and consider the possibility that I am wrong.
I'm not religious and I feel fine that way. I don't need a "god" in my life. But I am fine with religion and religious people as long as they don't try to impose their religion on others at any cost.

Couldn't have said it better myself

P.S. Struggling to prove that God(s) do(es) not exist, it is a kind of religious fanaticism in itself.

To me, it is as absurd as trying to convince the French not to eat frogs. What difference does it make for my own self-development if they eat frogs or not? (Of course, I don't want to be forced to eat frogs as well).

I hope you get my point by this stupid example...