On Dec 5, 2003, at 11:43 , Kenneth Gorelick wrote: > As an aside, IMHO, an atheist must be as strong a believer as a > religious person--both have determined positions on a fact that cannot > be proven. The only non-belief driven position is that of the > agnostic. OK, not to turn this into alt.atheism nor to begin any flame-wars, but no. There are two types of athiests, to begin with: so-called "strong " and "weak" atheists. "Strong" atheism can be summed up as "I believe there is no God" and weak "I do not believe there is a God" (and agnosticism: "I have no belief for or against"). It's a subtle distinction, but a clear one. People who make a claim have the burden of proof for that claim, which I would define as the responsibility for defending your claims with some concrete evidence or explanation that can be verified and fits within the common experiential framework we all share. The person making any claim has the burden of proof, but there is a problem when we're talking about supernatural claims. Claiming that something occurred that is neither reproducible nor has any explanation that fits within the previously observed behaviors of our universe means that you have to prove that such a thing occurred in the matter that you ascribe to it. If I say "I don't believe that the event that you describe could have possibly occurred, so please prove to me that it did", I am not making a claim; I am asking you for evidence that backs up your own claim. This would be similar to weak atheism: "I don't believe that your god exists, so please provide proof". If I say "I believe that the event you described did not happen", I am making a counter-claim and should provide the evidence that I have for my belief. I might have witnesses who did not see what you claimed to see or other physical evidence that shows that it could not have happened the way you claim, and/or I might find contractions or paradoxes in your claim that point to seeming impossibility of the event as described. However, you would still have a burden of proof to give evidence for the supposed event, and a lack of any evidence is a strong indication that you're claims are sketchy.* This approach, then, would be more in line with strong atheism, and most commonly strong atheists (like me) use contradictory claims in the four gospels (differing recounts of the resurrection story, empty tomb or no, etc.) which are all supposed to be equally factual as at least one argument against Christianity. Though, I have to say that most strong atheists also encompass the attributes that I've ascribed to weak atheists above, so there must be at least a subset of strong atheists who hold "weak atheist" beliefs. At any rate, the idea that you should not make claims without at least some evidence that is not purely experiential (memory, etc.) is highly recommended if you want to be believed. I can easily dismiss impossible events if there is no evidence simply because I choose to not believe events unless multiple sources of information back up the claim. *Application of Occam's razor (http://skepdic.com/occam.html) is highly recommended as a tool for determining the likelihood a given explanation for/of an event. And, please don't call atheism or science a religion; religion implies a lot more than "a set of beliefs". I'm not implying that you are doing so, but it _may_ have been what was implied by your statement I've quoted above. You do both atheism and religion a disservice if you call atheism a religion. ( <- The most inflamatory statement in this whole email, isn't it? :) ) -- Matthew S. Klahn Software Architect, CodeTek Studios, Inc. http://www.codetek.com