Changes

'''Weak atheism''' (sometimes referred to as "negative [[atheism]]") describes a belief system and philosophical stance whereby a person lacks a belief in gods. It differs from [[strong atheism]], which goes further than a simple lack of belief and makes an assertion that no gods exist. It also differs from [[agnosticism]], in that a weak atheist says they do not believe in gods, while agnostics say they do not know whether or not any gods exist. Many weak atheists are also agnostics.

'''Weak atheism''' (sometimes referred to as "negative [[atheism]]") describes a belief system and philosophical stance whereby a person lacks a belief in gods. It differs from [[strong atheism]], which goes further than a simple lack of belief and makes an assertion that no gods exist. It also differs from [[agnosticism]], in that a weak atheist says they do not believe in any gods, while agnostics do not know whether or not any gods exist.

Most commonly, weak atheism is premised on the belief that the ''[[theist]]'', not the atheist, bears the burden of proof to show that any gods exist, because it is the theist who is asserting the existence of an entity. They typically compare belief in gods with belief in other equally indemonstrable beings like "flying spaghetti monsters,"<ref>http://www.venganza.org/</ref> or "invisible pink unicorns,"<ref>http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/</ref> and argue, "The person attempting to convince me that the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] exists has the burden of proof. In the absence of sufficient proof to warrant belief, I am justified in disbelieving in all these beings."

Weak atheism is based on the belief that the ''[[theist]]'', not the atheist, bears the burden of proof to show that any gods exist, because it is the theist who is asserting the existence of an entity. Weak atheists typically compare belief in gods with belief in other equally indemonstrable beings like "flying spaghetti monsters,"<ref>http://www.venganza.org/</ref> or "invisible pink unicorns,"<ref>http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/</ref> and argue that, "The person attempting to prove that the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] exists has the burden of proof. In the absence of sufficient proof to warrant belief, I am justified in disbelieving in all these beings."

As George Smith wrote:

As George Smith wrote regarding positive versus negative belief:

:"If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.",<ref>Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith</ref>

:"If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed.",<ref>Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H. Smith</ref>

This principle on which the philosophy is founded comes from the Latin phrases like ''necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'' meaning "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains" and ''ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat,'' meaning "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies."

== Theistic responses ==

The philosphy can be summed up by Latin phrases like ''necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'' meaning "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains" and ''ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat,'' meaning "the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies."

Weak [[atheism]] is often construed by theists as a highly negative and destructive point of view, that lacks a positive, thought out alternative. As Jacques Maritain wrote:

 

==Theistic responses==

Weak [[atheism]] is often construed by theists as a highly negative and destructive point of view that lacks a positive alternative. As Jacques Maritain wrote:

:"By negative atheism I mean a merely negative or destructive process of casting aside the idea of God, which is replaced only by a void. Such a negative atheism can be only shallow and empirical, like the [[atheism]] of the libertians of the seventeenth century: it hollows out a vacuum at the center of the universe of thought which has taken shape for centuries around the idea of God, but it does not bother about altering that universe; it is concerned merely with making us live comfortably in the empirical freedom of doing whatever we want. On the other hand, negative atheism can be deeply and metaphysically lived: in which case the void it creates at the center of things extends to and lays waste our whole universe of thought; the freedom it claims for the human ego is absolute independence, a kind of divine independence that this ego, like Dostoievski's Kirilov, has no better way of affirming than by suicide and self-destruction."<ref>Jacques Maritain, ''On the Meaning of Contemporary [[Atheism]]'', The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 267-280, July, 1949.</ref>

:"By negative atheism I mean a merely negative or destructive process of casting aside the idea of God, which is replaced only by a void. Such a negative atheism can be only shallow and empirical, like the [[atheism]] of the libertians of the seventeenth century: it hollows out a vacuum at the center of the universe of thought which has taken shape for centuries around the idea of God, but it does not bother about altering that universe; it is concerned merely with making us live comfortably in the empirical freedom of doing whatever we want. On the other hand, negative atheism can be deeply and metaphysically lived: in which case the void it creates at the center of things extends to and lays waste our whole universe of thought; the freedom it claims for the human ego is absolute independence, a kind of divine independence that this ego, like Dostoievski's Kirilov, has no better way of affirming than by suicide and self-destruction."<ref>Jacques Maritain, ''On the Meaning of Contemporary [[Atheism]]'', The Review of Politics, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 267-280, July, 1949.</ref>