|
Yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not even really a concession, though. Just the same as a weak atheist will admit that the JudeoChristian god may exist, the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster may exist (as I suspect you, UsTwo, agree). Because one cannot definitively disprove something in a vacuum of evidence is hardly proof of it's existence. The important part, though, is in admitting that believing in something despite a lack of evidence is plainly wrong. Just as I would be wrong to state with certainty that the flying spaghetti monster is real, a theist is wrong for saying definitively that god exists.
I should mention that the definitions of strong and weak atheism change depending on who you ask. I'm just trying to describe the position of a vast majority of self described atheists.
|