Sources for Anti-Religious/Strong Atheism [Atheists Only]

[Laika]

There is a consensus on the forums amongst Atheists that Atheism is defined by "lack of belief" which often excludes the possibility of a positive belief that god does not exist and/or that religion is demonstratably false (based on assuming knowledge of god is impossible). Going through the Atheist DIR I was struck by the fact that this consensus is near unanimous to the point where the opposing view isn't represented at all and threads have been made saying "strong atheism doesn't exist" or is a strawman, etc. Rather than engage in debate on this specific point (and end up in a linguistic minefield), I have started this thread to show that such a form of atheism as a positive rejection of the existence of god and the validity of religious belief does exist and that there is historical evidence to support that view.

I have only briefly mentioned Marxist varieties so as not to bias the thread and to demonstrate that more "political" varieties of atheism are not confined to Communist ideology but can be found in other sources. I recognise that I cannot change other people's mind who hold the opposing view but for those who are interested, the information is here if you want to take a look. This is definetely NOT a complete list but includes some of the most easily recognisable and controversial philosophers holding roughly similar views regarding Atheism.

The key distinction between "lack of belief" and "positive belief" is that the atheists listed below would almost uniamously agree that religion is a form of false consciousness, an illusion or an out-right fraud perpetrated by elites to control people- but they may differ on how fervently they deny religious truth. It is common that they are associated with philosophical materialism, though Nietzsche's work is a notable exception as his philosophy is very complex. Since the 19th century most of these sorts of atheists either directly or indirectly draw from Ludwig Feuerbach's philosophy in some way, which is why I have included a link to his work the Essence of Christianity, giving this form of atheism a rather distinctive and recognisable flavour. I appreciate that this is a controversial debate and will no doubt be on-going, but rather than turn this into an argument- I think it is better to simply present evidence for the existence of such a view. whether you accept it or not, is up to you.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier

The French Materialists (18th Century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_materialism

Marquis De Sade(1740-1815)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_De_Sade

"The Cult of Reason" in the French Revolution (1792-1794)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_reason

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Feuerbach
The Essence of Christianity [Significant Work]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_Of_Christianity
Full Text: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm

Max Stirner (1806-1856)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

Fredrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neitzsche

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freud_and_religion

God-Building (early 20th century Marxist movement)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building

[This area is admittedly more "agnostic" than atheist, but represents an attempt to build a "socialist religion" thats draws on both Feuerbach's work and had heavy overtones of Nietzsche's ideas, and so may be of interest to creating a "post-religious" worldview.]

League of Militant Godless (1925-1947)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

 

[Kuzcotopia]

i think the challenge of Strong Atheism is that it can create a false dicotomy with the Theist position.

"I'll present MY evidence why no Gods exists, and you present YOUR evidence that your God does exist, and we'll see who has the stronger argument."

Theists don't have any evidence for the existence of a God to begin with. There's simply nothing else that an Atheist has to do than reject their claim based on lack of evidence.

I think it's a fun exercise to think the arguments through, but in an actual debate with a Theist, it would be inappropriate to present an alternative line of reasoning against a position that has no legs.

In any case, thanks for doing all this work. It'll take me a long time to get through all of it, but I appreciate you compiling it here!

 

[Laika]

i think the challenge of Strong Atheism is that it can create a false dicotomy with the Theist position.

"I'll present MY evidence why no Gods exists, and you present YOUR evidence that your God does exist, and we'll see who has the stronger argument."

Theists don't have any evidence for the existence of a God to begin with. There's simply nothing else that an Atheist has to do than reject their claim based on lack of evidence.

I think it's a fun exercise to think the arguments through, but in an actual debate with a Theist, it would be inappropriate to present an alternative line of reasoning against a position that has no legs.

In any case, thanks for doing all this work. It'll take me a long time to get through all of it, but I appreciate you compiling it here!

Thanks.

A debate between strong theists and strong atheists, with each claiming their belief is the true one, would be interesting to see. I do not think it is true that theists have no evidence for God but that we, as atheists, would claim that the evidence they have is not sufficient grounds for a rational belief. Many theists would argue that scripture is evidence as a form of revealed theology, or use mysticism and intuition as a basis for belief. We would typically dismiss this out of hand but for the believer, it is a sufficient basis for them to have these beliefs.

I tend to think strong atheists actually have a lot in common with deists, in that we would both approach the question of gods existence with rationalistic methods. The same can be argued from religious believers who use natural theology as a rational basis for belief, or the historical method to research the accuracy of the bible or the Quran. There are a lot of ways to approach the question if you are willing to allow scope for interpretation as well as evidence.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I would agree that rationalist arguments have their place when determining knoweldge, even from
The Strong Atheist position. It shouldn't all be empirical. I suppose there are many would refer to an empirical-only based construction of knowledge "scientism," but I think accusations of scientism are straw man arguments.

My issue with theistic evidence using rational sources of knowledge is that their claims are beyond the scope of what mathematics and logic are capable of doing.

IMO, the goal of mathematics and logic are to model aspects of the universe so we can understand and/or predict outcomes within it. Yes, they are constructions of the mind, but they have limited scope and a limited purpose, and their use is to construct models of phenomena in this universe that actually exists.

If you start talking metaphysical realms, or necessary beings that exist outside the universe, duality, souls, etc. . . Then you've exceeded the scope of what logic and math can do. You can use a bandsaw for cutting materials, and I suppose you could also use it for many other things beyond it's intended purpose. But the use of the bandsaw does have limits. You can't write an essay with a bandsaw, or use it as a floatation device on a cruise ship, etc.

To use logic beyond the scope of it's abilities to gain "knowledge" is perhaps a fun distraction, but theists take it seriously, and circularly justify logical or rational paths to belief that are beyond the scope of what logic is capable of.

In any case, this is my opinion here, and if there is a school of thought along these lines, I don't know what you'd call it.

If I'm a Strong Atheist, then I'd say that any knowledge of a god using reason is impossible, because one of the conditions of a God is that it is has metaphysical components. Even if a god exists, reason is not the way to discover or understand its existence.

 

[Willamena]

There is a consensus on the forums amongst Atheists that Atheism is defined by "lack of belief" which often excludes the possibility of a positive belief that god does not exist and/or that religion is demonstratably false (based on assuming knowledge of god is impossible). Going through the Atheist DIR I was struck by the fact that this consensus is near unanimous to the point where the opposing view isn't represented at all and threads have been made saying "strong atheism doesn't exist" or is a strawman, etc. Rather than engage in debate on this specific point (and end up in a linguistic minefield), I have started this thread to show that such a form of atheism as a positive rejection of the existence of god and the validity of religious belief does exist and that there is historical evidence to support that view.

It's not a consensus, it's just that after 10 years of trying to drum sense into people it gets old.

Good luck on your thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a consensus on the forums amongst Atheists that Atheism is defined by "lack of belief" which often excludes the possibility of a positive belief that god does not exist and/or that religion is demonstratably false (based on assuming knowledge of god is impossible).

Defining atheism in terms of lack of belief doesn't exclude the possibility of positive beliefs. Lots of atheists believe that gods don't exist.

 

[Laika]

I would agree that rationalist arguments have their place when determining knoweldge, even from
The Strong Atheist position. It shouldn't all be empirical. I suppose there are many would refer to an empirical-only based construction of knowledge "scientism," but I think accusations of scientism are straw man arguments.

My issue with theistic evidence using rational sources of knowledge is that their claims are beyond the scope of what mathematics and logic are capable of doing.

IMO, the goal of mathematics and logic are to model aspects of the universe so we can understand and/or predict outcomes within it. Yes, they are constructions of the mind, but they have limited scope and a limited purpose, and their use is to construct models of phenomena in this universe that actually exists.

If you start talking metaphysical realms, or necessary beings that exist outside the universe, duality, souls, etc. . . Then you've exceeded the scope of what logic and math can do. You can use a bandsaw for cutting materials, and I suppose you could also use it for many other things beyond it's intended purpose. But the use of the bandsaw does have limits. You can't write an essay with a bandsaw, or use it as a floatation device on a cruise ship, etc.

To use logic beyond the scope of it's abilities to gain "knowledge" is perhaps a fun distraction, but theists take it seriously, and circularly justify logical or rational paths to belief that are beyond the scope of what logic is capable of.

In any case, this is my opinion here, and if there is a school of thought along these lines, I don't know what you'd call it.

If I'm a Strong Atheist, then I'd say that any knowledge of a god using reason is impossible, because one of the conditions of a God is that it is has metaphysical components. Even if a god exists, reason is not the way to discover or understand its existence.

I think it comes down to the uniformity of nature. If you claim to "know" that the laws of nature apply to everything including what we don't currently know, and we say nature is material and consciousness cannot exist separately from a brain as a special form of matter, then clearly God (as a disembodied mind) cannot exist without having to claim to know "everything".

If you were to say nature is not uniformly materialist and governed by physical laws, a god or deity is possible.

Defining atheism in terms of lack of belief doesn't exclude the possibility of positive beliefs. Lots of atheists believe that gods don't exist.

All of the people listed in the OP would assert- to a greater or lesser degree- that religion is demonstratively false. They would be excluded from the definition of atheism in so far as "lack of belief" (weak atheism) equates with "impossibility of knowledge/belief" (strong agnosticism) because the very methods of scepticism used to establish a lack of belief would also treat positive assertions of atheism as dogma, faith or otherwise irrational.

It is a detail, but you refer to "gods" which would mean treating each God on a case by case basis. that methodology doesn't apply with materialism as an epistemological basis for (strong) atheism as characterising the laws of nature to render God as impossible- with or without evidence to the contrary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it comes down to the uniformity of nature. If you claim to "know" that the laws of nature apply to everything including what we don't currently know, and we say nature is material and consciousness cannot exist separately from a brain as a special form of matter, then clearly God (as a disembodied mind) cannot exist without having to claim to know "everything".

Why would you define "God" as "a disembodied mind"? Why would you leave out an aspect of "godhood" that, AFAICT, is the only common thread between all god-concepts: that a god is an object of human worship?

When we remember that part of what defines a god, it's a lot easier to conclude that there are no gods, since there would be no such thing as a god that's unknown to humanity (since you can't worship what you don't know about).

In any case, I don't see why concluding that gods don't exist is any more problematic than declaring a species extinct, which is something we can do without armchair epistemologists objecting ("but you can't KNOW there are no more passenger pigeons! Have you looked everywhere?").

All of the people listed in the OP would assert- to a greater or lesser degree- that religion is demonstratively false. They would be excluded from the definition of atheism in so far as "lack of belief" (weak atheism) equates with "impossibility of knowledge/belief" (strong agnosticism) because the very methods of scepticism used to establish a lack of belief would also treat positive assertions of atheism as dogma, faith or otherwise irrational.

They wouldn't be excluded. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people have told you when they've explained to you what "atheism" means.

A person who believes strongly that gods don't exist certainly lacks belief that gods do exist, and is therefore an atheist.

"You don't need to live in New York City to be an American" does not mean "no Americans live in New York City."

 

[Laika]

Why would you define "God" as "a disembodied mind"? Why would you leave out an aspect of "godhood" that, AFAICT, is the only common thread between all god-concepts: that a god is an object of human worship?

When we remember that part of what defines a god, it's a lot easier to conclude that there are no gods, since there would be no such thing as a god that's unknown to humanity (since you can't worship what you don't know about).

In any case, I don't see why concluding that gods don't exist is any more problematic than declaring a species extinct, which is something we can do without armchair epistemologists objecting ("but you can't KNOW there are no more passenger pigeons! Have you looked everywhere?").


They wouldn't be excluded. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what people have told you when they've explained to you what "atheism" means.

A person who believes strongly that gods don't exist certainly lacks belief that gods do exist, and is therefore an atheist.

"You don't need to live in New York City to be an American" does not mean "no Americans live in New York City."

The distinction is between belief and knowledge. A strong atheist claims to know there is no God/gods. They would assert it as objectively true.

This is the origin for the phrase "scientific atheism" because such atheists would claim that as the world is governed by physical laws and that nature is uniform- there can be no non-physical cause of phenomena. (The mind is treated as equivalent to the brain and therefore though is a property of matter so can't be the cause of anything). That is also why I referred to God as a disembodied mind rather than an object of worship as- using materialism as a basis for understanding nature- a disembodied mind cannot exist.

Lack of belief excludes this- rightly or wrongly- because essentially it rejects materialism as a valid basis for knowledge in favour of scepticism, rendering it impossible to say that we know God does not exist. Consequently there is a conflict between the two definitions and groups. "Strong" atheism does not refer to an emotional value how fervently someone believes it- but the claim to know there is no God/gods, etc whereas weak atheism treats it as an individual belief without the status of objectively true knowledge.

 

[jonathan180iq]

A debate between strong theists and strong atheists, with each claiming their belief is the true one, would be interesting to see.

I really don't believe that it would...

Choose any other topic in the world to debate on, focusing on the existence of something, and we can almost unanimously agree on what the parameters would be for that debate. We could agree on what would constitute a win, easily. But when that topic becomes god, we dissolve any and all reason, it seems, in favor of pandering to the sensitivities of the believer.

If we want to debate whether or not a screwdriver exists, we can do that. I'll even take on the mantle of arguing against its existence, knowing that I'm probably going to lose going in, despite what logical and physical arguments I could make for my side. We could argue about the existence of love, even, getting as deep and academic as possible to the point where we'd all pretty much agree that love is actually a thing, at least as we experience it. But there's nothing for the god argument except for a bold assertion and personal conviction. There are physiological ad psychological arguments that can be made for how and why we create the concept of god - but that's very different from the actual existence of a deity, depending of course of how its defined and who defines it... which is a whole other problem in this line of arguing, but I digress.

There's not a single decent argument from the god camp that's not based on personal conviction loosely wrapped in weak logical deductions. There's nothing at all. It's not a debate.
Gods do not exist.

Lots of atheists believe that gods don't exist.

Boom. Positive claim.

Unicorns do not exist.
Leprechauns do not exist.
Hollow Earth Molemen do not exist.
Mermaids do not exist.
Fairies do not exist.
Wizards do not exist.
Vampires do not exist.
Cyclops do not exist.
Flying horses do not exist.
Cloud Giants do not exist.

Gods do not exist.

I mean, I could keep going - but there are plenty of things that I positively and actively disbelieve in. I can only disbelieve in things that have been claimed, interestingly enough. And when claimed things present have no evidence whatsoever for their actual existence, I choose to relegate those claims to the land of make-believe, just as we all do when first learning the differences between fiction and non-fiction in grade school. At some point we have to put the god argument into the same category, don't we?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The distinction is between belief and knowledge. A strong atheist claims to know there is no God/gods. They would assert it as objectively true.

This is the origin for the phrase "scientific atheism" because such atheists would claim that as the world is governed by physical laws and that nature is uniform- there can be no non-physical cause of phenomena. (The mind is treated as equivalent to the brain and therefore though is a property of matter so can't be the cause of anything). That is also why I referred to God as a disembodied mind rather than an object of worship as- using materialism as a basis for understanding nature- a disembodied mind cannot exist.

Lack of belief excludes this- rightly or wrongly- because essentially it rejects materialism as a valid basis for knowledge in favour of scepticism, rendering it impossible to say that we know God does not exist. Consequently there is a conflict between the two definitions and groups. "Strong" atheism does not refer to an emotional value how fervently someone believes it- but the claim to know there is no God/gods, etc whereas weak atheism treats it as an individual belief without the status of objectively true knowledge.

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

 

[Laika]

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

I read what you wrote. If we can't even trust each other to each other's replies, we are in trouble aren't we?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I read what you wrote. If we can't even trust each other to each other's replies, we are in trouble aren't we?

Your reply to me suggested that you were reading some other message. I've never had someone misrepresent and misconstrue my posts as much as you do. The fact that I don't think it's deliberate is the only reason why I don't have you on ignore.

 

[Laika]

Your reply to me suggested that you were reading some other message. I've never had someone misrepresent and misconstrue my posts as much as you do. The fact that I don't think it's deliberate is the only reason why I don't have you on ignore.

Its definitely not deliberate. I have felt the same about you in the past- but your responses (as well as other atheists on the forum) have been absolutely consistent so it couldn't have been that you were deliberately trying to screw with me. It's been driving me nuts.

If I were trying to think of a way of putting it, it is like someone who supports evolution debating a creationist. (Feel free to assume I am the creationist ). You can take the same evidence and put it in front of two people and they will get completely different or even opposing answers. The reason is they have two completely different methods of determining knowledge and meaning.

The atheist debate bothers me because it is about identity. The identity of someone who describes atheism as "lack of belief" is alien to me and almost hostile (even if that may be irrational). Someone who describes atheism as lack of belief treats it as a destination, whereas someone who rejects belief in God entirely, atheism is the beginning. It is frustrating for me to debate atheism with other atheists because one talks of it as an end (a conclusion to a rational discourse) and the other as a means (in opposing "religious" conceptions of reality and particularly morality).

If I have been at loggerheads with you in the past over this, that is why. Your understanding of atheism is totally alien to mine. No doubt the feeling is reciprocated and I realise I might as well be saying the earth is flat for all the difference it makes. Trying to apply a single meaning to the word "atheism", even if it is apparently inclusive, smooths over very deep divisions. Those divisions are as deep and as old as religious schism but the irony is, we've ended up using the same word to describe alien and even opposed things. It took me quite a while (and lots of swearing) to accept that is the case and I'm still not really "used" to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its definitely not deliberate. I have felt the same about you in the past- but your responses (as well as other atheists on the forum) have been absolutely consistent so it couldn't have been that you were deliberately trying to screw with me. It's been driving me nuts.

If I were trying to think of a way of putting it, it is like someone who supports evolution debating a creationist. (Feel free to assume I am the creationist ). You can take the same evidence and put it in front of two people and they will get completely different or even opposing answers. The reason is they have two completely different methods of determining knowledge and meaning.

The atheist debate bothers me because it is about identity. The identity of someone who describes atheism as "lack of belief" is alien to me and almost hostile (even if that may be irrational).

Why would it be hostile?

Someone who describes atheism as lack of belief treats it as a destination, whereas someone who rejects belief in God entirely, atheism is the beginning.

Let's start with this. To me, this is a misrepresentation... or at least a really bad inference. I don't see how saying "atheism is a lack of belief in gods" implies "atheism is a destination."

If I have been at loggerheads with you in the past over this, that is why. Your understanding of atheism is totally alien to mine.

From where I sit, most of the disagreements you seem to have with me aren't with my actual positions, but with things I never said that you attribute to me. Maybe if you stopped doing that, it would be easier to find common ground.

 

[Laika]

Why would it be hostile?

In previous debates the definition of atheism as lack of belief has been used defensively to repudiate it as a motivation for certain actions. [along the lines of "if atheism is lack of belief how can that be a justification for doing X"] Whilst this is understandable in the context of denying association with violence committed by communists (as atheists), it goes further to deny that living without God or a religious belief can be a motivation or way of life. Atheism for me (as a beginning or journey) means learning to live without divinely inspired moral codes, without the certainty of religious truth or with an understanding of human history where religion is false or an illusion. Atheism, as the rejection of God, creates a need to build a new worldview as if I reject God as an illusion- so all the content of religions can be challenged as potentially false. This unraveling of religious concepts create a very different sense of identity. Using "lack of belief" to describe this, denies that closure of saying religion is false and the subsequent need to reorder my life around atheistic concepts.

How does someone respond to death without the belief in an intrinsic value in human life, without perscriped meaning or purpose- all of which have originated from the god concept. To reduce this search for meaning to "lack of belief" feels hostile in so far as it is a nihilistic rejection of that search as well as making me feel excluded because all that I understand to be "human" comes from the experience of living without a divine protector or dictator. It is a drastic change in meaning.

Let's start with this. To me, this is a misrepresentation... or at least a really bad inference. I don't see how saying "atheism is a lack of belief in gods" implies "atheism is a destination."

I think what I wrote above illustrates it well. But from where I stand, those who profess a lack of belief have inherited a set of pre-existing ideas about how the world works, our place in it, what is truth and knowledge, etc. The "destination" is that you use reason and evidence to establish whether the specific statement "does God exist" is true or not. For you, the lack of evidence (and apparent weakness of counter arguments) is sufficient grounds to dismiss the concept and hence have a "lack of belief". Atheism is an exercise in rational enquiry, a conclusion or a "destination".

For me however, many secular ideas are "tainted" by religious associations. The concept of "objective morality" is derived from God; it assumes the existence of God in order to be "objective". But how do I measure what is good? What physical object or process can I relate the concepts or right or wrong to? What observable qualities outside of the inner experience of the mind makes our actions right and wrong? With that, I implicitly reject those pre-existing concepts, leaving a void which needs to be filled. Nietzsche's philosophy is close to this; if "God is dead" and God is the attributed source of our morality- we have to re-examine all moral concepts to see if they are tainted by religious falsehood, borrow those that are useful and build a new morality from the ruins of the old religion. Consequently atheism is the beginning of that project to redefine humanity as human beings, without a god-concept. That is fundamental and involves emotions as well as reason. It is difficult to debate these subjects because-very like religious people- it is an emotional investment in a set of concepts, making it easy to feel defensive because the sense of being an "atheist" is so personal and close to identity.

From where I sit, most of the disagreements you seem to have with me aren't with my actual positions, but with things I never said that you attribute to me. Maybe if you stopped doing that, it would be easier to find common ground.

I know this may be hard, but you'll have to trust me that this is bigger than misrepresenting your views. I can be wrong on specifics but I can't deny the big picture that your understanding of atheism and mine are as different as they could be. The reason it annoys me is because defining atheism as "lack of belief" would mean denying who I am- that's why the definition is such a "threat".

 

[Vorkosigan]

"...What physical object or process can I relate the concepts or right or wrong to?...".
Do you really find this question hard to answer or was it a rhetorical question?

 

[Omega Green]

I understand a-theism to literally break down to "without theism"; just as atypical means without type; asymmetrical means without symmetry. In the same fashion exactly, atheism means without belief in the existence of a god or gods. I am a fan of some of the positive arguments; and theodicy interests me, but in the negative sense each one of us is born an atheist - some of us just get deprived of our built-in attunements of negative atheism when someone succeeds in evangelizing to us. During my first year of debating, my observation was that none of the theists on the board that i'd visit, could in anyway agree to comprehend atheism defined that way. To them, it had to be the clear-cut conviction that no gods exist and so then the demand for proof would also be made. A negative atheist has nothing to prove, a negative atheist is simply either ignorant of the claims of religion, or else has failed to trust in them and failed to believe theistic-ally.

Really I think that Pascal's Wager is inadequate; that whole sensibility of hedging ones bets just in case there will be a final judgment. I think too much is being asked of us, given what's supported by proofs, to warrant re-organizing our lives around a few supernatural assumptions, treated as principles now - thanks to a leap of faith. If God is as just as the believers say, then he will fully appreciate my being an atheist now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've never seen anyone deny the existence of strong atheists.
They're just rare birds.
Why?
For those of us who disbelieve in gods' existence cuz they're unevidenced,
then we're likely to squarely face the lack of evidence for non-existence.

In defense of strong atheists, they have a quantitative advantage over the
typical theist, ie, they've faith in the singular belief that gods don't exist.
But our theist friends have typically hundreds or thousands of facts taken
on faith, eg, various myths, assorted behavioral prohibitions, punishments,
rewards, afterlife details, their own 'science', required dress, prognostications.

 

[Laika]

I've never seen anyone deny the existence of strong atheists.
They're just rare birds.
Why?
For those of us who disbelieve in gods' existence cuz they're unevidenced,
then we're likely to squarely face the lack of evidence for non-existence.

In defense of strong atheists, they have a quantitative advantage over the
typical theist, ie, they've faith in the singular belief that gods don't exist.
But our theist friends have typically hundreds or thousands of facts taken
on faith, eg, various myths, assorted behavioral prohibitions, punishments,
rewards, afterlife details, their own 'science', required dress, prognostications.

Here's a thread dedicated to denying the existence of strong atheists:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/strong-atheism-doesnt-exist.166533/