> And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle. Strong Atheist: There is no god, I

> And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle. Strong Atheist: There is no god, I can prove it. Weak Atheist: There is no god, there is no reason to believe there is one. Agnostic: I don't know if there is a god. The difference is not subtle. It is the difference between having an opinion and not having one. Strong vs Weak atheism is basically a worthless distinction to most people, because having no evidence of something means you don't believe in it in the scientific method. No, it isn't proof of the non-existence, but we still act like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise, otherwise we have to believe literally anything that you can imagine that isn't provably non-existent (back to Russel's teapot).