Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No an atheist does not have faith that there is not a god. They simply say that there is not evidence sufficient enough to convince them that there is a god.

I think you don't know much about what atheists actually say or believe.

Correct. 

Atheism, at its core, is simply the lack of belief in God. However, in practice, most atheists in the modern Western world apply the same rationality and evidence-based thinking to religious claims as they do to everything else. This form of atheism—the one I’m discussing here—is not just disbelief but a commitment to reason, skepticism, and humanism.

Most atheists don’t believe in God for the same reason people, including presumably @smac97, don’t believe in magical fairies—it’s not about faith, but a lack of compelling evidence. If given a clear definition of God and strong supporting evidence, most atheists would adjust their views accordingly, just as they would for any other claim.

Atheism isn’t about rejecting possibilities outright; it’s about proportioning belief to evidence. Rational people don’t have faith in things without evidence—they base beliefs on the best available data and revise them as new information emerges. Atheism simply applies this consistency to religious claims as well.

Some conceptions of God are self-contradictory, and philosophers reject them just as they reject square circles—because logical impossibilities cannot exist. This stance, which asserts that certain gods cannot exist, is sometimes called "hard atheism."

Finally, agnosticism is not just a middle ground of uncertainty; it is the position that knowledge of God is inherently impossible. Most atheists, however, don’t claim it’s impossible to know—only that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief. They treat questions about God as questions about reality, applying the same rational standards as they would to any other claim.

 

 

Edited February 12, 2025 by Analytics

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My solution? Let the Gaza people back on their land, and help them succeed on building on their land and freedoms.

They tried that- which is why we are in today's situation. They used the billions received in aid to build terror tunnels, rockets, and organize Oct. 7th. Going back to business as usual is a monumentally bad idea.

Edited February 11, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So they are collectively responsible in perpetuity for electing Hamas in one election about 20 years ago when the opposition to Hamas was ineffective and useless and Hamas was presenting a much more moderate platform than the one they are espousing now? About half of the voting age population now wasn’t able to vote then.

Good gravy.

The people siding with Palestine are not (outside of a few weirdos) pro-Hamas!

Poll: 73% of Palestinians support October 7 attacks by Hamas

Poll: Support for Hamas on the rise among Palestinians, now double Fatah’s

Poll: Hamas Remains Popular Among Palestinians

Why Is Hamas’ Popularity Soaring Among Palestinians in the West Bank?

Support for Hamas is in the 44% range.  That sounds low until we see that the runner-up is another terrorist group, Fatah (at about 24%).

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They are upset because Palestinian people are living in a land where they have little to no legal rights, no representation, and are being blamed for the absolute worst things their justifiably angry population does.

You acknowledge the situation is complex while presenting a caricature.

Again: Poll: 73% of Palestinians support October 7 attacks by Hamas

56 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I want them to find some liberty.  I want Israel to stop being a state that perpetuates this injustice.  Then they can be a functional liberal democracy. Hopefully the people of Gaza and the West Bank can do the same somehow.

So do I.  They could start with stopping the hatred of Jews and the supporting of terrorists.  Until and unless these things happen, the depravities, and the lack of liberty and self-governance, will persist.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

They tried that- which is why we are in today's situation. They used the billions received in add to build terror tunnels, rockets, and organize Oct. 7th. Going back to business as usual is a monumentally bad idea.

Where are the billions going to come to rebuild Gaza and kick those people out that lived there going to come from? Or pretty much ethnic cleansing.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My solution? Let the Gaza people back on their land, and help them succeed on building on their land and freedoms.

Probably not workable. Giving the people of Gaza and the West Bank the “right to return” would make them all Israeli citizens and that would put Muslims up to about 50% of the population. I would love to see such a state work but it is unlikely anyone would be willing to try it.

Giving the West Bank and Gaza independence probably would but that would probably mean uprooting the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the settlements are increasing in numbers and population at a much more rapid pace than they have in the past.

Ideally the way forward is for Hamas to be destroyed or decapitated and Israel to elect a more moderate government willing to work on a solution instead of a far-right authoritarian who surrounds himself with religious extremist nutjobs. Then something can possibly be worked out.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Probably not workable. Giving the people of Gaza and the West Bank the “right to return” would make them all Israeli citizens and that would put Muslims up to about 50% of the population. I would love to see such a state work but it is unlikely anyone would be willing to try it.

Giving the West Bank and Gaza independence probably would but that would probably mean uprooting the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the settlements are increasing in numbers and population at a much more rapid pace than they have in the past.

Ideally the way forward is for Hamas to be destroyed or decapitated and Israel to elect a more moderate government willing to work on a solution instead of a far-right authoritarian who surrounds himself with religious extremist nutjobs. Then something can possibly be worked out.

You know your stuff, maybe I shouldn't give any opinions until I do know. Thanks Nehor! 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Has he promised to guarantee return of land to the current property owners even if they leave Gaza and others pay for the redevelopment? Sincere question.

Don't know if anyone responded as I haven't paid attention to the thread and just spaz saw this. 

So far only his admin or other reps have tried to soften the proposal by insisting displacement would be temporary. Trump has not only not said that, but said the opposite: that the displacement would be permanent. He said explicitly as much on a fox news interview yesterday. 

He makes it sound "nice" displacing nearly 2 million people against their will. Generally by insisting they'd develop better communities elsewhere. But you can only put so much lipstick on a call for ethnic cleansing. 

So far it's getting heavy resistance from neighboring arabia countries, is threatening any form of talks with Saudi Arabia, and is being condemned by a range of international groups. Cuz it's a terrible and cruel plan. 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably not workable. Giving the people of Gaza and the West Bank the “right to return” would make them all Israeli citizens and that would put Muslims up to about 50% of the population. I would love to see such a state work but it is unlikely anyone would be willing to try it.

Giving the West Bank and Gaza independence probably would but that would probably mean uprooting the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the settlements are increasing in numbers and population at a much more rapid pace than they have in the past.

Ideally the way forward is for Hamas to be destroyed or decapitated and Israel to elect a more moderate government willing to work on a solution instead of a far-right authoritarian who surrounds himself with religious extremist nutjobs. Then something can possibly be worked out.

Pretty much. It’s wishful thinking that a return to the 1967 borders would solve everything, but it would be a good start.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

There is no reasonable dispute that an abortion is, by definition, the "killing" of a living thing.

In the same sense that skin cells flaking off are the death of a living thing.

No, not in the same sense.  If you killed a human being, and then pleaded "Not Guilty" by comparing your behavior to scratching off skin cells, do you think that would work?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

There is no reasonable dispute that the living thing is an in utero human child.  A "baby."

Why do we have the word “fetus” then? Seems redundant.

An in utero baby typically requires particularized medical treatment and such.  But "baby" is, for many, synonymous.

Ask any mother if she ever referred to her unborn child as a "baby."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

As per usual, you don't offer anything of substance here.  No reasoning.  No citations or quoted references.  Just drive-bys and snark and potshots.

I know this is hard for you to accept but posting random articles from your Google search is not always “substance”.

I lay out my reasoning, and often corroborate it with research, analysis, etc. from other sources.

You don't.  You pretty much never offer anything of substance here. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

As far as I can tell, your reference to "quickening" in the context of the leaders of the Church speaking of - and plainly condemning - elective abortions is a contrivance of your own making.  AFAICS, Brigham Young made this statement:

Nope, it is about how abortion was understood before we had any understanding of how reproduction worked.

Well, no.  Again, I invite interested persons to review the Wardle article (which, I note, is not presented at "random," and instead is presented because it is salient to the discussion).

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Of course you ignore what abortion meant in the 19th century.

Well, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m interested in when you think an embryo/fetus achieves personhood.

Conception.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Conception.

Thanks,

-Smac

If it’s that straight forward, will you address these questions?

1. If someone commits an act of first-degree murder (i.e., with premeditation, willfulness, and intent), what should the legal consequence be?
2. If someone has an abortion with premeditation, willfulness, and intent, does that constitute first-degree murder?
3. Should the legal repercussions for having an abortion—even in the first trimester—be identical to those for first-degree murder?
4. If a woman has a miscarriage, should a criminal investigation be launched to determine whether involuntary manslaughter or a more serious charge is warranted?

If you do not believe that abortion should carry the same legal consequences as first-degree murder, then your claims about fetal personhood and associated rights seem inconsistent. If a fetus is legally a person, why wouldn’t its deliberate termination be prosecuted like any other homicide?

But beyond this legal contradiction, the real issue isn’t just whether abortion is morally right or wrong in the abstract. The real question is: Do we want the government in the business of criminalizing abortion? And if so, what should the laws be, and what punishments should apply for breaking them?

Moral debates are one thing. Legislation, enforcement, and consequences are another. If you want to argue for fetal personhood, you need to address what that means in practical, legal terms—not just theory. I look forward to your response.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If @smac97 is genuinely interested in a good-faith discussion, he should engage with these questions directly:

1. If someone commits an act of first-degree murder (i.e., with premeditation, willfulness, and intent), what should the legal consequence be?

A long prison sentence.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

1. If someone has an abortion with premeditation, willfulness, and intent, does that constitute first-degree murder?

Possibly.  If someone forces an abortion with premeditation, willfulness, and intent, I'd be willing to call that murder.

A woman, having been told that she is getting rid of a "clump of cells" or a "parasite," may well lack the mens rea.

It is the mens rea aspect of the killing that I find difficult to apply in the context of elective abortions.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

1. Should the legal repercussions for having an abortion—even in the first trimester—be identical to those for first-degree murder?

I'm not sure.  Again, mens rea is difficult to address in this context.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

1. If a woman has a miscarriage, should a criminal investigation be launched to determine whether involuntary manslaughter or a more serious charge is warranted?

Absent unusual circumstances, no.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If he does not believe that abortion should carry the same legal consequences as first-degree murder, then his claims about fetal personhood and associated rights seem inconsistent.

I don't think so.  "Personhood" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  We grant it in increments.  A child reaches peak "personhood" at 18, the age of majority, or at emancipation.  But even without enjoying all the rights and privileges of personhood, we do not let each other kill children.  My proposition is that we extend some measure of personhood to in utero babies.  We already do this, of course, but I would like to see more personhood attach, to the point of protecting the life of the child.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If a fetus is legally a person, why wouldn’t its deliberate termination be prosecuted like any other homicide?

See my comments above about mens rea and personhood.

Many states have fetal homicide laws, which recognize the unlawful killing of an in utero baby as a form of homicide.  Ironically, the mother can kill the child (these laws exempt abortions consented to by the mother), but a thug on the street cannot.  That seems morally perverse.

Historically, even in jurisdictions having strict constraints on abortion, most efforts to punish abortion have focused on providers, not women. Should the mother be punished for seeking help in electively killing her in utero child?  I'm not sure.  Even if we collectively find elective abortion repugnant, I'm not sure we have the collective will to punish women who seek it.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But beyond this legal contradiction, the real issue isn’t just whether abortion is morally right or wrong in the abstract.

Respectfully, I disagree.  I think the morality of the thing is, or ought to be, generally upstream from the legality of the thing.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The real question is: Do we want the government in the business of criminalizing abortion?  And if so, what should the laws be, and what punishments should apply for breaking them?

Or regulating it.

Except, we already do regulate it.  So perhaps the real real question pertains to how much we want to regulate it.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Moral debates are one thing. Legislation, enforcement, and consequences are another.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

William Wilberforce did what he did in the legal/political sphere because of his moral convictions.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If smac wants to argue for fetal personhood, he needs to address what that means in practical, legal terms—not just theory. I look forward to his response.

I think we should strongly encourage sensible and ethical sexual behaviors, strongly discourage dissolute and licentious behaviors, make contraceptives (but not abortifacients) readily available and affordable, grant personhood to in utero babies, allow for limited exceptions, provide ample prenatal resources and care, make substantial efforts to humanize babies and counter the dehumanizing rhetoric of the pro-abortion crowd (boy, the "clump of cells" and "parasite" stuff really makes me wince), create widespread awareness about Safe Harbor laws and adoption options, punish abortion providers, and do all of these under the auspices of state law (not federal).

No, I don't think fetuses should count for Census purposes, tax purposes, inheritance rights (I'm iffy about this).

Would a woman seeking and obtaining an illegal abortion be considered a co-conspirator?  I really struggle with this.  But I don't struggle enough to shrug and say "Okay, any abortion is okay, for any reason or no reason at all."

How would a rape exception work?  Would there be some sort of expedited review of extant evidence?  I don't know.  I'll need to think on this.

Will prenatal care cost the State?  Yes.  I'm on board with that expense, particularly at the state level.

Will this create a "patchwork" issue from state to state?  Yes, but I think we already have a comparable patchwork problem anyway.

Short of a near-total ban, would I support a law that substantially limits the timeframe for abortions?  Yes.  I would still find elective abortions immoral and abhorrent, though.  I imagine abolitionists felt this way about slavery being legal based on state lines and other factors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No an atheist does not have faith that there is not a god.

"Strong" or "positive" atheists do.  Affirmatively denying the existence of God is an expression of faith/belief, not knowledge or empirical proof.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

They simply say that there is not evidence sufficient enough to convince them that there is a god.

Some say that.  Those who go beyond this and affirmatively deny the existence of God are taking that position on faith, not knowledge/proof.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think you don't know much about what atheists actually say or believe.

From this Wiki article:

Quote

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

"{T}he form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist."

Such an assertion is based on faith/belief, not on knowledge or empirical proof.

Quote

Positive and negative atheism are frequently used by the philosopher George H. Smith as synonyms of the less-well-known categories of implicit and explicit atheism, also relating to whether an individual holds a specific view that gods do not exist.^[4] "Positive" atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist. "Negative" atheists assert they do not believe any deities exist, but do not necessarily explicitly assert it is true that no deity exists. Those who do not believe any deities exist, but do not assert such non-belief, are included among implicit atheists. Among "implicit" atheists are thus included the following: children and adults who have never heard of deities; people who have heard of deities but have never given the idea any considerable thought; and those agnostics who suspend belief about deities, but do not reject such belief. All implicit atheists are included in the negative/weak categorization.^[6][7]
...
{Richard} Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between "very high" and "very low" as "agnostic" and reserves the term "strong atheist" for those who claim to know there is no God. He categorizes himself as a "de facto atheist" but not a "strong atheist" on this scale.^[8] 

"'Positive' atheists explicitly assert that it is false that any deities exist."

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "'positive'" or "'strong' atheist"?  Is Dawkins up in the night?

Or are you saying that "'positive' atheists," do exist, but that their explicit denial of the existence of God is based on knowledge and empirical proof?  If so, what is that knowledge and empirical proof?

Seems like you need to pick one of these positions or the other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

My goodness, such a bizarre response, Spencer. Viability is a decent legal standard, but obviously you disagree. Fair enough. You still haven’t answered my question about when a fetus achieves personhood. 

Conception.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, absent a universally agreed upon standard of when life begins, I prefer to err on the side of personal liberty. 

Life begins at conception.  I don't think there's much dispute about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Conception.

Thanks,

-Smac

By that definition, my daughter and her husband (both active in the church) are murderers because they did not use all the frozen embryos they had. I confess I have a hard time with this kind of black-and-white thinking. Here’s hoping a less-dogmatic approach prevails. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

By that definition, my daughter and her husband (both active in the church) are murderers because they did not use all the frozen embryos they had.

Okay.  Conception and implantation.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I confess I have a hard time with this kind of black-and-white thinking. Here’s hoping a less-dogmatic approach prevails. 

The Church's position is nuanced, but still clearly condemnatory of virtually all abortions.  I think mine is as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Okay.  Conception and implantation.

The Church's position is nuanced, but still clearly condemnatory of virtually all abortions.  I think mine is as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, I’m not particularly interested in the church’s position, which is at odds with your definition of when life begins. If it begins at conception and implantation, any abortion, the result of rape or incest or otherwise, is equally killing a baby. 

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 4:45 PM, Calm said:

I like Dan a lot, but I am not impressed with this video where he telling us what Trumps really means rather than letting Trump speak for himself.

Heheheh, Trump is a prolific liar. Who knows what he really thinks by what he tells us.

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2025 at 6:18 PM, smac97 said:

The TDS is strong with this one. 

 

-Smac

More bias.  Bad orange man, TDS. These are things MAGA and Trump  supporters use anytime anyone criticizes Trump.  The ones who have what they call TDS are the ones who support the felon.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Teancum, I deeply appreciate your view of me, but please don’t compare other posters to me as if that makes them less anything.  ❤️

Ok I stand scolded and spanked.  😃

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "'positive'" or "'strong' atheist"?  Is Dawkins up in the night?

Or are you saying that "'positive' atheists," do exist, but that their explicit denial of the existence of God is based on knowledge and empirical proof?  If so, what is that knowledge and empirical proof?

Seems like you need to pick one of these positions or the other.

I have not run into what you call a positive atheist. I suppose some could exist. From what I have read and listened to from Dawkins I don't know that I have ever heard him say anything other than he does not see enough evidence to convince him that some sort of God exists.  If he has taken a stronger position I and not aware of it,.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But even without enjoying all the rights and privileges of personhood, we do not let each other kill children. 

Wait a second. I thought we agreed that killing otherwise healthy babies that pose no threat to the health of the mother was ok in some circumstances. What do you mean then we “do not let each other kill children”? You need to pick a side. 

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, longview said:

When Hamas was elected by Gazans, they imposed indoctrination on all children to learn to be terrorists and to advocate for genocide and to hunt Jews the world over. It was NOT just "from the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean)" but to completely annihilate ALL Jews.

Gazans have a SERIOUS problem. Egypt do NOT want them. Saudi Arabia says NO. The Kingdom of Jordan was forced into a civil war with the so-called "Palestinians" that resulted in the death of 30,000 of them. Kuwait also had to deal forcefully with them. Lebanon used to be an egalitarian country before it was ruined by its "Palestinian" residents.

Gaza is a total disaster that was self-inflicted. It is an unlivable war zone. Hamas remain extremely determined to commit Jihad against Israel and to murder ALL Jews. Oslo Accords did NOTHING because the so-called "two state" solution was NOT what they wanted. They wanted genocide.

Trump stunned the world by offering resettlement for Gazans with full amenities and housing. But it will have to be outside the Middle East. There is NO placating Hamas. It is going to take a LONG time to de-toxify the war zone and redevelop.

Hamas does not equal all those who live in Gaza. And when was the last election in Gaza?  How many living in Gaza were alive when the Gazan's elected Hamas?  So you favor mass relocation of a people against their will?  Whether there was a Palestine or not these people lived there for thousands of years and have been forcefully moved time and time again in order to make Israel a homeland for the Jews.  

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A long prison sentence.

Possibly.  If someone forces an abortion with premeditation, willfulness, and intent, I'd be willing to call that murder.

A woman, having been told that she is getting rid of a "clump of cells" or a "parasite," may well lack the mens rea.

It is the mens rea aspect of the killing that I find difficult to apply in the context of elective abortions.

I appreciate your responses. I think your point about mens rea ties into jkwilliams’s argument about viability. Imagine a mother saying, "I absolutely, positively, literally, cannot handle this pregnancy." At 8.5 months, she has options—she can induce labor and put the baby up for adoption. After birth, she can legally surrender the child at a fire station. But at 4 weeks, those alternatives don’t exist. That difference in available choices affects not just practical decisions but also how we understand intent. If a woman seeking an abortion at 4 weeks lacks viable alternatives, does she have the same level of intent or premeditation as someone committing an unlawful killing? That’s what makes this complex.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  "Personhood" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  We grant it in increments...

That sounds like something a pro-choice person would say. If personhood exists in increments, then a 4-week-old fetus only has a fraction of the rights of a fully developed person. In that case, wouldn’t the mother’s autonomy over her own body take precedence over the state’s interest in protecting a being with only partial personhood?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I disagree.  I think the morality of the thing is, or ought to be, generally upstream from the legality of the thing.

Perhaps so, but morality and legality are two different issues. On the moral side, @jkwilliams is clearly anti-abortion. But on the legal side, he supports choice up until viability. That distinction matters, and when we debate Roe v. Wade, we aren’t talking about the moral issue, we're talking about the legal issue.

If I may be vulnerable for a moment—my daughter became sexually active earlier than I would have wanted. When we talked about what would happen if she got pregnant, she said, almost flippantly, "I’d just have an abortion." I told her that if that happened, she should talk to me first. I promised I’d pay for all her medical care, that I’d adopt the baby myself, that this wouldn’t just be a “mistake"—it would be my grandchild. I urged her to think beyond the moment and consider the long-term effects of abortion. I begged her not to have sex, not to get pregnant, and, if she did, not to have an abortion.

But after all of that, if she still insisted on having one, I would be devastated—but I wouldn’t stop her. Because despite my moral opposition, I also believe in personal freedom and small government. I don’t want jack-booted government agents arresting and prosecuting women for abortion. I may oppose abortion, but does that mean I have to favor criminalizing it? Does holding a personal conviction require forcing it on others through law?

My daughter ended up marrying her high school sweetheart, and I found out she had this same conversation with the woman who is now her mother-in-law. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, her mother-in-law posted something on Facebook about how wonderful this was and how great America is for now making abortions illegal. My daughter posted in response, “But do you remember a couple of years ago when you asked me what I’d do if I got pregnant and I said I’d get an abortion, and you said ‘yes, I think that would be best.’? Why did you support me in having an abortion but are now in favor of making it illegal for others?”

Embarrassed beyond belief, my daughter’s mother-in-law deleted the thread—because suddenly, the issue wasn’t just abstract moral posturing anymore but was about her own real-world decisions. It turns out that being against abortions in abstract, being against them when unwanted pregnancies affect you and your own family personally, and being in favor of the government criminalizing them are all different issues.

Edited February 12, 2025 by Analytics

[Analytics]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Strong" or "positive" atheists do.  Affirmatively denying the existence of God is an expression of faith/belief, not knowledge or empirical proof.

No, “strong atheism” is a the result of a logical proof against certain nonsensical conceptions of “God.” It isn’t an expression of faith any more than denying the existence of square circles is an expression of faith. 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some say that.  Those who go beyond this and affirmatively deny the existence of God are taking that position on faith, not knowledge/proof.

No. Strong atheism isn’t about faith. It's about noting that logically, self-contradictory things can’t exist.

Furthermore, this distinction between “weak” and “strong” atheism is pretty dated. These days, most atheists are simply empiricists who don’t believe in “God” because of a lack of evidence.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is Dawkins up in the night?

You can be pretty confident that any atheist you may talk to more-or-less believes what Dawkins does: he probably lacks belief in “God” because of a lack of evidence, and thinks the possibility of “God” existing is low, depending on how you define “God."