Michael Martin also edited "The Impossibility of God" which along with "Atheism" edited by S.T. Joshi show both schools of thought with the first book listed here concentrating on the "no god" rather than the "no belief in god" philosophy.
Certainly Thomas Otway (1652-1685) Arthur Schopenhauer (1788- 1860) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) fit the definition of strong atheist. Baron D'Holbach gets listed as both a strong or positive atheist and a weak or negative atheist but when he claims that the term god is meaningless that seems more a positivist claim to my way of thinking. Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891) George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906) both fit the definition of weak or negative atheism.
The Greek meaning of "a" as "without" or "no" or "not" is where the definitional problem lies. If it means "without" then the weak position is conveyed. If it means "no" or "not" then the strong position is indicated. Without a god is not quite the same thing as no god. This is an old argument and presenting it as a settled affair in favor of the weak position indicates either a lack of understanding on your part or an attempt to convince others that no such disagreement exists. Martin is displaying his preference as fact in the above quote. Very bad form on his part.
The periodical "Positive Atheism" places the weak position at about the enlightment. The strong position is placed somewhere before that. This suggests that the weak position was defined to differentiate itself from the already held definition. Judging from the title they seem to have a horse in this particular race however.
How do you define agnostic and how do you differentiate it from your weak definition of atheism? Incidentially my use of the terms weak and strong in defining atheism are not a judgement of those definitions positions on my part. They are the widely accepted terms in use today.
Limited reading is indeed accurate to describe the depth of my reading on the subject. This does not mean however "no reading", or even "I read one book about it" just that I have only read a few books on the subject itself. Books like Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", Pascal Boyers "Religion Explained", or a great deal of Michael Shermers writings, while not about atheism explicitly, do mention the subject and put in a bit of historical context. I have read a great deal about religion and religious beliefs and the subject is frequently mentioned in such books.
While I find religious belief and customs sometimes fascinating the bits of minutia like exactly what text may or may not define the Popes infallibility or whether the "a" in atheism means "without" or "no" leave me a bit cold. They are based as much on personal preference as anything else. Why people profess a strong preference for one over the other is of more interest to me than those debates.
John Thornton