I'm skeptical that the weak atheist position could be maintained if or when the weak atheist starts to argue for a position, unless it is a neutral position. As soon as the weak atheist makes an argument for or against God, then wouldn't they believe that argument, or wouldn't that argument serve as logic and/or evidence towards God's existence? In other words, they would have beliefs and even evidence for it, and that gets into the strong (or even gnostic) atheist territory.
It doesn't even have to be an argument directly related to God, but it can include him through implication. For instance, if an atheist is against the supernatural or endorses metaphysical naturalism, then they don't accept that God exists because God concepts are incompatible with naturalism.
When is the last time you've seen a weak atheist argue for a neutral position? In my experience, all or most have endorsed materialism. Furthermore, have you seen any weak atheists arguing against strong atheist points? If a weak atheist has no problem with the strong atheist arguments/views, then why doesn't he accept the strong atheist label/position?
Should weak atheists have only neutral views or positions on God's existence?
It doesn't even have to be an argument directly related to God, but it can include him through implication. For instance, if an atheist is against the supernatural or endorses metaphysical naturalism, then they don't accept that God exists because God concepts are incompatible with naturalism.
When is the last time you've seen a weak atheist argue for a neutral position? In my experience, all or most have endorsed materialism. Furthermore, have you seen any weak atheists arguing against strong atheist points? If a weak atheist has no problem with the strong atheist arguments/views, then why doesn't he accept the strong atheist label/position?
Should weak atheists have only neutral views or positions on God's existence?
Last edited: