If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

God is absurd

There is the kind of answer that will persuade theists that God doesn't exist.

There's no reason that every comment an atheist makes should be carefully crafted to persuade theists. Frankly, I'd rather most theists stay theists until they've mastered rudimentary critical thinking skills. It's the ones who have done that whom I have some slight interest in persuading that belief in God isn't rationally justified (if they haven't already come to that decision on their own and decided to believe anyway).

---

Your arguments following only justify weak atheism. If it makes you feel better, I'm a strong atheist toward the literal version of God described in the Bible: how we got here is not as described in Genesis, there was never a global flood, the sun never 'stopped in the sky' to give Hebrews a military victory, there was never an Exodus, and the Jews were never enslaved en masse by the Egyptians.

Ironically your opinion in regards to this matter makes you a theologian not an atheist at all and certainly not a strong atheist.

You have an interesting habit of leaving out the identity of the person whom you're quoting. I'm a strong atheist towards the literally interpreted version of the God of the Bible, it contradicts physical evidence. I'm a weak atheist towards less problematic versions of God. It's not that complex of a position. And if you think a theologian can't be an atheist, I'd say you don't understand many of the terms you are using. There are several prominent atheist theologians.

'Weak atheists' tend to be careful about what they claim. It's a personality trait. You're not going to change their personalities. Strong atheists sometimes try to argue that weak atheists wouldn't have a problem saying there definitely are no leprechauns...but actually, most of them would, in my experience.

I think by and large weak atheism is used as a tactic to avoid making any claim.

Yes, we all know you think that, despite anything we might have to say to the contrary. The basis of your opinion seems to be that since it makes criticizing atheism more difficult for you, that must be the reason so many of us hold that inconvenient position. After all, if our position is that we are not convinced any gods exist and your position is that at least one does, the burden of proof is on you, and you know you can't meet that burden. You could simply take the position that you believe in your version of God regardless of whether you can support it empirically. It's a position you would be well-advised to take, if you think tactics are paramount. That puts us on equal footing, burden of proof-wise, if that's what's important to you.

It also redefines atheism so that you might as well take the a out of atheism.

This 'redefiniton' you speak of has been in use by atheist writers for centuries.

The a in atheism means not or without God. Just as the a in a sexual means procreation not or without sex. as a result I think of weak atheists as weak theists after all I don't deny the existence of God and neither do they.

Are we the same in that we don't believe God is real and you don't either?

I can even have a debate with them about the existence of God because neither they nor I deny God exists.

In what way would you be handicapped in having a debate with someone who denies that God exists?

---

if I ask anyone on the street what does being an atheist mean 99 out of hundred are going to answer it's a person who doesn't believe God exists.

Then 99 out of a hundred would be correct.

Secondly if we all make up our own personal definitions for words communication becomes impossible.

Then maybe you shouldn't change 'someone who doesn't believe God exists' to 'someone who believes God doesn't exist'.

Lastly if atheists can't convince those who call themselves atheists that God doesn't exist not as a fact but just as an opinion then how weak is the case for atheism?

Atheism and theism are both differing opinions on the same topic. Neither amounts to more than opinion since neither can ultimately be proven correct. The case for atheism (that is, the case for being an atheist in the face of theistic claims) is weak, if the case for theism weren't even weaker, I'd be a theist.

Particularly when many atheists equate the existence of God with the existence of fairies Santa Claus and other mythical figures. Do atheists merely lacked belief in those characters also?

No one speaks for all atheists and we're not a homogenous group. as you're well aware, but I merely lack belief in those characters because I can't prove they're not real.

I don't claim with any certainty that God exists I stated that on numerous occasions.

So why do you expect us to claim with certainty that God does not exist? I wouldn't tell a theist they weren't a theist because they're not certain God is real. It's enough if they believe it. I'm sure there are millions of 'weak theists'/'agnostic theists'.

Even as theist I didn't have any problem with citing at least four reasons why folks might think atheism is true.

Neither atheism nor theism are truth claims. They are belief claims. I presume you mean you could cite four reasons one shouldn't believe God exists, or more likely I think, four caricatures you ascribed to the reasoning of atheists.

Am I asking atheists too much to make a cause positive case for what they think is true?

You're asking way too much if you want over half of atheists to redefine their identity to suit your tastes. What we all think is true (as far as I know) is that belief in God is not rationally justified. Are we asking too much for you to deal with what we actually think instead of what you want us to think?

I only claim to have an opinion that our existence and that of the universe is caused by a creator.

And that makes you a theist.

The truth is I don't know for sure, an opinion or belief is what you express when you're not certain of the actual answer to a question.

And that makes you an agnostic theist or 'weak' theist. Why do you expect us to express more certainty in our position than you do in yours? Am I now justified in maintaining that you only hold that position as a tactic to avoid bearing the burdern of proof, and shall I simply ignore any statements you make to the contrary instead of charitably assuming that you hold that position because it best describes what you actually think?

I have stated several reasons, several lines of evidence and made a case for why I'm skeptical of atheism.

You can't possibly be claiming that you've found a shortage of people on this site willing to make a case for why they're skeptical of theism.