How many strong assumptions do unbelievers need?

[Mudhammam]

No assumptions are needed to be an atheist. Now in regards to knowledge, of course, all that must be assumed is that at least some (or one) things are more ascertainable than others.

[robvalue]

Sure I mean, if theists want to start collapsing into solipsism or questioning logic, then they automatically lose. Once you do that, you have thrown away all your tools.

I agree, we only need base assumptions that they too need to make to even address us with a claim.

[Simon Moon]

The only assumption I have to make is that hard solipsism is not true.

This assumption does not change for strong or weak atheism, nor theism.

[Pizza]

Maybe not even that. All I need is: Doubting; therefore, doubting exists.

---

I mostly bring this question up because in debates Christians will frame the debate as  naturalism vs theism; furthermore, apologists will make it seem like the atheists and agnostics are committed to a worldview and that atheism/agnosticism do or dies based on that view. If naturalism is inadequate then atheism is inadequate; however, I see no good reason to assume that at all. An atheist/agnostic could be a non-naturalist, supernaturalist, or none of the above.

[JuliaL]

How many strong assumptions do unbelievers need?

To what end?
For the outcome which results from no assumptions, no assumptions are needed.

[Mudhammam]

furthermore, apologists will make it seem like the atheists and agnostics are committed to a worldview and that atheism/agnosticism do or dies based on that view. If naturalism is inadequate then atheism is inadequate; however, I see no good reason to assume that at all. An atheist/agnostic could be a non-naturalist, supernaturalist, or none of the above.

That's because many Christians think of the world by means of very primitive concepts. How can nuance exist in texts believed to be written as a life guide by the supremely wise Creator of the Universe? It doesn't. It means what it says and it says what it means, and you either accept it all or deny it all. This was the mindset in the churches I grew up in, and that lack of critical and careful division of terms doesn't cease when they view contrary opinions. 

[Whateverist]

Maybe not even that. All I need is: Doubting; therefore, doubting exists.

I doubt, therefore I am.

[robvalue]

Even if solipsism is true, the worst I'm doing is arguing with a figment of my imagination. So I'm not too concerned about that!

I'll beat the shit out of that ignorant figment.

[Pizza]

That's because many Christians think of the world by means of very primitive concepts. How can nuance exist in texts believed to be written as a life guide by the supremely wise Creator of the Universe? It doesn't. It means what it says and it says what it means, and you either accept it all or deny it all. This was the mindset in the churches I grew up in, and that lack of critical and careful division of terms doesn't cease when they view contrary opinions. 

In fairness, most people are bad at careful division; however, most people are religious....I don't know what to make of that. 

Even if solipsism is true, the worst I'm doing is arguing with a figment of my imagination. So I'm not too concerned about that!

I'll beat the shit out of that ignorant figment.

The more I think of them the less scary many of these views are to me. Solipsism doesn't actually affect anything in practice. nor does being a brain in a vat, nor being systematically deceived by Descartes' evil demon.  

[Brakeman]

You should be just as worried about gods as do your cats or dogs. My dog doesn't care the least about philosophical structures, because he's an animal, just..like..us..