Can you persuade me from Agnostic to Atheist?

[wiploc]

Sure. The entry-level atheist position is "not a theist". Since it's a response to theistic claims of belief in one or more gods, atheism straight out of the box means not accepting those claims prima facie. It's the position of "show me what you got and I'll consider it". As such it carries no burden of proof, as the atheist isn't trying to prove anything. Everything else, from the weak/strong modifiers to the seven-point scale, is an attempt to qualify the degree to which the atheism is applied, and may carry a burden of proof depending on the level of positive claims being made.

Thanks.  I don't agree, but thanks for explaining.

What don't you agree with?

I think I misread your original post: "You do know that the principle atheist position is not that "there is not a god", right?" 

Nonetheless I wouldn't call any atheist position the "principle" atheist position. 

The entry-level atheist position is "not a theist".

That's every position.  It's the whole thing, not some entry level position.  A strong atheist like me (I believe that gods do not exist) meets that definition every bit as much as a weak atheist (one who doesn't believe either that gods do exist or that they don't).  

Since it's a response to theistic claims of belief in one or more gods, atheism straight out of the box means not accepting those claims prima facie.

If we're agreed that everyone who isn't a theist is an atheist, then atheism isn't necessarily a response to theist claims.  Implicit atheists (e.g. babies and wolf boys) aren't responding to anything; they just don't happen to be theists.  

It's the position of "show me what you got and I'll consider it".

I'm a strong atheist, and that's my position.  If theists come up with a persuasive case, I'm willing to switch teams.  I want to go wherever the evidence leads.  

Now consider the so-called "strong agnostics," who often say things like, "I don't know, and you don't know either.  Nobody knows.  Nobody can know.  Nobody will ever know.  Agnosticism is the only reasonable position.  If you are a theist or a strong atheist, you are an idiot."  So some weak atheists aren't open to evidence.  

As such it carries no burden of proof, as the atheist isn't trying to prove anything.

Strong atheists have as much burden of proof as theists.  (Which probably means AgnosticMan is tearing his hair out by now.  )

Everything else, from the weak/strong modifiers to the seven-point scale, is an attempt to qualify the degree to which the atheism is applied,

I think that this, in the face of the rest of your post, is incoherent.  Degrees of not being a theist?

and may carry a burden of proof depending on the level of positive claims being made.

This part I can agree with.  

All of this feels like nit-picking.  I'm answering only because you asked.  I'm not trying to start a dialog on whether the seven point scale is an attempt to qualify the degree to which atheism is applied.
[/quote]