Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[Ben Davis]

Either way, the root is "theos." It's just the way words get crunched. To go back to the true ternary:
a + theos + ism
1. (a + theos) + ism = atheos + ism = atheism (the belief or doctrine of no-God)
2. a + (theos + ism) = a + theism = atheism (the state of not being theistic)
This is a perfect ambiguity as far as I can tell, unless someone here really knows Greek conjugation rules deeply and can correct me.

Etymology isn't only concerned with accurate conjugation but also root, form, history & usage so...

Because 'atheos' is rooted from 'theos' there's a superior word for 'athe-ism' which also roots from 'theos': anti-theism (opposition to theism). Let's remember that 'atheos' was created to generalise & stereotype those who didn't believe in the Olympic pantheon, irrespective of whether there was belief in other deities involved or not. Therefore there's additional baggage in the word 'athe-ism' that there isn't in the word 'a-theism'. If we're looking for highly accurate descriptors/definitions and applying the strictest etymology, we should reject the word 'athe-ism' as being too ambiguous and stick to 'a-theism' and 'anti-theism'.

Anyway, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the weak form is the most pragmatic, at least in the States: it separates religious people from non-religious people (Stop ringing my fucking doorbell on Sunday morning, and go sell crazy somewhere else!), rather than engaging in a philosophical debate (I think there's no God. Why? Prove it. What's your reason? etc.)

Indeed. That's because it's the strictest, most accurate definition of the word.

But I'd argue that weak atheism is more a political or social position, rather than a philosophical one.

This is an argument that stems from the conflation of belief & knowledge and is exactly why I believe we should stick to the strictest definition of 'a-theism'. 'A-theism' doesn't contain any baggage, no political views, nothing. It's a simple statement that 'whatever my beliefs or value-systems are, theism is not amongst them'. It's not a statement on one's claims to knowledge in regard to specific 'god hypotheses'.

In a philosophical thread, I think people have to accept and accommodate an expectation for a hard atheist position. Responding to a modal argument with "Show me the proof, asshole," isn't a very good philosophical argument.

IMHO, It's possibly the best way to show 'a love of wisdom'