If I were an Atheist

[Esquilax]

First I would have to come to grips with the fact that in spite of a decline in religious attendance and participation atheism isn’t a growing movement. It’s not just an issue of popularity. There are many unpopular beliefs and facts that are believed because of a preponderance of evidence in their favor, not because the belief is popular.

And many untrue things with no evidence behind them at all are believed because they are attractive, and have a large amount of cultural and historical inertia behind them. The difference is that only one of us recognizes that the growth rate of a belief in no way affects the truth of it.

Many popular beliefs have been abandoned do to evidence against them. Considering many atheists equate belief in God with belief in Santa Claus how is it they’re not gaining any traction?

So basically what you're asking is, why hasn't atheism reversed hundreds and thousands of years of contiguous religious belief, across multiple cultures and gods, often defended violently or emotionally... in a couple of decades?

I think that question rather answers itself, but just in case it doesn't, the two forces are not remotely equal. Religion, in its various forms, has enjoyed a lengthy period of privilege in which it had been able to outright deny even the possibility of being questioned. Atheism has only been this open for a few decades. This isn't an issue of two equal ideas being addressed on a purely factual basis, and a simple look at how the world is demonstrates this. Atheism hasn't gained as much traction as you'd like because it's an uphill battle, while being pushed back downhill all the way.

If the existence of God were as implausible as the existence of Santa Claus then there should be as many atheists as those who don’t believe in Santa Claus.

And if parents didn't continue to press god belief on their children, if they didn't threaten their children with hell for expressing disbelief, if parents actually treated the idea of god like they do the idea of Santa, you might have a point. As it is, they allow one belief to fall by the wayside once the child matures, while they reinforce the other belief daily through more means than I care to count. You're drawing an entirely false equivalency here.

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

1. Drop the ‘I’m a weak-atheist’ strategy.

Why would I do that, if it's an accurate reflection of my belief? You're essentially asking that I lie to people when I represent myself, and this is supposed to help me make my case?

I’d go further and criticize those who refer to themselves as weak atheists. If atheists can’t convince others who call themselves atheists that God doesn’t exist just as an opinion and not as a fact, how can they possibly convince someone who believes in the existence of God that God doesn’t exist?

The problem is that you're attributing the wrong position to us. The weak atheist position isn't that god doesn't exist, it's that there is a severe lack of evidence for the god proposition, and that one should not believe claims that don't have enough evidence behind them. It's simple: weak atheists aren't trying to convince people that god doesn't exist, they're pointing out that there's no reason to privilege the god claim over and above other claims, and that all things being equal, there isn't enough evidence to believe in god without that unjustified privilege.

Expressions of certainty are not indicators of the quality of a position, Drew. Nor is an intellectually honest lack of certainty a sign of weakness. I'm sort of wondering why you think they are.

I know many atheists refer to themselves as weak atheists only so they can say they make no claim about whether God exists and therefore they have no burden of evidence.

Oh, you know that? How do you know that?

The upshot is it makes the case in favor of atheism so weak even those who call themselves atheists won’t opine that God doesn’t exist. I think the claim made by atheists they only lack belief in the existence of God is bogus, in reality it is there opinion that God doesn’t exist.

Well, I don't think you get to dictate what we really think unless we tell you, Drew. Good to see you haven't dropped that complete lack of awareness of other people's boundaries you had the last time we spoke.

2. Drop linking belief in Santa to belief in God argument.

It’s a silly argument on the face of it. If belief in God were akin to belief in Santa Claus (or fairies, invisible pink elephants and so on) then why doesn’t 80% of the population believe in Santa Claus?

Because at the point at which kids start expressing disbelief in Santa, their parents admit that Santa isn't real. When kids start expressing disbelief in god, their parents not only continue pressing that god is real, they are doing so within the context of a system designed to reinforce that belief daily (prayer, church, christian groups) while actively threatening those who express doubts. Though the level of evidence for both propositions is the same, the god claim has a manipulative support mechanism that simply does not exist for the Santa claim.

Did you really need to be told that? Was this a real chin scratcher for you?

Secondly there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that a mystical person known as Santa who delivers presents worldwide on Christmas is easy to debunk and disprove.

And whenever we disprove a specific claim about god ("Heaven is literally above us, in the clouds!") there are troops of believers more than happy to move their god just beyond the realm of that debunking in order to preserve their belief. Not so for Santa.

If belief in God is akin to belief in Santa how can there be weak atheists who only lack belief in God? Do atheists think Santa may exist but they merely lack that belief?

I don't think you really understand the weak atheist position: the idea is that, if evidence of Santa appears, we'll believe that. Likewise with god. We lack a belief, but retain the possibility that such a belief could be instilled. You're essentially trying to denigrate an open mind.

3. Drop the bashing, marginalizing and demonizing of believers.

He said, before continuing to bash, marginalize and demonize atheists.

If I were an atheist (a real atheist that actually believes and claims God doesn’t exist)

Because if there's one group of people who gets to decide what a real atheist is, it's theists, right?

I would clearly state such a belief is an opinion. It’s what I think is true but acknowledge I’m not certain of it. That’s what an opinion is, a statement you have reason to believe is true but can’t be certain is true.

You start with "if I were a real atheist," and then essentially describe the weak atheist position, which you think isn't real atheism, except for the wording of the claim itself.

Therefore was I an atheist I would argue from those facts God doesn’t exist which ironically means I’m making a better argument than most atheists make. I wouldn't antagonize anyone, bash them over the head, question their sanity, just make the case and let it go at that.

Oh, you wouldn't antagonize anyone? So, you wouldn't, say, dictate what they believe back to them, tell them that their beliefs are merely tactics to avoid responsibility, call them arrogant?