If I were an Atheist

[Angrboda]

How would I approach the debate were I an atheist?

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

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?

And in doing so, I'd say you're confused about the nature of modern atheism. Yes, there are some who deny the existence of God, and for them to do so is perfectly fine — it's a big tent. However many come to atheism as a position of skepticism — that being to withhold assent until reason and evidence compel belief. It is skepticism of a narrow sort, concerned only with claims about the existence of gods. In this it is no different than, say, skepticism about the matter of universal origins; one is able to withhold belief from specific claims and theories without necessarily being obliged to form a contrary opinion. As I recall, you had great difficulty accepting that as well. Ultimately, it is up to the individual atheist to determine whether they hold to a position of skepticism or one of outright denial; as such, atheism isn't a movement of robot drones all marching to the beat of the same drum. There is no shame in simply adopting an attitude of skepticism; it is a time honored position.

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?

For whatever reason, the argument seems to have gotten under your skin. It's an analogy, and whether that analogy is weak or strong, effective or ineffective, apt or not, is something that only an individual atheist can decide dependent on context and such. Using it at every opportunity might be unwise, but for a variety of reasons, none of which imply that it is a fundamentally useless argument as you seem to imply here. That someone might use such an argument from analogy is neither good or bad in the absolute; there are certainly times when its use is warranted or effective. (Heaven forbid an atheist might make an ineffective argument! What would the movement think!?) A little now and again does no harm.

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

I know such tactics make a big splash with fellow atheists but it does nothing for those sitting on the fence and are interested in an actual debate between atheists and theists. It makes atheists look petty, smug and arrogant and that they can’t make a factual argument from the evidence.

Yes, I'm sure you would welcome an end to the abuse and ridicule, however I would suggest to you that some of the time atheists bash, marginalize, or demonize believers it is because the believer has done, said, or believed something that is worthy of bashing, marginalizing or demonizing. Much like the Santa Claus analogy above, you seem to live in a one-size-fits-all world, but situations may suggest if not compel one to such behavior in the name of moral decency. Seldom is it done as an act put on to entertain one's peers. Again, it is the individual judgement of the particular atheist who should decide when such measures are warranted, not some dictate of the Atheist Reich.


In general, you seem to be advocating that all atheists abandon their individuality in favor of some kind of unified front for the movement. Not only would this be rather inauthentic, I think that what the movement would lose is inestimably more valuable than what it might gain.