Talk:Weak atheism

Not good enough yet

The present version of the article blurs the distinction between the atheist and agnostic positions. So I'm moving it to a subpage for repairs. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

I distinguished from agnosticism in the intro ... not sure what else you're looking for ... could you let me know where the blurring is? Ungtss 09:35, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Needs a crystal clear definition. For one thing, does the agnostic positively say no God exists, or that it's not possible to know whether God exists, or simply that he himself is undecided about whether God exists?

Please answer here, instead of merely telling me there is no problem. I don't move things around for no reason. --Ed Poor ^Talk 18:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

As I understand it, the agnostic says he doesn't know whether there's a God or not for lack of adequate evidence either way, while the weak atheist says he disbelieves in God, for lack of adequate evidence. Ungtss 19:56, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

You seem to be saying something like this:

Analysis	Conclusion	Position
can't tell whether there's a God or not	I dunno	Agnostic
can't tell whether there's a God or not	There is no God	Atheist or weak atheism
proof that there's no God	There is no God	strong atheism

Does this table sum up your thinking and/or definitions? --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

very close:

Burden of proof	Analysis of Evidence	Conclusion
On either side	Insufficient to prove either side	Agnostic
On the theist	Insufficient to prove existence of God	weak atheism
On the atheist	Positive reason to disbelieve	strong atheism

Ungtss 11:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Having read both articles I'd say that WA deals mainly with the question of God, in the sense of, "I am not convinced that there is a god or gods, therefore I choose not to believe in god".

SA deals with humanity's (communal) interpretations of the evidence for there being a god or gods. It is a rational defense, based solely on the rules of logic and reasoning. I guess one could argue that logic and reasoning are elevated to such a degree that they themselves have taken on a godlike status. Samwell 23:31, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

I'd agree -- one could definitely make that argument. I'm a big fan of reasoning, tho -- I just think it supports Belief. Ungtss 11:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)