Originally Posted by JinnKai

So, unfortunately -- we were both incorrect and correct. While the position can be termed weak atheism, it can also be termed agnosticism.

of QUOTE

wow, so much discussion since i last tuned in. it's wonderful. on the matter of position with respect to faith, however, i remain fairly binary in my opionion:

1) atheists & theists require faith to substantiate their positions

2) agnostics do not require faith to substantiate their positions.

I disregard the term weak atheist as meaningless, but agree that the position described is actually an agnostic. Agnostics suspend faith, and determine their acceptance based upon scientific proof. One could argue that this implies faith in the scientific method, but i disagree with that too. I merely maintain that it requires acceptance (and acceptance only) of paradigms which can be modified as observations continue. We do not have to have faith that an object will fall towards the centre of gravity, we only have to accept that repeated tests will 'prove' that an object will behave in that manner.

Theists do not require such proof that god(s) exists, they accept on faith that the god(s) exist. Atheists also do not require proof that god(s) do not exist. they accept on faith that god(s) do not exist. To state otherwise is to group them into the agnostic camp, because they are then basing their position on lack of proof.