On Religion, Part the First

As an atheist and minor philosopher, I occasionally find myself defending or explaining my belief system to others. Recently I've undertaken a background task of writing up a document explaining in detail my position and belief system. In it I will attempt to address all major questions and attacks against my position. Currently the major focus is religion, since most of the major discussions I find myself in are in regards to why I do not believe that gods exist. Part of the reason for this document is simply to be sure that my reasoning is sound. I can ensure that I understand the subject by exploring it in depth in this way.

I try not to hold a position simply because I believe it to be right, I want to hold a position because I have good reasons for it. I believe that 'having faith' in something should be limited to the smallest possible subset of ideas, similar to the concept of axioms in the field of mathematics. I also try to avoid contradictions and inconsistancies. While I recognize that it is valid to choose to allow contradiction and inconsistancy in one's personal philosophy, my personality requires that I choose to eliminate these things to the extent that I am able to do so. I don't mean to indicate that all of life can be reduced to cold logic, just that it is the basic tool of reason, and that reason is one of my goals.

The following is an excerpt from my paper, currently titled simply "On Religion". It is a statement of my position in regard to religious beliefs. What I ask of the reader (indeed, if there are any), is to read the excerpt and report to me if it makes sense; is it a clear and understandable statement of position?

My belief, and the position I am defending is that of the 'weak atheist'. The term 'weak' in this context does not refer to the strength of my conviction, but rather to the type of claim I am making. Atheism is literally 'without belief in gods'. The people who fall into this category fall into two camps, those like myself who are simply without belief in gods, 'weak' atheists, and those who, in addition to not having a belief in gods, also make the claim that gods do not or cannot exist. The latter is the 'strong' position. The term 'agnostic' refers to people who believe that we do not or cannot have knowledge necessary to know if gods do or do not exist. I am agnostic in that I do not believe that the existence or non existence of gods can be proven.

At first one might think that it does not make sense to call oneself both agnostic and atheist. However, the two terms are not at odds. Agnostisism tells us what someone believes about the 'provability' of the existance of gods, not about which belief he holds about the existance of gods. A claim of theism or atheism tells us that someone does or does not have a belief in the existance of gods. A strong atheist cannot be agnostic, as he claims to know that gods do n0t exist. A weak atheist may or may not be an agnostic. One could not have a belief in gods (weak atheist), and also believe that the existance of gods is provable (not agnostic), or that the existance of gods is not provable (agnostic). Of course, one who is agnostic does not have to be an atheist, he may believe that gods exist, and simply believe that they cannot be proven to exist; this would be an agnostic theist. I would suppose that many theists fall into this category, if god could be proven to exist then what need would there be for faith?

There it is. Comments? Note that this document is not intended to follow any rigorous format. The intention is strictly to communicate my thoughts on the matter in a comprehensible way, so its likely I will get off on tangents when explaining points.