We all need a default—an automatic position that stays in place until we are shown why we need to move from it. The starting default in the agnosticism–theism–atheism debate is simply negative atheism. This does not claim anything but states that one lacks belief in God because one finds no reason to believe. This is a lack—with an inclination against God. So, while it does not claim there is no God, it shows that you find no place for God. Lacking something so important is clearly significant. It is a non-position that is effectively a position.
Confusing? Yes. I advise keeping the focus on how it is not literally a position.
Agnosticism is a claim—that we do not, or cannot, be in any way persuaded about God.
Theism says God exists.
Positive atheism claims there is no God.
They all bear the burden of proof, as all claims do.
The default, then, has to be the non-position. It is all you need. You owe nobody any explanation. Go for atheism in the form of: "I lack belief in God."
Lack of belief in God—not disbelief—will be the default. Remember that disbelief goes further than mere lack of belief. We cannot start with God, for it is logical to see if there is reason to believe in anything before you believe in it.
Let us forget that we already have a default and ask: what would it be if we had to make a claim?
What does the null or default mean in relation to the God-or-not question? In other words, what position should we take? What claim do we make?
It means, for a start, that it is where you begin.
If you list all the things people can believe about religion—such as gods, nature spirits, or the supernatural—then atheism could be the 0.
There are a number of candidates for being the default position.
We have seen before that the absence of belief in God is the default. But that is not a position.
Now we are proposing:
"I claim that there is no evidence for God, so I don't deny God, but just lack belief"
...as the default.
Ranking the Candidates
If, for any reason, the first candidate for the default position is found to be inadequate, we must consider the next most reasonable alternative. To do this properly, we need a ranked list—starting with the strongest candidate and ending with the weakest. By definition, the best candidate is the most logical, coherent, and least assumptive option; therefore, it deserves to be treated as the default.
Some may criticize this approach as overly rigid or narrowly structured. But logic, by its nature, is structured. To reject structure here would be like dismissing mathematical rules for being too precise. Reasoning must follow a rational order.
Accordingly, we will rank the possible default positions in order of epistemic strength. If the first fails to qualify, we move to the second, then the third, and so on—always starting from the most justifiable stance and proceeding downward.
1. Lack of Belief Due to Lack of Evidence
The first is claiming that evidence for God does not exist, so people should suspend or not develop belief.
2. Ordinary Agnosticism
The second is agnosticism, which says that you don't know if there is a God or not. It only says you don’t know, not that you can’t.
This position is the next step up from lack of belief.
3. Strong Agnosticism
The third is agnosticism in the stronger sense—the idea that you can’t know if there is a God or not. This is strong agnosticism.
4. Weak Atheism or Weak Theism
The fourth is a weak belief that there is no God.
Some say there are two candidates here:
weak faith in God, or
weak faith in atheism.
You could also phrase it as choosing between:
mild disbelief that there is a God, or
mild belief that there is a God.
So, soft atheism or soft theism is the default here.
But weak faith in God is mistaken. God cannot be God to you if you are only half-convinced. And it would be unethical to hold light belief in a demanding God—you are not going to have the faith to please him.
But atheism is atheism whether your belief is weak or strong.
Imagine it was weak theism vs. weak atheism.
Which one you go for depends on whether you think there is evidence in its favour.
But the God believed in will not be the Christian God, to whom we owe our existence and full devotion. It would be contradictory to claim you accept the existence of such a God on weak evidence. You would need strong evidence to justify devoted belief in a God who demands such total commitment from you.
If you cannot get beyond weak belief in this Christian God, then you have evidence that he does not exist—for the evidence would be better if he did.
5. Weak Belief in God
The fifth is weak belief that there is a God.
This is incoherent and not a real default, but it is worth including—since not all candidates are valid anyway.
6. Strong Atheism
The sixth is strong belief that there is no God.
This ranks next, because none of the previous positions are supportive of God's existence.
7. Strong Theism
The seventh is strong belief in God.
This is the last resort.
Conclusion
We need go no further. We have shown that it is far from sensible to start off with belief in a God as the default. You need bias to justify making anything other than the first position your default.
To take the testimony of men as sufficient in such a serious matter is to treat these men as bigger gods than God. That is idolatry.
The Christian version of God is not even worth considering as a default. A belief in a deist creator—a "God" who creates but does not intervene—would deserve a higher ranking in the defaults than the Christian God would.
Our examination of the candidates, in their proper order, shows that people have to try so hard to defend belief in the existence of God that they end up looking—and being—desperate. Their belief is low in the ranking as a default.
Atheism is the only rational assumption.
Appendix
Once you say, "My position is that my non-position is that I lack faith in God," you’re taking a meta-level stance that defends your lack of belief. That creates a modest burden of proof—not to prove God doesn’t exist, but to justify why non-belief is reasonable.