Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Simon Moon]

No apparently you're supposed to argue that they don't exist, to justify your belief that they don't exist.

Was does need to justify the position one holds to, yes.

The thing I think you are missing, is that if someone rejects the premise that a god exists, does not mean they accept the counter positive premise by default.

In other words, not accepting the claim that a god exists, does not mean one accepts the claim that a god does not exist. Each claim has it's own burden of proof.

There is a jar with an unknown number of green, red and white gumballs. Someone claims (despite not having knowledge) there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar. Since they have no knowledge of the number, you provisionally disbelief their claim.

Does your disbelief of their claim mean that you now believe that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.

Does the person that disbelieves the claim that there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar have the burden of proof that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

Except it isn't. Ask any person what they think an atheist is, and practically all of them will tell you something like "Someone who believes God doesn't exist." And this how words get their meaning, by how people use them. Online atheists basically just changed that for an attempted advantage on this topic.

Then those people should be corrected on their misuse of the word.

Atheists do have the advantage on the subject, since theists are unable to support their claims with evidence and reasoned argument.

All that is required to be an atheist is to disbelieve the claims made by theists that a god exists.

[FatAndFaithless]

Was does need to justify the position one holds to, yes.

The thing I think you are missing, is that if someone rejects the premise that a god exists, does not mean they accept the counter positive premise by default.

In other words, not accepting the claim that a god exists, does not mean one accepts the claim that a god does not exist. Each claim has it's own burden of proof.

There is a jar with an unknown number of green, red and white gumballs. Someone claims (despite not having knowledge) there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar. Since they have no knowledge of the number, you provisionally disbelief their claim.

Does your disbelief of their claim mean that you now believe that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.

Does the person that disbelieves the claim that there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar have the burden of proof that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

Except it isn't. Ask any person what they think an atheist is, and practically all of them will tell you something like "Someone who believes God doesn't exist." And this how words get their meaning, by how people use them. Online atheists basically just changed that for an attempted advantage on this topic.

Then those people should be corrected on their misuse of the word.

Atheists do have the advantage on the subject, since theists are unable to support their claims with evidence and reasoned argument.

Yup. MFM saying 'most people think atheism means x' is an illustration of the problem. just like a huge portion of people completely misunderstand the thoery of evolution, it doesnt mean we start talking about evolution in their terms.

[jesus_wept]

what about "no opinion, therefore I disagree because I obviously don't agree that the HTC is better than the s5"?

Do you actually know if those are actual phones or just made up hypotheticals? Because I really don't. Therefore I really have no opinion (am agnostic) regarding Max's belief.

I know at least one of them is a real phone because I know someone with an s5, but that wasn't the question.

Why do you think I should "therefore disagree" with his belief? It doesn't at all follow that I don't agree. Rather, I can't agree. But it is equally true that I can't disagree. I simply have no basis for forming an opinion in either direction.

I think you're just splitting hairs here because cant agree is basically the same as doesn't agree, either way you both don't agree.

Of course a major difference between Max's example and the god question is that I am aware that actual phones exist, I just don't stay current on what models are available. I don't know if any gods exist. But I suspect the whole god question is nonsense, something I don't feel in regard to the phone question.

Being a phone is a meaningful category for me; I have a reasonable chance of identifying a phone when I see one. Being a god is more problematic because I've never seen one. Worse, there is little agreement as to what the nature of such a thing would be.

Since I have a working category into which I would sort many fanciful creatures and human-like beings from folklore and mythology, I suspect that the xtian god is one of these. I fully understand that such beings were or are more than that to the people for whom the bible is more than folklore. But that would have also been the case at other times for those who believed in the Norse gods or the Greek gods.

I dont know if any gods exist either, nor do I believe in any.

[Bibliofagus]

On AF.com there's a regular poster (Antithesis) who always asks 'What's a god?'
To me this seems to be an issue that should be resolved before I'm obligated or required or whatever to consider whether I 'know' if said god exists or not.

I mean: These dice are loaded. The word 'god' can mean anything from the totem in a primitive village, through lightning-throwing guys, a vengefull jewish/christian/muslim magic guy, all of nature, whatever hinduus believe, to an unknowable guy/thing that doesn't intervene or even exists 'outside of reality' - whatever the fuck that means. Hell. Some of these even claim that there's supernatural guys whom are able to trick my senses into not seeing the 'god' that is clearly there...

And I have to take a position on whether I 'know' if any of these are real? While most people would instantly interpret/misconstrue that as meaning I believe there's a 50% chance that their - particular - god actually exists?

I say no.

[Confused Ape]

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.

I lack belief that deities exist as objective realities. I have no belief that deities exist as objective realities. If you really want to stretch a point you can translate that as I don't believe that deities exist as objective realities. In what way do I have a burden of proof for my lack of belief? I lack belief that fairies and water spirits exist as objective realities as well. Am I supposed to have a burden of proof for my lack of belief where fairies and water spirits are concerned?

My lacking belief isn't the same thing at all as claiming I know for a fact that nobody's concept of deity exists as an objective reality because I would have a burden of proof there.

Upanashids

The later Vedic religion produced the Upanisads, a series of profound philosophical reflections in which Brahman is now considered to be the one Absolute Reality behind changing appearances. It is the universal substrate from which material things originate and to which they return after their dissolution.

Disproving this would be impossible because science still hasn't discovered what absolute reality is.

Given that, claims like "we all start out as atheists since we start out lacking belief, so it is only the theists who have the burden of proof" are just nonsensical.

What deity or deities did you believe in when you were a new born baby?

[MindForgedManacle]

Yup. MFM saying 'most people think atheism means x' is an illustration of the problem. just like a huge portion of people completely misunderstand the thoery of evolution, it doesnt mean we start talking about evolution in their terms.

No it isn't,that's how language works. ALL words get their meaning by how people use them. That's not even remotely comparable to misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yup. MFM saying 'most people think atheism means x' is an illustration of the problem. just like a huge portion of people completely misunderstand the thoery of evolution, it doesnt mean we start talking about evolution in their terms.

No it isn't,that's how language works. ALL words get their meaning by how people use them. That's not even remotely comparable to misunderstandings of evolutionary theory.

The misconception about what atheism means is something we should try to correct, not simply use the meaning that they 'think' defines atheism.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're getting hung up in the mechanics of language Wept. With regards to having a conversation, or an agreement within that conversation you would be correct. They do not agree. However, with regards to the proposition in question - one has simply expressed no viewpoint. Would you prefer that they lied to you, and told you that they knew something that they didn't?

[MindForgedManacle]

The thing I think you are missing, is that if someone rejects the premise that a god exists, does not mean they accept the counter positive premise by default.

In other words, not accepting the claim that a god exists, does not mean one accepts the claim that a god does not exist. Each claim has it's own burden of proof.

You begin to lose intelligibility here then, because the words your employing to describe yourself (an atheist) as someone who doesn't reject the existence of gods when the word means that very thing.

Of course rejecting a claim doesn't mean you accept it's opposite; I never said that.

There is a jar with an unknown number of green, red and white gumballs. Someone claims (despite not having knowledge) there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar. Since they have no knowledge of the number, you provisionally disbelief their claim.

Does your disbelief of their claim mean that you now believe that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

No, but I never claimed that. See my ET analogy on page 8 or 9 (I forget which page).

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.

Does the person that disbelieves the claim that there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar have the burden of proof that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?[/quote]

Again, strawman, never said that.

Then those people should be corrected on their misuse of the word.

Atheists do have the advantage on the subject, since theists are unable to support their claims with evidence and reasoned argument.

All that is required to be an atheist is to disbelieve the claims made by theists that a god exists.

You can't misuse a word when your usage of it is directly inline with what the word has come to mean.

They have evidence, not evidence I find good, and arguments, though (again) not ones I find compelling. The thing us, our advantage here has nothing to do with discussions of the burden of proof.

What do you mean by "disbelieve"? Do you mean "lacking belief" or "believing something to be false"? The latter is what the word 'atheist' actually refers to. Using the former is just the nonsensical equivocation some atheists use to try escape their burden of proof.

[FatAndFaithless]

The thing I think you are missing, is that if someone rejects the premise that a god exists, does not mean they accept the counter positive premise by default.

In other words, not accepting the claim that a god exists, does not mean one accepts the claim that a god does not exist. Each claim has it's own burden of proof.

You begin to lose intelligibility here then, because the words your employing to describe yourself (an atheist) as someone who doesn't reject the existence of gods when the word means that very thing.

Of course rejecting a claim doesn't mean you accept it's opposite; I never said that.

There is a jar with an unknown number of green, red and white gumballs. Someone claims (despite not having knowledge) there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar. Since they have no knowledge of the number, you provisionally disbelief their claim.

Does your disbelief of their claim mean that you now believe that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

No, but I never claimed that. See my ET analogy on page 8 or 9 (I forget which page).

Yes, I do believe atheists have a burden of proof. Not a burden of proof for merely lacking belief (which I think was just something atheists cooked up in a lawyerish fashion to try and avoid their BOP), but because I think the only meaningful definition of atheism is the one that the word means to most English speakers: people who believe no gods exist.

Does the person that disbelieves the claim that there are an even number of red and an odd number of green and white gumballs in the jar have the burden of proof that there are an odd number of red gumballs and an even number of green and white ones?

Again, strawman, never said that.

Then those people should be corrected on their misuse of the word.

Atheists do have the advantage on the subject, since theists are unable to support their claims with evidence and reasoned argument.

All that is required to be an atheist is to disbelieve the claims made by theists that a god exists.

You can't misuse a word when your usage of it is directly inline with what the word has come to mean.

They have evidence, not evidence I find good, and arguments, though (again) not ones I find compelling. The thing us, our advantage here has nothing to do with discussions of the burden of proof.

What do you mean by "disbelieve"? Do you mean "lacking belief" or "believing something to be false"? The latter is what the word 'atheist' actually refers to. Using the former is just the nonsensical equivocation some atheists use to try escape their burden of proof.

You can keep saying it over and over again, but atheism is not the assertion that there are no gods. That's anti-theism.