(November 8, 2016 at 1:37 am)TheHuxleyAgnostic Wrote:(November 7, 2016 at 11:43 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Or has read some Huxley but does not find him authoritative on the matter.
...or hasn't read the Oxford Handbook of Atheism, or hasn't read The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, or numerous other books on philosophy, none of which have agnosticism being compatible with beliefs. So, not only don't accept the authority of the guy who defined agnosticism, but don't accept the general consensus in philosophy.
(November 7, 2016 at 11:01 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Welcome. Try to read the rules. And how about an introduction thread?
https://atheistforums.org/rules.php
Is agnosticism/atheism an ongoing type discussion? It constantly pops up, in many other forums/groups.
(November 7, 2016 at 4:50 pm)Irrational Wrote: I would say an agnostic strong atheist only has a minor burden of proof. All they have to say is for a grand entity like God, there is an utter lack of evidence for his existence.Then it's up to the theist to provide conclusive evidence for God, and this is something they have yet to succeed in doing so.
Yes, that position can go either way, with burden. If they say they just have a gut feeling, or it just seems too ridiculous, or something that isn't evidence based, then they carry no burden. However, if they say something like "based on probabilities, I believe gods don't exist", then they should show their evidence. "Probabilities" actually require testing and number crunching.
Personally, if they insist I provide arguments against God, and I have some time on my hands, I'd be happy to do so. I'm not going to evade the burden if/when it's meant to be on them.
