Agnostic atheism seems to stem from a need to express an intellectually honest approach, in that we cannot know anything 100% unless we are ourselves omniscient. Also there seems to be a dislike other people putting the burden of proof on them. However, I am not convinced by this and I do not think agnostic atheism has a superior position (in not having to prove anything) . The agnostic atheist would also probably affirm the non existence of Mithras or Baal or Zeus or tooth fairies. The data supporting their supernaturql existence however is exactly equivalent to any other god Inc Christianity. Thus I think strong atheism is more consistent here. It is not what we can know, but what we are justified in believing that's important, and we are not justified in believing such wild, unsubstantiated claims. For me agnostic atheism reduces into just atheism, for whilst it is true that we cannot know whether there is a god, if you don’t believe in “God”, then the absence of evidence or reasoned argument for “God” necessarily entails that you also affirm the non-existence of “God”. Or said differently : only a Believer is deluded enough to look past the total lack of evidence.
I think that agnostic atheism would also rightly point out, that they don't even know what the believer means by a god. But this turns us to plain atheism again, as the argument from the meaninglessness of god, is in support of strong atheism stance and is consistent with other arguments that demonstrate that the world is exactly as you would expect it to be if atheism were true. In addition I think many agnostic atheists would also claim to be at least partly 'strong' atheists for certain gods described by theists, given their incoherent secondary attributes. Both strong and agnostic atheists have absolutely no idea what the theist means when they talk about god and are left to conclude that such a being is so magical, mystical and far from experience it doesn't exist. For one I am happy to move one stage further and debate these points owning the need to make the argument for atheism.
As an atheist. Do I have a burden of proof ? The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality. Until Theists can give a meaningful account of their belief and give some actual evidence or reasoning for said meaning, atheists have nothing to prove. All that atheistic arguments provide are a reiteration of this burden of proof, as well as some other fatal problems with certain assumed properties of the god concept.
I think that agnostic atheism would also rightly point out, that they don't even know what the believer means by a god. But this turns us to plain atheism again, as the argument from the meaninglessness of god, is in support of strong atheism stance and is consistent with other arguments that demonstrate that the world is exactly as you would expect it to be if atheism were true. In addition I think many agnostic atheists would also claim to be at least partly 'strong' atheists for certain gods described by theists, given their incoherent secondary attributes. Both strong and agnostic atheists have absolutely no idea what the theist means when they talk about god and are left to conclude that such a being is so magical, mystical and far from experience it doesn't exist. For one I am happy to move one stage further and debate these points owning the need to make the argument for atheism.
As an atheist. Do I have a burden of proof ? The burden of proof belongs to he who makes a claim about reality. Until Theists can give a meaningful account of their belief and give some actual evidence or reasoning for said meaning, atheists have nothing to prove. All that atheistic arguments provide are a reiteration of this burden of proof, as well as some other fatal problems with certain assumed properties of the god concept.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
