Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[MindForgedManacle]

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.

I do wish MFM would elaborate on why he thinks (if he does) that atheists have a burden of proof for not believing in gods. Is it simply semantics? I think I understand what gives rise to belief in gods. I certainly believe in the capacities and tendencies of consciousness to give rise to the perception that gods are real as fellow beings. So sure, I believe they are real experiences for believers; but no I don't believe gods have any existence apart from the forces which give rise to consciousness. Their existence is contingent upon the same brain structures and chemistry which gives rise to us.

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. 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.

---

...but atheism is just lacking the beleif in a god or gods..

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.