Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[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?