Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[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.