Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[MindForgedManacle]

Uhhhhh... From Oxford:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/atheist

"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"

Why is this so difficult to comprehend, MFM? It's infuriating!

Can you tell me what dictionaries are? Also, it says "disbelief", which clearly indicates one dominant usage of "atheism" is the view that theism is false.

---

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess so. :/

Hey, let me try this, not as a further means of trying to convince you, but to give a better way of understanding what I'm saying:


When someone asks you "Are you an atheist?", what are they asking you? Well clearly, they're asking you "Do you believe no gods exist?" Think about it, if someone asks you "Do you believe Santa Claus doesn't exist?", they aren't asking if you merely lack the belief that he does exist. They want to know whether or not you think he does. They aren't asking for an incidental frame of mind you have ("lacking belief in Santa Claus"), because a newborn baby lacks belief that Santa Claus exists, and doesn't even comprehend the relevant concepts to understand the question, or even the language. Do you or don't you? I think it is valid to say in response to such a question "I don't know" or "I don't think it can be known" and thus you can't answer that question as asked, which is what agnostics typically do.

So, what is my point? Basically, it's that atheists using this "lacking belief" definition of atheism are NOT answering the question really. So when theists ask you to justify your atheism or something to that effect, they're asking you to justify thinking theism is false, not justifying being in the same position as a baby is on the topic.