Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Simon Moon]

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.

No, clearly they are asking if I believe if at least one god does exist.

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.

Belief is the psychological state in which one accepts a proposition or premise to be true. There is no in between, fence sitting position. Either one accepts the premise that a god exists, or they don't.

It is a binary mental state.

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.

Atheism is simply the response to the claim that a god exists.

All that is required to be an atheist is to not be convinced by the theist claim that a god exists. It does not require claiming a god does not exist.