Can Someone be Simply "An Agnostic?"

[Mister Agenda]

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.

And 'disbelief' means: "the feeling of not believing someone or something, especially something shocking or unexpected"-MacMillan Dictionary.

When someone asks you "Are you an atheist?", what are they asking you?

Well clearly, they're asking me 'Do you believe God exists?' When I say 'Yes, I'm an atheist', that tells them I do not believe God exists'.

Well clearly, they're asking you "Do you believe no gods exist?"

Oh, you went a different way. Funny, no one has ever asked me 'Do you believe no gods exist?', but plenty of people have asked me 'Do you believe God esists?', and seem plenty satisfied with 'No, I'm an atheist' as an answer.

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.

Why not? Why on earth is it not adequate to simply not believe in Santa? How many people really care if you say you don't believe in Santa instead of saying Santa doesn't exist? What kind of person would get worked up over the distinction?

They want to know whether or not you think he does.

And 'No, I don't think he does exist' is a perfectly cromulent answer.

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.

You're the one who is bugged by not getting the exact answer you want to hear framed the exact way you want to hear it. My lack of belief is not the same as a baby's lack of belief. So the fuck what?

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.

I think a real Santa Clause is highly unlikely, but it's not something that can be known without nailing the definition of Santa Clause down. Is he a jolly old elf whol lives at the North Pole and isn't invisible or intangible or capable of concealing his operations with illusions? If so, he definitiely doesn't exist. If he is defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable, then guess what, he can't be falsified, and his nonexistence can't be known with certainty, just assigned a very low probability under Bayesian logic.

So, what is my point? Basically, it's that atheists using this "lacking belief" definition of atheism are NOT answering the question really.

You've changed the relevant question to one that very few people actually ask, which is awfully convenient for you, isn't it?

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.

My atheism requires no justification other than the observation that theism has yet to be adequately justified.