Atheist or Agnostic?

[Mister Agenda]

It's not to evade the burden of proof, it is the standard skeptic position on existential claims.

What is the skeptic position on non-existential claims?

Suppose I say: "There is no spoon." Or: "There is no Barack Obama." Are you going to believe me or disbelieve me by default?

This is a point that requires a lot of implicit reasoning to be made explicit. One of the things that makes an ordinary claim ordinary is all the prior knowledge we bring to evaluating it, or rather, how much prior knowledge is available to evaluate it. 'Default' doesn't really apply when we are aware of sufficient evidence to justify a particular conclusion. If you say there is no spoon, are you talking about a particular spoon in a particular place? If so, we are reasonably justified in taking your word for it. It's perfectly plausible that there are no spoons in some particular spot, even if there might ordinarily be a spoon there; and it costs us nothing to believe you, it is inconsequential to us whether or not there is a spoon in the location you're talking about, we might as well be charitable and assume you are being truthful lacking evidence otherwise. If you're saying there is no such thing as spoons or that there is no spoon where we can plainly see one, you're going to need considerably more than our charity to get us to agree that our prior knowledge no longer holds or that our senses are deceiving us. If there is, for instance, some kind of magic trick that makes us see a spoon where there isn't one, you need to present the evidence to convince us of that. Maybe invite us to pick up the spoon only to find it is just a clever image that appears to be three-dimensional but is actually just a clever drawing of a spoon. The 'no Barack Obama' claim again runs afoul of a great deal of prior knowledge to the contrary, as he has already been reasonably demonstrated to exist.

---

It seems obvious to me that the gnostic / agnostic distinction you are proposing regards speculative life, wherein proofs or God's existence or non-existence are entertained for the edification of all concerned.

The theist / atheist distinction concerns the active life.

Here's the key difference: when speculating, one can assume anything and see where the assumptions lead him. One need not actually believe anything, and the assumption may be false, as long as it is useful or reasonable to assume it.

When acting, one must base his plans on true beliefs, regardless of evidence for or against them. If one is building a bridge, then one is ipso facto extending assent or beliefs to a vast number of (hopefully) true propositions in math, physics, etc. It may be that the builder is using a controversial theory in his project. Despite the fact that many scientists hold this theory in contempt, all is forgiven as long as the bridge works.

Thus, if you live your life without relying on God in any way, then you are a (practical) atheist. If, in building a life for yourself (and not just a bridge), you do not depend on anything God-related, regardless of any speculative disputes regarding any proofs of God's existence, you're an atheist. If things of God "have no use to me and so I make all my plans without regard to them," then one is a confirmed atheist.

You seem to want to reach the conclusion that one can believe in God and be an atheist if they don't act as if God exists. I know that's utterly convenient for someone who wants to define anyone who acts the way they think one ought to into their camp and anyone who does not so act in the camp of the 'other', but someone who values honesty over convenience will not take positions defined by presence or absence of a particular belief and attempt to re-make them into positions based on external behavior.

---

Also, I find the distinction between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists to be uninteresting.

I strongly doubt that you find the distinction as uninteresting as I find your prattling about how uninteresting it is to be.

---

The discussion proceeds between 1) those who think there is a proof of God's existence; 2) those who think there is a proof of God's non-existence; and 3) those who are unsure but are capable of contributing to the debate by taking, in a purely speculative way, at one point one side, and at another the other side, as matters appear to them.

Whether the agnostic is in addition a theist or atheist is his own personal life, and that's his own business and no one else's.

They're as much or as little his or her own business as being an agnostic is. What business is it of yours what people choose to make their own business and what they choose to share?

---

All these gods are basically superheroes or supervillains from a cheap comic book.

Then your concept of God, i.e., the meaning you attribute to the term "God," is defective.

In what way is it defective, beyond being different from your concept, which you can't possibly verify?

---

I'm an agnostic atheist. I have no faith, and I see no reason to lend credence to bullshit bereft of evidence, but I know better than to claim knowledge I don't have.

Is the proposition "God does not exist" also "bullshit bereft of evidence"?

Good thing you asked that question instead of taking five seconds to think it over yourself.

---

You could ask, "Is the proposition 'Seven headed dragons do not exist' also 'bullshit bereft of evidence'"?

There's no evidence that seven headed dragons have ever lived, and there's no evidence that excludes the possibility that seven headed dragons have ever lived. The default position is simply, "I have no reason to believe that seven headed dragons have ever lived."

You have to give a yes or no answer to this rather simple question.

Just because a question is simple does not mean it is not stupid or deceptive. How do you propose to enforce your edict that Nestor only answer with a 'yes' or a 'no'? And do you still beat your wife? Yes or no only, since it is an exceedingly simple question.

---

In other words, you do not know either that the amount is odd (God exists) or that the amount is even (God does not exist).

And this is the agnostic position.

It's almost like you've heard a word we've said, but not really, since you're saying it like it's some kind of 'gotcha'. We are, for the most part, agnostic atheists. We do not know if God exists, and we do not believe that this thing (God) which we don't know exists, actually does exist.

---

Atheism / theism is a confession of what you claim to believe

Agnosticism / gnosticism is a confession of what you claim to know.

I do not understand why you partition "belief" and "knowledge" this way. "Belief" is not "blind faith without evidence"; it's a very normal and everyday intellectual phenomenon: an assent to a proposition.

I do not understand why this simple concept is so hard for you to grasp. We are not saying that 'belief' is 'blind faith without evidence'. We are saying that we don't know whether this propostion is true or not, and that we don't believe it actually is true. We do not assent to the proposition that God is real, we do assent to the proposition that we can't know that (or the converse).

---

Further, knowledge is often defined (not entirely correctly, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion) as justified true belief. Knowledge and belief are not independent of each other. One cannot know P without giving mental assent to, i.e., without extending belief to, P.

Which does not apply at all to the statement that I do not know whether or not some version of gods or God is real, but I don't believe any of them are. The part which I know is that I cannot (under current circumstances) know, that is the 'P' to which I am giving mental assent.

---

A belief in the lack of gods is a far more realistic claim than the belief in gods, in my opinion. The total absence of any evidence of gods, combined with the knowledge of all the previous man made gods, make it a claim in tune with reality. To believe in God when there is no evidence seems irrational to me.

But if there is no evidence whatsoever for God, and there is no evidence whatsoever against God, how can you claim that lack of belief is more "in tune with reality"?

You've got evidence for God? Please make history and share it.

---

As I suggested, if you live your life without worrying about God (or gods, or unicorns), then you are demonstrating your atheism to all concerned. But that's a practical lifestyle choice of your own personal active life. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists.

Atheism is the internal state of not holding a belief in any God or god. It has no value for the speculative question of whether God exists. Neither does being a theist. So what? If you want to have a conversation over whether God exists, have that conversation, we're not stopping you. You're the one who decided to make your thread about atheists instead of about whether or not God exists.

---

Atheism isn't a choice.

It is if you are an agnostic, just as theism is a choice in this case.

It is not a choice in either case. I can no more choose to believe God is real with the evidence and reason currently at my disposal than I can believe the moon is really made of green cheese. Just because I acknowledge that I can't know something isn't true doesn't mean I can flip an mental switch and start believing it. I don't believe in ghosts either, and don't claim that I can know they're not real. That does not mean I can just decide to start believing in them going forward from now because I'm offered a bribe or just feel like it. People believe what they're convinced is true, they don't arbitrarily believe whatever they want on a whim. Now a person CAN choose to make an effort to convince themselves of something different over a period of time and eventually succeed. That's every salesman's dream: to get their mark to agree to try to convince themselves to buy what they're selling.