Atheist or Agnostic?

[datc]

An atheist, call him Smith, will sometimes argue, in at attempt to evade any burden of proof, that he simply lacks the belief that God exists.

In reply to that, Smith can be asked whether he also lacks the belief that God does not exist. If the answer is yes, then Smith is not an atheist at all but an agnostic: insofar as knowledge is justified true belief or something close to that, lack of a determinate belief as to whether God does or does not exist causes him to fail to know whether or not God exists which is precisely the dictionary definition of an agnostic.

If, however, he says that he does have the belief that God does not exist, then he needs reasons for this belief, just as a theist needs reasons for his beliefs.

I agree that it's pretty unlikely that unicorns exist. But I wouldn't be so bold as to assert with 100% certainty that unicorns definitely do not exist. New species are discovered all the time, and perhaps unicorns do thrive in some remote and still unexplored part of the world.

Thus, even if an atheist thinks that none of the theistic arguments for the existence of God are convincing, he would be foolish to deny that God may still exist despite that.

In other words, this is a situation in which absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. If Smith wants to make a positive case for God's non-existence, then he needs to present precisely the evidence for absence of God.

And many atheists do just that, when they bring up the only real argument for God's non-existence which is the problem of evil. The second argument, namely that God is nowhere to be found in the causal structure of the world, that the mode of First Cause cannot be viewed either as physical or teleological causation, also tends toward agnosticism, not atheism.

We can see that the starting positions of the atheist and theist are identical, and it is only true agnostics who can remain staunchly neutral.

[FatAndFaithless]

In reply to that, Smith can be asked whether he also lacks the belief that God does not exist. If the answer is yes, then Smith is not an atheist at all but an agnostic:

Oh for fucks sake not this again.

Gnosticism and theism address two separate questions. They are not mutually exclusive and your attempt to shove "atheists" into an assertive claim position is both dishonest and obvious.

An agnostic does not claim to know (or might say it's impossible to know), but an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist, depending on what they believe or don't believe. This shit is so simple.

This isn't some spectrum like: theist <----> agnostic <---> atheist. Agnostic isn't some neutral middle ground.

It's a response to a single question: Do you hold a belief in a god or gods? Not a question about knowledge, or truth, or reality. Just a single, personal question. Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you do hold the belief that a god exists, you're a theist (STILL hasn't said anything about truth or knowledge), and if you don't hold a belief in a god, you are an atheist (again, no claims about truth or knowledge there either).

[robvalue]

Would you like to order a pizza? And maybe learn what some words mean while you eat?

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!what-is-atheism/c57k

http://robvalue.wix.com/atheism#!agnosti...stic/c1xja

[Polaris]

You could just call them nonbelievers, but then again even that would not be the most accurate considering faiths exist that worship no gods.

From the way I have heard both atheists and agnostics talk, an atheist tends to claim that there is no God or gods while an agnostic is open to the possibility but does not have enough evidence either way to make a choice.

Both atheists and agnostics can either be spiritual or non-spiritual.

[FatAndFaithless]

You could just call them nonbelievers.

From the way I have heard both atheists and agnostics talk, an atheist tends to claim that there is no God or gods while an agnostic is open to the possibility but does not have enough evidence either way to make a choice.

Both atheists and agnostics can either be spiritual or non-spiritual.

Some atheists will make that claim, but that's not what the definition of 'atheism' is. Hell, most atheists I hang around (myself included) would never make the claim 'God does not exist', because it's a positive claim that requires evidence.

[SteelCurtain]

Aww, your strawman fails at the first. Sorry.

The agnostic atheist, or the person whose position is "a lack of belief," is exactly the same as you are with the unicorn. There hasn't been evidence that proves sufficient for your god claim. The agnostic atheist is not claiming that there is no such thing as god. We are claiming that the evidence thus far is lacking, so we don't buy into your ridiculous claim.

[FatAndFaithless]

I love it when theists start off a thread telling us what we must think and then re-labeling us into his more convenient strawman categories.

[robvalue]

The adventures of straw man! Featuring an unnamed college professor who has an unlikely run in with a charming, well informed theist and his life is turned upside down.

What exactly is the point anyway? Am I expected to search the whole universe for God to prove he doesn't exist before I can make a fucking sandwich? Am I meant to surrender my soul to the straw gods?

[datc]

I see, I did not realize that atheists do not claim that God does not exist.

[robvalue]

There we go Thank you.