Who has the burden of proof?

[raw_thought]

I am glad that most agree with the substance of my argument, that admitting uncertainty is the only rational option. They even go to the extreme of saying that it is so obviously the most rational option that almost everyone is agnostic ( the definition of agnostic is having doubts), that even theists are agnostics!
Unfortunately, the debate has become mere semantics. * It began when I said that the only rational option is uncertainty. I call that (correctly) agnosticism. Some may disagree, but I will stick with the dictionary definition.
Yes, one can be an agnostic that favors theism, an agnostic theist. However, to claim that agnostic theist= theist is improper English.
I have heard some say that if you are 51% theist, you are a theist. I do not think that beliefs can be quantified, but I’ll provisionally accept that for the time being. That means that only someone 50-50 can be an agnostic!! WOW! That means that there must be 2 or 3 agnostics in the whole world!!!
And yes there are theists (those that have no doubt that God exists). It’s called faith.
* Arguing about the definition of words is a simple man’s way to enter a philosophical debate. I have never been fascinated by arguments about grammar. Yes, I confess that sometimes I don’t capitalize “i”! Anyway, I can live with knowing that when some people say “theist” they are actually saying “agnostic theist”. A theist with doubts is not an agnostic?!
I think the fanaticism and emotionalism over a minor issue of grammar is because people feel insulted to be called an agnostic. In fact it is the most rational stance ( that one is not absolutely sure). Unfortunately, they think "agnostic' means being indecisive and/or non-committal ( in the negative sense) to the big questions.

The above is post 402
I have received complaints that I should use the quote function. I see no problem in simply saying "see post 402" as I did in the post just above. However, scrolling back seems to be a problem with many readers, so I will use the quote function..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First see posts 402 and 405.
"Agnostic theist" is not the same as "theist".If it were there would be no reason to add "agnostic" to "theist".

It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. The term "agnostic theist" refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God.

Suppose one is in a debate with a theist and one proves that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about the existence of God. You have proven agnosticism, not atheism. It would be dishonest for a theist to claim that you have not proven theism false because theists are agnostic ( have doubts).

This doesn't even make sense. Who here has said that demonstrating a theist is an agnostic "proves atheism"?

As for the idea that atheism includes agnosticism because it is the lack of belief, that shows a lack of knowledge about logic. A negative proposition is still a proposition.

But a lack of belief isn't a proposition. If you saw a large number of items, so large that you were unable to count them, you would have no basis on which to reach a conclusion that the quantity of items is either even or odd, so you disbelieve both propositions. That does not mean that you are making the proposition that the quantity of items is NEITHER even nor odd. It's exactly the same logic with atheism and theism. You do not have to propose a negative claim in order to disbelieve a claim.

"-A" is still a proposition.The proposition ( belief) that there is no God is still a proposition. Or are my opponents claiming that atheism is not the belief that there is no God?!!

THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES, AND THE VERY DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS YOU PROVIDED CONFIRMED IT.

Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in a God, not the BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD.

Having clear definitions facilitates communication. To say that theists are agnostics and that atheists are agnostics makes those terms interchangeable. I prefer the precision of the dictionary.

The very fact that we have explained, in very clear terms, the precise DIFFERENCES between atheism, theism and agnosticism REPEATEDLY makes this statement by you utterly bewildering.

The WHOLE POINT of what we've been saying to you is that agnosticism and theism/atheism DO refer to different things, and that the terms are NOT interchangeable NOR mutually exclusive!

Jesus Christ on a jumbo cracker, have you read anything that we've explained to you?!?!

 

[raw_thought]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. If someone has no belief about God's existence or non-existence, he is an agnostic. I cannot believe that you are actually arguing that atheism is not the belief that there is no God ( or gods).

 

[raw_thought]

"But a lack of belief isn't a proposition."
So many atheists are agnostics! If you have no certainty regarding the existence of God, you are an agnostic. Like I said, I prefer the dictionary where atheists are not agnostics and theists are not agnostics.
The lack of belief ( certainty) is itself not a proposition. You are confused. The lack of belief is agnosticism. The proposition of atheism ( that there is no God) is still a proposition. Similarly, if I said, "there are no unicorns" that is my belief.
So you are seriously claiming that atheists are not defined by a rejection ( disbelief) of the belief that God exists? The rejection of "A" in other words not "A" or "-A" is still a proposition.

 

[raw_thought]

"Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in a God, not the BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD."
So dogs are atheists ( they have no beliefs regarding God.)

If I say that I do not believe that there is no God ( part of your definition of atheism) .... I am an atheist!!!

 

[raw_thought]

Suppose one is in a debate with a theist and one proves that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about the existence of God. You have proven agnosticism, not atheism. It would be dishonest for a theist to claim that you have not proven theism false because theists are agnostic ( have doubts)."
me
"This doesn't even make sense. Who here has said that demonstrating a theist is an agnostic "proves atheism"?"
Immortalflame
I will try to make the obvious simpler. If one says that atheists are agnostics, then one would have proven atheism. Obviously, that is absurd and so therefore, the contention that atheists are agnostics is absurd.
Please note that I agree that there are agnostic atheists *. However, "agnostic atheist" does not = atheist.
* someone that is not 100% sure of his atheism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Suppose one is in a debate with a theist and one proves that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about the existence of God. You have proven agnosticism, not atheism. It would be dishonest for a theist to claim that you have not proven theism false because theists are agnostic ( have doubts)."
me
"This doesn't even make sense. Who here has said that demonstrating a theist is an agnostic "proves atheism"?"
Immortalflame
I will try to make the obvious simpler. If one says that atheists are agnostics, then one would have proven atheism. Obviously, that is absurd and so therefore, the contention that atheists are agnostics is absurd.

Most theist I have come across tend to be gnostic theists. Though I suppose there are agnostic theists.

But to answe ryour question about dogs, "technically" they are atheists. As they lack a belief in god. However I've debated that point till I was blue in the face on a number of occasions.

Atheism is a non-qualifier. It means once must be without a quality in order to qualify themselves for this description. This means that there is a near infinite amount of thins that one could be and still be considered under this umbrella. Dog, cat, rock, baby, dead ect. However when we talk about the useful usage of the term "atheist" it doesn't mean that we have to ascribe it to belief it is the belief that there is no god but rather someone who has thought about the possibility and come to the conclusion that they doubt the existence of god.

It is best explained by a range of skepticism between "probably not" all the way to "THERE IS NO GOD". While an atheist could very well believe that there is no god it is not implicitly required for the term to be applied in a useful manor.

 

[raw_thought]

"It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. The term "agnostic theist" refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God".
ImmortalFlame
So "agnostic theist" = theist. I disagree.
Your definition of theist= ""It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. "
Your definition of "agnostic theist= " refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. If someone has no belief about God's existence or non-existence, he is an agnostic. I cannot believe that you are actually arguing that atheism is not the belief that there is no God ( or gods).

Since I've been saying it literally since the very beginning of our discussion, it can't be all that hard to believe. Here is the proof of the pudding:

Atheism
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
SOURCE: atheism: definition of atheism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Atheist
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who does not believe in God or gods
adj
2. (Philosophy) of or relating to atheists or atheism
SOURCE: atheist - definition of atheist by The Free Dictionary

Atheist
noun
1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
SOURCE: Atheist | Define Atheist at Dictionary.com

Atheism
noun
1) archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
SOURCE: Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
SOURCE: Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you need any more?

"Atheism is the ABSENCE of belief in a God, not the BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD."
So dogs are atheists ( they have no beliefs regarding God.)

Yes.

Why? Is that a problem?

If I say that I do not believe that there is no God ( part of your definition of atheism)

No it isn't. My definition clearly states "atheism is the absence of belief IN a God", not "the absence of belief that there is NO God". Read more carefully, grasshopper.

So "agnostic theist" = theist. I disagree.

Then you are factually wrong. I cannot possibly explain it any more clearly than I already have. If you can't grasp the fact that theism/atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms after all of this time, you clearly are not reading or understanding anything that I've written.

Your definition of theist= ""It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. "
Your definition of "agnostic theist= " refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God"

Yes, that is accurate. What is your problem?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. The term "agnostic theist" refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God".
ImmortalFlame
So "agnostic theist" = theist. I disagree.
Your definition of theist= ""It is in the sense that "theist" is a very broad term that encompasses all individuals that hold a belief in at least one God, regardless of their level of certainty. "
Your definition of "agnostic theist= " refers to a subset of theists who believe that there is a God but do not claim knowledge or certainty that there is a God"

I suppose the next question to follow this up is "If they have no certainty or knowledge of god then why do they believe in god?"

 

[raw_thought]

"and come to the conclusion that they doubt the existence of god. "
Monk Of Reason

That is not an atheist. That is an agnostic.
So a priest that questions his faith is an atheist? Was Was Mother Teresa an Agnostic? | Agnostic Universe an atheist?

 

[raw_thought]

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." From post 489
Thanks immortal flame!
Disbelief in a proposition is like "not A", and that is still a proposition. And I thought my logic course at university would never come in handy!
"1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
A person that denies or disbelieves" A." In other words they are saying not "A" or "-A"That is still a belief or proposition.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's obviously a meaningless term, (atheism) as it means ten different things on the forums, contradictory to each other.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"and come to the conclusion that they doubt the existence of god. "
Monk Of Reason

That is not an atheist. That is an agnostic.
So a priest that questions his faith is an atheist? Was Was Mother Teresa an Agnostic? | Agnostic Universe an atheist?

We can play the game where you attempt to force a single usage of a word rather than accepting there are multiple usages of the word.

Atheist is the lack of a belief in god. Doubt in the belief in god. Agnostic in general means that one claim that it is impossible "to know"

Atheism/theism is a scale of "belief"
Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a scale of "knowledge"

EDIT;
A priest who has a moment of conflict in his faith isn't an atheist. A priest who has gone through a moment of conflict in which he now holds doubt to the point he no longer believes in god as his stance (not a momentary lapse but his stance on the matter) he would then be an atheist.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dude I think you might want to get a quasi-agreed on definition of atheism before jumping into that puddle.

Actually nevermind, who cares.

In this specific moment the term "Atheist" isn't specifically required. It doesn't make a difference to this point. Though it is a point I think we are going to work through.

 

[raw_thought]

"
If I say that I do not believe that there is no God ( part of your definition of atheism)"
ME
"No it isn't. My definition clearly states "atheism is the absence of belief IN a God", not "the absence of belief that there is NO God". Read more carefully, grasshopper.
immortalflame
Note that I said "part" of your definition. In other words ( according to you) someone could say, " I am an atheist but I am not saying that there is no God." Why not avoid the confusion and just call yourself what you are, an agnostic?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." From post 489
Thanks immortal flame!
Disbelief in a proposition is like "not A", and that is still a proposition.

Disbelief
NOUN
[MASS NOUN]
1) Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
SOURCE: disbelief: definition of disbelief in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Disbelief means A LACK OF BELIEF. Not A BELIEF THAT A CLAIM IS FALSE. The very definition you just quoted specifies "disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF".

How many times must I explain basic definitions to you??

And I thought my logic course at university would never come in handy!
"1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
A person that denies or disbelieves" A." In other words they are saying not "A" or "-A"That is still a belief or proposition.

Wrong. Disbelief is an absence of belief.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

"
If I say that I do not believe that there is no God ( part of your definition of atheism)"
ME
"No it isn't. My definition clearly states "atheism is the absence of belief IN a God", not "the absence of belief that there is NO God". Read more carefully, grasshopper.
immortalflame
Note that I said "part" of your definition. In other words ( according to you) someone could say, " I am an atheist but I am not saying that there is no God." Why not avoid the confusion and just call yourself what you are, an agnostic?

Not directed at me I know but for example I am an Agnostic Atheist. The terms are not conflicting.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Note that I said "part" of your definition.

Note that I said "No it isn't".

It is not "part" of my definition. The ENTIRETY of my definition is "the absence of belief in God". No "part" of that definition is "the absence of belief that there are NO Gods".

In other words ( according to you) someone could say, " I am an atheist but I am not saying that there is no God."

That is more accurate than what you said earlier. That could refer to an example of an agnostic atheist.

Why not avoid the confusion and just call yourself what you are, an agnostic?

Because only people like you who don't understand what the words "agnostic" and "atheist" mean suffer from that confusion, despite the fact that the definitions and differences have been explained to you countless times and you STILL persist in misunderstanding the terms.

 

[Desert Snake]

In this specific moment the term "Atheist" isn't specifically required. It doesn't make a difference to this point. Though it is a point I think we are going to work through.

But, I think it is required, if you want a real answer to those questions. How can one discuss 'belief in god' without definitions for atheism etc.

example. It has been posited here (RF), that ;atheism' only refers to the 'Christian God", again different from just saying 'no belief in ANY deity', huge difference actually, so, point is, you can't be using these terms in discussion without some sort of definition.