Who has the burden of proof?

[Thief]

I purposely left out "believe" and used your term from the quote "agree".
When a person says,"agreed" they are saying that the proposition is true.
If you sign a treaty, it is inappropriate to later say, I never said that I might not actually agree with it.

As I have stood between two polar arguments (ex union steward).....
Agreements are not always built on truth and fair play.

That I submit to an agreement doesn't mean I think it's right, fair, accurate, or even logical.

Here I theology we can bang our heads all we want to.

Before God and heaven, the next spoken line will make all the difference.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

And, like immortal explained with theist vs agnostic theist.. They're not mutually exclusive, like you keep insisting.
They are subsets.

I can call myself an atheist, or I can call myself an agnostic.

Agnostic covers both agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.
Atheist covers both gnostic and agnostic atheist.
Gnostic covers both gnostic theist and gnostic atheist.
Theist covers both agnostic theist and gnostic theist...
Gnostic describes if it is a knowledge claim.

Theist describes the stance as pertaining to a deity.
You can go by atheist, you can go by agnostic, but telling an agnostic atheist they are not an atheist is simply
An atheist is any stance that is not theistic.

 

[Thief]

And, like immortal explained with theist vs agnostic theist.. They're not mutually exclusive, like you keep insisting.
They are subsets.

I can call myself an atheist, or I can call myself an agnostic.

Agnostic covers both agnostic atheist and agnostic theist.
Atheist covers both gnostic and agnostic atheist.
Gnostic covers both gnostic theist and gnostic atheist.
Theist covers both agnostic theist and gnostic theist...
Gnostic describes if it is a knowledge claim.

Theist describes the stance as pertaining to a deity.
You can go by atheist, you can go by agnostic, but telling an agnostic atheist they are not an atheist is simply
An atheist is any stance that is not theistic.

I thought....and I'm sure you will make correction....
Agnostic leans to belief in a god.....but you can't know Him.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

And, like I said two hundred posts ago.. I used to go by theist, agnostic and atheist as well.. Then I spoke to more atheists and learned, while it is not incorrect to label that way, using agnostic atheist, gnostic theist etc is a more specific label, that I prefer because it describes my stance more accurately.
If I said I was agnostic, which is correct, that could be agnostic atheist, it agnostic theist.

If I say I'm atheist, which us also correct, that could be agnostic it gnostic..
So generally, if I'm describing myself I go with agnostic atheist.. But I'll use atheist as a short hand sometimes.

 

[raw_thought]

I prefer to stop going in circles. I already know your position and I have heard the above arguments over and over and have already responded to them.
This argument is mere semantics and trivial.

 

[Thief]

And, like I said two hundred posts ago.. I used to go by theist, agnostic and atheist as well.. Then I spoke to more atheists and learned, while it is not incorrect to label that way, using agnostic atheist, gnostic theist etc is a more specific label, that I prefer because it describes my stance more accurately.
If I said I was agnostic, which is correct, that could be agnostic atheist, it agnostic theist.

If I say I'm atheist, which us also correct, that could be agnostic it gnostic..
So generally, if I'm describing myself I go with agnostic atheist.. But I'll use atheist as a short hand sometimes.

So now draw that line....is there a God?

 

[raw_thought]

So generally, if I'm describing myself I go with agnostic atheist.. But I'll use atheist as a short hand sometimes.

And I (as a fellow agnostic atheist ) will use agnostic as short hand. It is really not such an important difference to debate for 50 posts or more.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I thought....and I'm sure you will make correction....
Agnostic leans to belief in a god.....but you can't know Him.

That would be an agnostic theist. Or you can be an agnostic atheist, where I don't believe in god, but I don't say a deity's existence is impossible, just unproven, and therefore I don't believe until it is proven to me.
Gnosis, the root work, simply means knowledge. It doesn't lean towards or away from god. It leans towards(gnostic) or away (agnostic) from making a truth claim, or a claim that you "know" something.

Gnostic theist, I know there is a god
Agnostic theist, I believe in god, but think it is not provable
Gnostic atheist, there is no god.
Agnostic atheist, I don't believe in god, because I'm not convinced there is one.

But yes, in common speech, atheist, agnostic and theist can be used, but as this thread shows quite well, it is a poorly worded way of labeling that lacks specificity that the previous method enjoys.
It's not wrong, it's just unwieldy and can cause confusion.

 

[Thief]

So I took a moment for the definition.

Seems the stance outstanding....you CANNOT know if there is....
or if there is not.....
a God.

Seems then the coin is stamped with ignorance on both sides.

If you cannot know....then you don't really have a dog in the fight.
No argument to render.
No decision can be made.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So I took a moment for the definition.

Seems the stance outstanding....you CANNOT know if there is....
or if there is not.....
a God.

Seems then the coin is stamped with ignorance on both sides.

If you cannot know....then you don't really have a dog in the fight.
No argument to render.
No decision can be made.

And I agree with that, wholeheartedly..again.
The problem is, the fact that you know, and I know, that we can't KNOW if there is a god, doesn't stop other people from claiming they know.
Which is why, despite logic, it is still a valid label (gnostic theist or atheist) because there are people that do make that claim.

You can find gnostic atheists and gnostic theists all over this forum..in this very thread, even, therefore, the label is used.

 

[Thief]

And I agree with that, wholeheartedly..again.
The problem is, the fact that you know, and I know, that we can't KNOW if there is a god, doesn't stop other people from claiming they know.
Which is why, despite logic, it is still a valid label (gnostic theist or atheist) because there are people that do make that claim.

You can find gnostic atheists and gnostic theists all over this forum..in this very thread, even, therefore, the label is used.

Well, I claim to know....and do so for cause and effect.
The universe(one word) is the effect.....and God is the Cause.

SCIENCE!

 

[Bunyip]

Well, I claim to know....and do so for cause and effect.
The universe(one word) is the effect.....and God is the Cause.

SCIENCE!

Soooo, god is the cause, but is not caused - how is that supposed to work?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Well, I claim to know....and do so for cause and effect.
The universe(one word) is the effect.....and God is the Cause.

SCIENCE!

Then congratulations. You're a gnostic theist...

Did you seriously engage in questions about the topic, for the sole purpose of getting a chance to toss out your catch phrases?
Even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

And I (as a fellow agnostic atheist ) will use agnostic as short hand. It is really not such an important difference to debate for 50 posts or more.

But here's the difference, and the entire point.
You can call yourself agnostic all you want, but with the limited, and incorrect definition of atheist you keep using, you are essentially telling me I can't call myself an atheist.
Your definition of atheist is incorrect, but you keep insisting on it, because of the labeling system you use, and when multiple people here have tried to explain that that is not the only way, you keep not catching on to what we're saying.
No one here has said you can't call yourself an agnostic, but you continually insist the only atheist stance is " there is no god", which is incorrect, and that had been refuted multiple times.including with a poll..

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The way I see it the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So if a theist makes the claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on them to support that proposition.

However the proposition that no God exists (which I think goes beyond disbelief until proportional evidence to the claim is given) also seems like a positive claim as well and needs justification/proof too even though the claim is negative.

So who has the burden of proof, one or the other, both, neither?

The one making the claim always has the burden of proof if they are trying to convince others of their god's existence. I don't evangelize though, because my god does not care whether you worship it or not, so why should I even bother?

 

[Thief]

Then congratulations. You're a gnostic theist...

Did you seriously engage in questions about the topic, for the sole purpose of getting a chance to toss out your catch phrases?
Even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic?

I prefer rogue theologian.

Catch phrases?.....yeah they develop as you hang about this forum.

I think my perspective is fairly unique.

I can know....but don't bother to ask for proof!
hehehehehehe!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you lack knowledge (certainty ) you are an agnostic.

No. If you believe that the answer to the question is *unknowable*, then you are an agnostic. Agnosticism isn't "I don't know"; it's "I believe I CAN'T know."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Our difference is in my opinion, semantic and trivial.

You're the one who refused to accept the definitions we were giving you, despite the fact that they are the dictionary definitions.

You think that agnostic qualifies atheism and I think atheism qualifies agnosticism. In other words, I believe that uncertainty is the human condition and belief and/or disbelief are directions (metaphorically speaking, like east and west).

This is just meaningless word salad.

Of course an atheist is not an agnostic. I am an agnostic atheist.

"Of course a cat can't be black. I am a black cat."

That was my argument from the start. That atheists believe there is no God.

An argument that has been thoroughly refuted by multiple dictionaries.

Agnostism is the position of uncertainty. An agnostic atheist. describes an agnostic that is closer to atheism then theism. In other words atheism qualifies his agnosticism.

Again, this is word salad. You cannot be "closer" to atheism and/or theism. You are either an atheist or a theist.

 

[raw_thought]

??? So anyone that is not sure (has no proof ) cannot be closer to theism than atheism? That is silly.
I can be closer to Republican ideology than Democrat ideology and still be an independant. Or are you saying that an independent must be a Democrat or Republican? That is silly. People talk all the time about people being left of center or right of center.
I CAN BE MORE OPEN TO ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF REPUBLICANISM. I am not convinced yet, but it is more likely that the Republican Party will recruit me than the Democratic Party. *

I can say that I am closer to the North Pole than someone in Argentina. Would you respond, "that is impossible, because either you are at the North pole or at the south pole."
I guess it is impossible, everything I write will appear as word salad to you. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and being literal. I imagine you will now complain that Republican and Democrat is word salad because some Democrats are theists and some Republicans are atheists.
Anyway, I am thru with this because after hundreds of post you still do not understand what I am saying.
* I am talking metaphorically in the context of the debate. Literally, I am more Democrat than Republican.
PS: I was not shouting. I am using my tablet and cannot use bold font and so had to use capital letters to emphasize an important point.

 

[McBell]

Then congratulations. You're a gnostic theist...

Did you seriously engage in questions about the topic, for the sole purpose of getting a chance to toss out your catch phrases?
Even though it has nothing to do with the actual topic?

Yes he did.