All atheists and theists are agnostics?

If you do not want to assume the burden...do not make the assertion.

If you make the assertion...the burden of proof falls on you.

Quote:

If you do not want to assume the burden...do not make the assertion.

If you make the assertion...the burden of proof falls on you.

So it seems I can't assert that terrestrial teapots orbiting Jupiter don't exist without having the burden of proof on me having to reason as to why it is the case. Kinda silly don't you think?

I'll respond to the rest after you've given me your definition of 'atheist', which I have asked for but you have failed to provide.

I do not think it silly at all. Anyone thinking it though clearly should not think it silly. What would be silly is to make an assertion about what you cannot prove.

Anyone making an assertion assumes a burden of proof. If you do not want to have the onus fall upon you...don't make the assertion.

If you choose to make the assertion, however...YES, the burden of proof does fall on you to prove the assertion.

I will stick with: All atheists lack a belief in gods; but not all people who lack a belief in gods are atheists.

Either way, it indicates a person who asserts that there are no gods. That is the only way I can think of to be without a god.

Quote:

I do not think it silly at all. Anyone thinking it though clearly should not think it silly. What would be silly is to make an assertion about what you cannot prove.

Anyone making an assertion assumes a burden of proof. If you do not want to have the onus fall upon you...don't make the assertion.

If you choose to make the assertion, however...YES, the burden of proof does fall on you to prove the assertion.

Please give me an example of proof that there are no teapots orbiting Jupiter. I'll wait.

Quote:

I will stick with: All atheists lack a belief in gods; but not all people who lack a belief in gods are atheists.

Not a definition.

Quote:

Either way, it indicates a person who asserts that there are no gods. That is the only way I can think of to be without a god.

So, an atheist is one with a positive belief that there are no gods?

Wait for as long as you want. I have never asserted there "are teapots" or "are no teapots" orbiting Jupiter.

You have.

Any "proof" of that assertion falls on you.

Read what I wrote...and what I wrote is what I am saying.

If you dispute what I said about the etymology of the word "atheist"...tell me what you dispute and we can discuss it.

Quote:

Wait for as long as you want. I have never asserted there "are teapots" or "are no teapots" orbiting Jupiter.

You have.

Any "proof" of that assertion falls on you.

I never said you asserted there aren't teapots orbiting Jupiter. I asked: what's an example of proof that would satisfy you. Since you didn't answer that, I'm left to assume that you believe there's no proof that would satisfy you. Which seems rather silly.

Quote:

Read what I wrote...and what I wrote is what I am saying.

If you dispute what I said about the etymology of the word "atheist"...tell me what you dispute and we can discuss it.

How about you read what I said. I never said I dispute your 'etymology' of the word. I asked an additional question so I can be sure what you mean. I shall ask again:

So, an atheist is one with a positive belief that there are no gods?

All atheists and theists are agnostics?

A certain someone in my philosophy thread gave an incredibly incoherent account against fallibilism (the position I was arguing for). Out of curiosity and potential amusement I decided to give his profile a look. I quote:

Quote:

I believe, if you will excuse that seemingly incongruous expression, that everyone is an agnostic. It's just that we agnostics come in two categories--those who acknowledge that we don't know the answers to unanswerable questions; and those who pretend to know. That latter category includes the theists and the atheists (two sides of one coin)--both of whom suppose they know the answers to those unanswerable questions.

This entire argument hinges on the fact that atheists and theists 'suppose they know the answer to those unanswerable questions.' This is clearly wrong. Atheism and theism is based on belief not knowledge. The basis for my athiesm runs:

An athiest is a person who disbelieves of lacks a belief in god
I am a person who lacks a belief in god
Therefore I am an athiest

Fairly simple and straightforward, yeah? And, unlike his argument, I actually use the real definition of 'atheist'. So what do you guys this? Are all theists and atheists, well, not theists and atheists?

that everyone is an agnostic.

wishful wanting is not knowledge.

Krumple wrote:

wishful wanting is not knowledge.

It is a legitimate use of the word 'know'.

Krumple wrote:

wishful wanting is not knowledge.

It is a legitimate use of the word 'know'.

contrex wrote:

Krumple wrote:

wishful wanting is not knowledge.

It is a legitimate use of the word 'know'.

If that is the case then every theist who has ever lived had knowledge that a god existed. As much as you want that to be true it is still NOT knowledge. Nice try and admire your persistence but sorry, it isn't knowledge.

I love the way people think they can speak for atheists. But, if you are not one, you only suppose you can.

The point that seems to escape most respondents is that attitudes to the term "existence" is the issue, not to "deities"per se . Santa Clause exists for children because it has social and personal functionality within their experience as do "gods" for believers. I am "an atheist" because the concept "God" has no personal functionality for me, though it has social functionality for me with respect to my dealings with believers. On this relational view of "existence", rather than one of "naive realism", I cannot deny that God exists for believers...its a tautology...irrespective of whether the concept "God" has "existence" for me.