Lets face it...

[TillICollapse]

Actually, I may argue that statements concerning belief are ultimately unfalsifiable claims, personally.

 

[Chesterton]

But you conflated stating belief or disbelief with making a claim about the focus of the belief. That is not the same thing. A negative claim is a claim ... stating belief or disbelief is not a positive or negative claim.

How can it not be the same thing? How could a rational mind say "I claim the Earth is flat, but I don't believe the Earth is flat"? Or vice versa?

Yet the atheist stance isn't necessarily one making a negative claim. Hence the positive/negative and strong/hard. So appealing to the definition of atheist as though the term itself were a positive or negative claim falls flat.

Well, if not "atheist", is there a word for a person who believes there is no God?

 

[TillICollapse]

How can it not be the same thing? How could a rational mind say "I claim the Earth is flat, but I don't believe the Earth is flat"? Or vice versa?

Again, the coins. Can a rational mind suspend belief or disbelieve in two separate ideas which seem to exclude one another ? Do you believe there are an even number of coins or an odd number of coins ? You may end up believing one or the other, given more information ... but at this point in time you suspend belief, lack belief, etc. Claiming one way or another is another matter. Claiming the earth IS flat, is a positive claim. Claiming it is not round, is a negative claim.

Negative claims in general are impossible to prove, for example, because they seem to rely on evidence of absence. This isn't always so, however. Sometimes they can be rather easy to prove, given context. Similarly, positive claims which rely on arguments from ignorance are typically impossible to prove in the context they are often appealed to.

Well, if not "atheist", is there a word for a person who believes there is no God?

The word atheist typically fits. However, this is why I pointed out the variations of the atheist stance in the first place, because I suspected you may go down this route. Here I'll quote from the wiki:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

One who claims to be an atheist may define that they lack belief in gods, and go no farther. Another may assert there are no gods. This is why clarification is good, if you want to challenge someone specifically. IOW, there is a general working definition of atheism that is more encompassing ... and then more specific, hence the varieties even within those who claim the stance. And for some, the term is ultimately meaningless. They state they lack belief in deities, yet find the term "atheist" meaningless or insufficient. Thus when you said you were agnostic towards whether the coins were even or odd, you could also be said to be atheist towards that stance in certain contexts.

I'm not aware of a word that specifically is used to describe the exact stance that asserts there are no deities of any kind whatsoever. Atheist is in general that word, yet it still is not all encompassing, as not all atheists will assert there are absolutely no deities whatsoever. It's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be, which is one reason your appeals to make the term "atheist" a positive claim fall flat. Also conflating statements of belief with claims about the focus of the belief, for example.

I'm off to school ...

 

[Davian]

Yes obviously if you're going to say something about something, you need to know what the something is.

Indeed. The only gods I am aware of are characters in books (Julius Caesar and Kim Il-sung notwithstanding).

I'm agnostic, of course. I have no belief due to complete lack of information.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Your disbelief in whether the number is odd or even is not a claim.

I am ignostic on the subject of deities, and my disbelief is not a claim.

 

[Chesterton]

Indeed. The only gods I am aware of are characters in books (Julius Caesar and Kim Il-sung notwithstanding).

Sorry to hear that. Maybe you should read more. Or pray more.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge.

No, it's a position on belief.

Your disbelief in whether the number is odd or even is not a claim.

Correct.

I am ignostic on the subject of deities, and my disbelief is not a claim.

So you claim there is a God?

 

[Davian]

Sorry to hear that. Maybe you should read more. Or pray more.

Pray to what?

No, it's a position on belief.

Must be nice, redefining words as you see fit.

Correct.


So you claim there is a God?

No.

 

[Chesterton]

No.

So you claim there isn't a God?

 

[Davian]

So you claim there isn't a God?

No.

 

[Chesterton]

No.

Why not?

 

[Davian]

Why not?

Because neither of those describe my theistic position.

 

[Chesterton]

Because neither of those describe my theistic position.

Which is what?

 

[Davian]

Which is what?

Disbelief.

 

[Chesterton]

Disbelief.

You disbelieve there is a God, or disbelieve there isn't a God?

 

[Davian]

You disbelieve there is a God, or disbelieve there isn't a God?

Provide a robust, falsifiable definition for what you mean by "God".

 

[Chesterton]

Provide a robust, falsifiable definition for what you mean by "God".

Yeah, I figured you couldn't take what you like to dish out. Just answer the question.

 

[Davian]

Yeah, I figured you couldn't take what you like to dish out.

lol. Forgotten about those coins already?

Just answer the question.

"Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable." wiki

 

[Chesterton]

lol. Forgotten about those coins already?

I tried to, because the question seemed irrelvant. What was the point of it?

"Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable." wiki

So is that a yes or a no? (My goodness, does your capacity for convenient evasion know no bounds? )

 

[Davian]

I tried to, because the question seemed irrelvant. What was the point of it?

You took a position of disbelief, based on insufficient information.

So is that a yes or a no?

I have taken a position of disbelief, based on insufficient information.

(My goodness, does your capacity for convenient evasion know no bounds? )

I don't see you posting that definition of what you say you believe in. How can I possibly respond either way without it?

 

[St_Worm2]

April 1st

You got me ..

 

[Inkfingers]

You got me ..