I will take you at your word. You are an agnostic atheist.<quoted text> I suspect I may also disagree with both you and the guy you were replying to. I don't read Dawkins or the other popular atheists - I suspect the self-promoter types are too much ego-involved and not intellectually purist enough. And I did not see what your argument was on previous pages.
First, I think one can be an agnostic atheist. Atheist means not believing in a God. Agnostic is a modifying word, meaning one who does not make a knowledge claim. So I am an agnostic atheist by my definition.
That sounds fair. It immediately sounds both neutral and carefully discerning.I strongly believe that there is no burden of proof on an agnostic atheist. The person who claims to know - either that there is or is not a God, or anything else - is the one with the burden of proof in my view. Do you agree with me about that?
I respect your view, but think that the evidence strongly suggests that (human made) deities are false.although quite clearly I dannot "prove" that no deities exist.So the person you replied to was mistaken in asking you for proof unless you stated you know that there is no God or that there is proof that there is no God. If that person stated he knows there is a God or can prove it, that person has the burden of proof. But if that person merely said he believed in the existence of a God, I do not see why one can say he has to prove God exists. We can assume he is not telling a lie when he says he believes it,
unless he is under duress from family friends etc.
So is your view on this similar, or different from mine?