I've heard this somewhere before - "atheism is usually and best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist", but I cannot understand where it could have come from. It is an incoherent position. How can there be a metaphysical claim that "God" doesn't exist, when there is no coherent definition of "God" in the first place? A-theism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Take for example, "atypical". There is typical. And then there is everything else -"atypical". So there are theists, and everyone else - atheists. I know some people don't want to wear the label because of the social stigma, and that's ok with me. But when it comes to definitions, even according to Merriam-Webster, if you lack a belief in a god or gods, you are technically an atheist.

dictionary.com: "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"

Merriam-Webster: "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

I am an atheist because there is no convincing evidence of a god. And like other things with no convincing evidence, it's not a 50/50 thing. It's more like a 99.99/.01 thing. Everything we can measure in the known universe acts exactly as if there is no god. So I don't claim to know, but I'm still pretty sure. All those people in the middle, sitting on the fence, playing with Pascal's wager and even going to church, temple, synagogue, or mosque and acting like a believer but feeling like a fraud - that was me for several years - they're all atheists, too.

@MPendergraft
belief means hold something (information) as true.

The opposite:

Disbelief hold something (information) as false.

To say "I disbelieve" is saying the same thing as "I hold that information as false".

Are you claiming it is in fact false? Then say you disbelieve to indicate your claim.

@Word The statement "A is true", and "A is false" are two separate claims. Just because I don't believe that A is true does not mean I believe that A is false. I have the right to withhold belief from both until one of them is supported by evidence. If I flip a coin, and don't show it to you, do you believe it is heads? Do you believe it is tails? Neither, right? And yet it must be one or the other. So not believing a thing doesn't necessitate believing the opposite. Disbelief is not holding something as false. It is simply not affirming it as true. It's like a "not guilty" finding in court, which is NOT a finding of "innocent".

I am claiming that any God claim appears to me most likely false. Some, like the God of the Bible, are definitely false because they are self-contradictory. But in general, it may be possible that some supreme being exists. So I am an agnostic atheist.

@MPendergraft you say "... like the God of the Bible, are definitely false."

John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God. John 1:14 ... the logos become flesh. John 10:34. [referring to people] ... written in the law it says "ye are gods. "

Logos is thought, word or cognition capability. God is logos, logos is god. People logos. People think, people have cognition.

Biblical god exist because people are the gods. People are the gods, people exist therefore a style of god exist. Atheism illogical.

And, obviously you know nothing about biblical style God to make YOUR false claim "...God of the Bible, are definitely false. "

@MPendergraft Believe is a verb. Accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

Do you believe I exist and typing you this message?

Yes or no?

Please explain the no-decision answer to the question.

You say you do not answer my question either way: Please explain this non-answerr where some information is given but ignored.

@MPendergraft So I handed you information "I exist and typed this message." Then you observed this information and say "I do not accept it as true." If you do not accept it as true and you give me the information back because you do not hold it as true, what do you think you are implying or doing?

@MPendergraft According to an understanding of biblical text: Jesus character was created by being spoken into existence by the People-Gods.

As written, Jesus character refers to himself as "son of man".

Son is an offspring or a product.

Son of man = product of mankind.

Jesus character = man made. The people created Jesus character. The people are creators, they created Jesus character. Gods are creators, creators are Gods.

@Word If I assume that other people exist and I am not alone in a simulation, then it is most likely that you exist and typed that. It is not remarkable so I am willing to accept it without any further evidence. I do not claim to 'know' that you are real and that you typed it, but I believe it. So, with respect to your claim, I am agnostic, but still believe the claim.

If you had made some sort of unusual claim, which seemed less likely true than false, then I would not believe you. I would not positively believe your claim was false. I would just maintain skepticism toward your claim.

I don't know what you are talking about when you say I would give the information back to you.

@Word All that stuff in John is a bunch of stories in a book. And John was way out in left field from the rest of the NT. I was raised in the church and then tried really hard to convince myself that it was true as an adult, unsuccessfully. So I read the bible a lot years ago. Then I stopped because it had no value to me. The god of the bible is self-contradictory in several ways that I don't have in front of me right now and don't care to waste the time to look up.

@Word It's very nice that you have chosen that understanding of the text. But I think that the Jesus in the bible was the "son of man" in the conventional sense already by being born flesh in a human family. An additional strained, hocus pocus explanation isn't really needed. Christians generally use the conventional explanation and they are the ones I have to deal with every day here in Virginia. The God they believe in - you know the one - all the omnis - is self-contradictory. Especially the all-loving and eternally-torturing aspects.

@MPendergraft The biblical text is purporting that the egyptian Osirus/horus, Father/son-father reincarnation myth really happened.

You focus on things translated into english that appear to be contradictions, you miss the plot all together.

Myth of the garden of Eden is explained in video below from better understanding of original language. Genius of a story. Genius coming from logos or cognition. I really like about 95% of what is explained and it does explain differences that English language screwes up the story and understanding a little.

@MPendergraft To discuss what you said, "I don't know what you are talking about when you say I would give the information back to you."

3 options I see and to give my distinction between atheist and agnostic.

Do you believe what I said and accept it as truth?
Option #1. Yes, I accept or believe what you said [for what ever reason] <a theist position accepting another person's testimony as true >

Option #2 No, I do not accept and disbelief it saying false. <an atheist position >

Option #3 I do not KNOW with direct knowledge to say true or false. <agnostic position >

The truth could be that I do infact exist BUT I had some one else type the text for me. Then, the entirety of the statement would be false.

So, I said, "I exist and typed this statement " Then I ask do you believe me?. Now what option would you choose ?

@MPendergraft Sounds true enough to hold as truth UNTIL something better explains or discredits what is held as truth. Theist accept as true.

Heres where atheist hold it false until something better or more conversing evidence gives them reason to change. Atheist rejects as false.

@Word I reject any reference to translations or original language. If God is trying to communicate with individual humans, then requiring an understanding of the original text is ridiculous. Another contradiction. All-knowing god that doesn't know that people will misinterpret his Word. Or, alternatively, a god who isn't trying to communicate with us and is therefore irrelevant. Either way, a human in 2020 doesn't need to bother with it.

@Word I do not accept your three choices. You do not have to know a thing to believe it. The fact that I believe you exist and you typed something does not mean I know it to be true. Even if I said I believe your statement was false doesn't mean that I know it to be false. Unless I have direct knowledge of the truth of the matter, I am agnostic in both of those answers.

There is also another option. If you had made claim that seems unlikely, but sure, maybe you're telling the truth, the only honest answer would be "I don't know". In this case I am unable to take take a position on whether or not you were telling the truth. In terms of belief, I do not believe you. But I also do not believe your statement is false. This is the agnostic atheist position. I do not believe <insert proposition>. Just like "I do not believe God exists". Not the same as "I believe God doesn't exist". Both of these statements, though, come from atheists. Theist = believer in some god. Atheist = not a believer in some god.

So, in the given situation, there are three options. Since I have no direct knowledge of the truth of the matter, I either

1. believe you, because seems the most reasonable, but I don't know,
2. believe you are lying, because it is reasonable to conclude that your claim is false, or
3. remain uncommitted to either, because there is insufficient evidence to support either the claim you make or the claim that it is false,
   and in all three options, I have no choice but to be agnostic.

@Word Atheist and theist are philosophical terms and, as such, are to be used when one is being precise with language. I am an atheist because I don't believe. While in practice and daily life I reject all god claims as false until I see evidence to the contrary, that is due to the necessity of living life. I cannot hold up my life until I get a certain answer. As a non-religious person, I am fine with actual uncertainty and make decisions and live with it. I don't need answers to all questions. There is a difference between daily practical decision-making and what is actually true.

Science is a discipline of making decisions with uncertain facts, and it has been very useful so far. But you will rarely hear a scientist say that, for instance, the theory of evolution is a fact. Evolution (allele frequency change over time) is an observed fact, but the scientific-best-explanation-so-far (theory) of how and why it occurs is not. It's just the best we have so far and can and probably will change in some way in the future as we continue to learn. However, scientists accept the theory of evolution as true in daily practice. If questioned, they will clarify that it is not a fact, and in fact they do not believe it is 100% accurate. They do not know yet in what way it will prove inaccurate, but they expect that it likely will.

So that rabbit hole (sorry) was an example of practical acceptance of a claim without philosophically affirming it. Just like me, in practical terms acting on the claim that there is no god, but not quite holding that position philosophically.

@MPendergraft its appears to me christianity as a whole doesnt understand Jesus character very well.

As written in Greek, Jesus character talks about "that born of Pnuema is Pnuema ". The Hebrew word would be ruach. What he is saying is that he was born because of spoken words. In English these words Pnuema and ruach is translated into the word spirit which gives for a different meaning and understanding.

@MPendergraft you do not know much about the American legal system and legalise. It is where Latin is used in a lot of legal documentation so that it makes it harder for uneducated to represent themselves pro se.

Do you know pro se?

It's true atheists THEMSELVES should decide once and for all what THEY mean by the word.
Common usage is, 'One who does not believe in, and PROACTIVELY DENIES, the existence of ANY 'god' by ANY definition.'
In other words, they 'believe in' the non-existence of 'god.'
This is why this disagreement is much more about definition than substance.
Is atheism, or is it not, a belief?
Is saying one doesn't believe in god (or gods) the same thing as saying one dIsbelieves?
Anyone who is not a self-identified atheist doesn't really care one way or another, but would say, 'of course.'
Atheists know they cannot state categorically, 'god doesn't exist.'
But admitting the word 'atheist' is therefore self-contradictory would be to admit it is non-functional and meaningless.
In response they re-identify as 'agnostic atheist,' which is also self-contradictory but perhaps the best they can do.
Or they could simply set aside the word 'atheist' and re-brand themselves 'agnostic,' thus ending the argument once and for all, with no loss of meaning.
This will of course never happen, but equally clearly, it is not possible to:

1. Monopolize the word 'god'
   by establishing THAT definition as the only one.
2. Declare THAT 'god' non-existent.
3. Inductively conclude since THAT 'god' doesn't exist, therefore 'god does not exist.'
   This cannot be logically be done.
   My personal bottom line is, definitions aside, I DO 'believe' there is an explanation for everything, in every way, regardless of what you want to call it.
   God?
   The Unified Field Theory?
   The Collective Unconscious?
   The Wizard of Oz?
   It doesn't matter.

@Storm1752 Could I suggest adding "people " to your defination list of Gods. As in people are gods. There are references I could provide that shows people are accepted as being a style of gods.

That is not a unicorn. A unicorn is a mythological horse with a horn. That rhinoceros is a rhinoceros. It only has unicornus in its name because that is Latin for having one horn. Unicorns most likely don't exist. Very most likely.

@MPendergraft Siberian unicorn' walked Earth with humans

[google.com]

@MPendergraft Where do unicorn myths come from?

Legends of the unicorn, or a beast with a single horn, have been around for millennia.

Some have argued that the horn of the rhino may have been the basis of myths about unicorns, although other animals - such as the tusked narwhal - are more likely contenders.

[bbc.com]

@Word People had horses. People saw animals with horns. They put the two together and came up the unicorn. Seems pretty intuitive to me. Could have happened more than once even. The rhino is a post hoc rationalization where none is needed.

Around 250 B.C. a group of Greek scholars undertook the task of translating the original Hebrew Biblical text to Greek to make it available to the public. When these scholars encountered the Hebrew word re’em, they were puzzled. It probably referred to a wild ox with one horn, but because it had become extinct, the Greeks did not have a word for the name of the animal. They did what any good scholar would do and translated it to the closest word they knew. They used the word monokeros, meaning one-horned to describe the Biblical unicorn.

From the context of the word unicorn in the Bible, we can conclude that the unicorn was an animal of great strength, similar to bulls and bullocks, with a notable horn. We can also conclude that it was not a domesticated animal used to till the fields.

The answer to the question “Are there unicorns in the Bible?” is yes, but no one knows for sure what the Biblical unicorn really looked like. Most scholars agree the unicorns mentioned in the Bible were either a type of wild ox – as the Hebrew name suggests – or a one-horned rhinoceros as the Greek suggests. Nearly everyone agrees that the Biblical unicorn is unlikely to match our image of the mythical unicorn.

[unicornsrule.com]

@MPendergraft Forgive my memory and lack of looking it up but what is that fallacy where many illogical atheist will discuss the Magical unicorn in a biblical context? As my other post shows, the biblical text is not referencing the magical style of unicorn but many illogical Atheist will discuss or put together the magical unicorn and biblical text together.

@Word Ah, the unicorns mentioned in the Bible... my bad. Sure that is probably all true. However, I would like to return to my position that any requirement of lay people to understand dead languages or interpret translations as a disqualifying error on the part "God". If the translations come out looking like fantasy, he is not doing a very good job of communicating with the people of today. It sort of discredits the text and the god as anything anyone should pay attention to.

@MPendergraft it appears to me there is adequate communication that is being passed for the biblical dictates to be brought about to furition. Identification for taxation and government control is apart of the revealing in biblical text that is now enforced. Establishment of the mark of the beast-666 began by requiring birth certificate, social security number and photo identification.

Atheists have no burden of proof as we make no claim. Atheists simply lack sufficient evidence to rationally conclude that there is a god or gods. That doesn't mean that there are no gods. Only that the evidence hasn't shown up. Personally, I would have no problem becoming a theist if such evidence did appear. Seems unlikely at this juncture, however. I am an atheist AND an agnostic.

@MPendergraft Yes, you make a claim: god does not exist. You DO make that claim. To say you don't is sophistry. But you DO say it anyway.
Not getting into another pointless, neverending argument about it. I've no idea why atheists deny their obvious position, except maybe they want to elevate themselves above theists. Then they try to draw a false equivalency with Agnostics by putting both of us on some sort of 'belief spectrum scale...' and saying they're actually 'agnostic atheists' (a ridiculous and self-contradictory misnomer) because they're only 99.9% sure there is no god.They want to have their cake and eat it too! Well it doesn't wash.
But I don't expect you to agree with me.

@Storm1752 You're a bit of an troll aren't you? Who the f*** are you to tell me what claim I am making? I am NOT making the claim that there is no god. I am making no claims with respect to any gods. I am living my life, wishing the theists would leave the rest of us alone and stop making laws based on their damnable irrational religions. The only way any god claim affects my life is when a theist comes in and interrupts me with their proselytizing or their laws. Anyone making the claim that there is a god has the burden of proof. Just like anyone making the claim that the there is pink panda floating invisibly next to your huge, inflated head would have the burden of proof. I don't need evidence to dismiss that claim. And I don't need evidence to dismiss the claim that there is a god. Babies are atheists, because they have not even heard of gods. Are they making a claim that there is no god? No. And just because I have heard of people talking about a thing does not mean I have to make a claim about it.

@MPendergraft Again I disagree and I do so respectfully. If you want to react violently and use abusive language, go right ahead.
The fact is (to stumble around in familiar weeds) there are two--actially three--options:

1. You are an ATHEIST and therefore make the claim god does not exist (to use the colloquial, commonly-understood definition of the word "atheist," NOT the esoteric etherism to which many atheists resort),
2. You are AGNOSTIC and therefore make no claim whether god exists or not, but also have no idea WHAT any existent god might be, if anything.
3. You are Ignostic, and think the whole subject cannot even be discussed, since there is no basis for it.
   I'd be Ignostic except, like a lot of people here, I enjoy talking about it as one would enjoy playing with Rubik's Cube, endlessly with little or no prospect of success.

@Storm1752 You're simply wrong. Ask an atheist what atheists claim. By definition, you are an atheist too. Anyone who does not believe in a god or gods is an atheist. It's ok if you don't want to wear the label. But don't tell me what my position is. I do not have a burden of proof to say that I don't believe in god. Any more than I would have a burden of proof for not believing in faeries. I will not discuss this with you anymore.

@MPendergraft It's true I don't BELIEVE IN 'god,' but it's also true I do not NOT believe in 'god,' also.
Do I think it's possible in a real, tangible sense, rather than with a reluctant nod in that direction? The answer is 'yes,' depending on the definition of god referenced.
I DO think there is a 'unifying force' common to all things (energy/mass), which has been proven. I think it possible this force has collective 'consciousness,' the same thing you and I as individuals have. Do I understand what I even mean by that? Of course not. If I did I could start my own religion (only this religion might actually contain some seeds of truth)!
No, I've little to go by, just a lot of conjecture by learned people, some theoretical speculation by physics professors about the nature of consciousness, a lot of personal thought (automatically rejected) about life, and a lot of circumstantial evidence, case studies, and reams of somewhat inconclusive yet persuasive research and investigation into all sorts of paranormal/supernatural/extrasensory phenomenon.
No, I don't think there's a cartoonish man with a white beard in the clouds, or for that matter ANY kind of 'supreme being' in charge of our 'immortal souls.' It'd be illogical and nonsensical to think so given what we know of the world.
But what we thought we knew even 1000 years ago has very little relation to what we think we know now. In 1000 years from now we'll think we know even more. Oh, we WILL know more, but not nearly all there is to know, and probably not nearly as much as we think.
No, in my opinion there's something about the fundamentalist nature of our existence we don't know. Atheists like you think even speculating about it is some kind of 'sin.' I don't.
In fact, my mind is free of the intellectual straightjacket with which religion used to bind it; I'll be a "money's uncle" if I let a LACK of religion do the same thing.