Belief--should our default position be a neutral/agnostic one?

[Ħ]

From Wikipedia's 'Argument from ignorance' article:

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.

If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).To reiterate, these arguments ignore the fact, and difficulty, that some true things may never be proven, and some false things may never be disproved with absolute certainty. The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false.

Based on the conclusion that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," should we form our beliefs with an agnostic approach?  Should we withhold belief or disbelief if we don't see evidence for either?

[Omega]

I would say so.

Yet theism can be justified because arguments for God's existence can be made. One can also point to reasonable evidence that points to the conclusion that (a) God exists (of course, an atheist would simply deny proposed evidence as not reasonably pointing to the existence of God or simply being insufficient). Yet proving or disproving the existence of God is infinitely illusive. Equally as problematic is what would even constitute as proof of either claim.

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

[kári]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

[Ħ]

Yet theism can be justified because arguments for God's existence can be made. One can also point to reasonable evidence that points to the conclusion that (a) God exists (of course, an atheist would simply deny proposed evidence as not reasonably pointing to the existence of God or simply being insufficient). Yet proving or disproving the existence of God is infinitely illusive. Equally as problematic is what would even constitute as proof of either claim.

I agree.

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

I again agree.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a major confusion of terms.  There are two different types of atheism that I can see.  One contends that "There is no God."  That position is called 'positive atheism' because it actually makes an assertion. The other says, "I do not see enough evidence for God, so I will choose to withhold belief in God."  This is 'negative atheism' and makes no assertion.

Positive atheism has no true arguments to support its beliefs.  No one can logically come to the conclusion "there is no God".  Negative atheism is more of a skeptical approach, not believing in existence or nonexistence.  People that take that position are much more common, I think.  They're the ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who focus more on refutation and less (if at all) on their own argument. Unfortunately, even a person succeeds in debunking every theist argument out there, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  Disproving one argument doesn't make the conclusion's opposite true.

[Ħ]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

[Jamesman42]

We are all computers playing a simulation game.

[ehra]

A person's default stance on anything is naturally going to be neutral/agnostic, until they see arguments/proof/whatever for one side or the other that sways their belief one way or the other. No one believes anything until they're given a convincing enough reason for why they should believe it. The controversy is then over which beliefs have the best reasoning behind them.

[Ħ]

I don't know if that's a natural approach.  I mostly see belief in the negative rather than people simply withholding belief.

[kári]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

[Ħ]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

You're agreeing with me.  You're, in effect, saying that "up is up" is a basic belief.

[Jamesman42]

inb4 eitche argues truth and definitions

Edit: Or that.

[kári]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

You're agreeing with me.  You're, in effect, saying that "up is up" is a basic belief.

No, I'm just defining concepts here. I don't need belief to know that up is up. I can always establish it again.

[ehra]

I don't know if that's a natural approach.  I mostly see belief in the negative rather than people simply withholding belief.

As you get older and have more personal knowledge/experience with the world to work with, people will be able to base their belief of something on their own experiences without necessarily needing outside influence. If you ask someone with no concept of a vampire if they believe in people that can turn into bats, drink human blood to live, turn others into vampires when they do feed on them, and die in direct sunlight, even if they then say no it's going to be because they have a compelling argument (their current knowledge of the world) against their existence. It's essentially what I said last post except the arguments for/against are being made preemptively. Depending on who he is, he could just as easily believe that vampires do exist.

[Ħ]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

You're agreeing with me.  You're, in effect, saying that "up is up" is a basic belief.

No, I'm just defining concepts here. I don't need belief to know that up is up. I can always establish it again.

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Basic beliefs "do not depend upon justification of other beliefs".  You just accept them as foundational and true, with no need to back them up.  That's what you're saying: "I just know that up is up and I don't see the need to explain why up must be up."

[Omega]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

You're agreeing with me.  You're, in effect, saying that "up is up" is a basic belief.

No, I'm just defining concepts here. I don't need belief to know that up is up. I can always establish it again.

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Basic beliefs "do not depend upon justification of other beliefs".  You just accept them as foundational and true, with no need to back them up.  That's what you're saying: "I just know that up is up and I don't see the need to explain why up must be up."

H is right.

For example, you have no way to disprove that you are not a brain in a vat of formaldehyde that is being stimulated to believe it is leading a life in a human body. You merely accept or pre-suppose that is not the case.

[yeshaberto]

I believe that it is essential to be open minded and to continuously rethink and challenge your personal beliefs or convictions.   I concede as a believer that ultimately I don't absolutely know.  But after much searching I am absolutely sure

[Ħ]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Not even that, if we're skeptical.  The statement "up is up" assumes that logic itself is true.  And how can you prove logic is true without using logic?  And whatever method you use, how can you prove that that method is true?  If you play the probability game, that we can never really know, then we're pretty much lost right on square 1, aren't we?  I think basic beliefs and foundationalism are much more productive.  They actually get us somewhere.

The statement "up is up" is true because that's how we've defined true. How else are you going to define true?

You're agreeing with me.  You're, in effect, saying that "up is up" is a basic belief.

No, I'm just defining concepts here. I don't need belief to know that up is up. I can always establish it again.

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Basic beliefs "do not depend upon justification of other beliefs".  You just accept them as foundational and true, with no need to back them up.  That's what you're saying: "I just know that up is up and I don't see the need to explain why up must be up."

H is right.

For example, you have no way to disprove that you are not a brain in a vat of formaldehyde that is being stimulated to believe it is leading a life in a human body. You merely accept or pre-suppose that is not the case.

Kari, I realize that it might have seemed like I was criticizing you.  That is not the case.  I was just providing terms for things that you already believe (that I agree with, by the way).

[Omega]

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

I again agree.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a major confusion of terms.  There are two different types of atheism that I can see.  One contends that "There is no God."  That position is called 'positive atheism' because it actually makes an assertion. The other says, "I do not see enough evidence for God, so I will choose to withhold belief in God."  This is 'negative atheism' and makes no assertion.

Positive atheism has no true arguments to support its beliefs.  No one can logically come to the conclusion "there is no God".  Negative atheism is more of a skeptical approach, not believing in existence or nonexistence.  People that take that position are much more common, I think.  They're the ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who focus more on refutation and less (if at all) on their own argument. Unfortunately, even a person succeeds in debunking every theist argument out there, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  Disproving one argument doesn't make the conclusion's opposite true.

This whole new "positive atheism" and "hard atheism" really irks me. Atheism has traditionally meant for the past 2000 years the assertion that there is no God. The attempts by petty-minded and philosophically illiterate New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" are really just attempts to relieve the weighty burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of God off their shoulders. A "lack of belief," if similar at all to any other stance, can be most comprehensively described as a sort of agnosticism.

[Ħ]

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

I again agree.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a major confusion of terms.  There are two different types of atheism that I can see.  One contends that "There is no God."  That position is called 'positive atheism' because it actually makes an assertion. The other says, "I do not see enough evidence for God, so I will choose to withhold belief in God."  This is 'negative atheism' and makes no assertion.

Positive atheism has no true arguments to support its beliefs.  No one can logically come to the conclusion "there is no God".  Negative atheism is more of a skeptical approach, not believing in existence or nonexistence.  People that take that position are much more common, I think.  They're the ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who focus more on refutation and less (if at all) on their own argument. Unfortunately, even a person succeeds in debunking every theist argument out there, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  Disproving one argument doesn't make the conclusion's opposite true.

This whole new "positive atheism" and "hard atheism" really irks me. Atheism has traditionally meant for the past 2000 years the assertion that there is no God. The attempts by petty-minded and philosophically illiterate New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" are really just attempts to relieve the weighty burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of God off their shoulders. A "lack of belief," if similar at all to any other stance, can be most comprehensively described as a sort of agnosticism.

The New Atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens is agnosticism.  Dawkins admits in The God Delusion that there is no argument that demonstrates that God does not exist.  They just use the term "atheism" because it has more umph to it--Dawkins admits that is the incentive.  It's supposed to stir the pot.  But unfortunately, it's not scholarly or intellectually honest at all.

[kári]

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Basic beliefs "do not depend upon justification of other beliefs".  You just accept them as foundational and true, with no need to back them up.  That's what you're saying: "I just know that up is up and I don't see the need to explain why up must be up."

I don't see a problem with applying "up is up". Say I draw an arrow and define it as up, then when I draw another arrow in the same direction I can establish that it is also pointing up.

H is right.

For example, you have no way to disprove that you are not a brain in a vat of formaldehyde that is being stimulated to believe it is leading a life in a human body. You merely accept or pre-suppose that is not the case.

Of course there's no way to disprove that. But I don't see what that has to do with what I said.
(Also I don't think it would be in formaldehyde )

Kari, I realize that it might have seemed like I was criticizing you.  That is not the case.  I was just providing terms for things that you already believe (that I agree with, by the way).

Heh, I didn't take it at all like that. We were just discussing... Relax!

[Ħ]

I think you're misunderstanding something.  Basic beliefs "do not depend upon justification of other beliefs".  You just accept them as foundational and true, with no need to back them up.  That's what you're saying: "I just know that up is up and I don't see the need to explain why up must be up."

I don't see a problem with applying "up is up". Say I draw an arrow and define it as up, then when I draw another arrow in the same direction I can establish that it is also pointing up.

But you're assuming two things here:

1) a=a (one arrow is the same as the other)
2) if you a=b for a single case (one arrow is 'up'), then a=b for all cases (all arrows 'a' are 'up')

Those two assumptions are hard to defend beyond simply saying that they are basic beliefs that don't need explanation.  If someone challenged the assertion that a=a, you'd be in for a tough time.

[kári]

OK maybe that was a bad example but I don't see why you can't use a tautology to define true. Perhaps a more mathematical one like 1 = 1.

[Sigz]

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

I again agree.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a major confusion of terms.  There are two different types of atheism that I can see.  One contends that "There is no God."  That position is called 'positive atheism' because it actually makes an assertion. The other says, "I do not see enough evidence for God, so I will choose to withhold belief in God."  This is 'negative atheism' and makes no assertion.

Positive atheism has no true arguments to support its beliefs.  No one can logically come to the conclusion "there is no God".  Negative atheism is more of a skeptical approach, not believing in existence or nonexistence.  People that take that position are much more common, I think.  They're the ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who focus more on refutation and less (if at all) on their own argument. Unfortunately, even a person succeeds in debunking every theist argument out there, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  Disproving one argument doesn't make the conclusion's opposite true.

This whole new "positive atheism" and "hard atheism" really irks me. Atheism has traditionally meant for the past 2000 years the assertion that there is no God. The attempts by petty-minded and philosophically illiterate New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" are really just attempts to relieve the weighty burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of God off their shoulders. A "lack of belief," if similar at all to any other stance, can be most comprehensively described as a sort of agnosticism.

Does it really matter? Whether they call themselves atheist or agnostic, their views are still the same.

[the Catfishman]

Also worthy of noting is that there are no true arguments for atheism; arguments in support of atheism merely seek to refute arguments for God or merely seek to reveal as philosophically and logically flawed.

I again agree.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a major confusion of terms.  There are two different types of atheism that I can see.  One contends that "There is no God."  That position is called 'positive atheism' because it actually makes an assertion. The other says, "I do not see enough evidence for God, so I will choose to withhold belief in God."  This is 'negative atheism' and makes no assertion.

Positive atheism has no true arguments to support its beliefs.  No one can logically come to the conclusion "there is no God".  Negative atheism is more of a skeptical approach, not believing in existence or nonexistence.  People that take that position are much more common, I think.  They're the ones like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who focus more on refutation and less (if at all) on their own argument. Unfortunately, even a person succeeds in debunking every theist argument out there, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.  Disproving one argument doesn't make the conclusion's opposite true.

This whole new "positive atheism" and "hard atheism" really irks me. Atheism has traditionally meant for the past 2000 years the assertion that there is no God. The attempts by petty-minded and philosophically illiterate New Atheists such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc to redefine atheism as a "lack of belief" are really just attempts to relieve the weighty burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of God off their shoulders. A "lack of belief," if similar at all to any other stance, can be most comprehensively described as a sort of agnosticism.

Atheism, the word itself means just that; 'not a theist' someone who does not believe in God (which has been the term for forever, not just since annoying people like Dawkins started making a fuzz about it)... I don't know why anyone would make it more difficult then that by muddling it with the term agnostic and I don't know any 'atheists' who say they know for a fact that there is no God...

So I call myself an atheist because I do not believe in the existence of a God... simple as that.


(edit and of course there's the argument that the term 'atheist' shouldn't exist at all, ie I don't go around telling people I'm a non-astrologer... but yeah I don't think that argument is helping anybody).

[hefdaddy42]

I agree.  An agnostic "doesn't know" whether or not there is a God.  For an atheist, there is no God.

[RuRoRul]

An agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know with certainty, one way or another, whether a God exists or not. And since most of the Gods people believe in are unfalsifiable, it is technically true. You can be agnostic but still think one is more likely to be true than the other, even though you acknowledge you will never be able to prove it or know with absolute certainty.

[the Catfishman]

An agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know with certainty, one way or another, whether a God exists or not. And since most of the Gods people believe in are unfalsifiable, it is technically true. You can be agnostic but still think one is more likely to be true than the other, even though you acknowledge you will never be able to prove it or know with absolute certainty.

this is what I'm talking about, why would you introduce the term agnostic here?  I don't know a single atheist who claims that a God can be proven or dis proven.

[RuRoRul]

An agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know with certainty, one way or another, whether a God exists or not. And since most of the Gods people believe in are unfalsifiable, it is technically true. You can be agnostic but still think one is more likely to be true than the other, even though you acknowledge you will never be able to prove it or know with absolute certainty.

this is what I'm talking about, why would you introduce the term agnostic here?  I don't know a single atheist who claims that a God can be proven or disproven.

Yeah, it seems often to be used as basically an inoffensive way for someone to say they don't believe in God. Also as far as I can see it's wrong to use it as synonym for a "neutral" view - if you take a neutral view to mean you're just as close to believing God exists as you are to believing he doesn't. Being agnostic (in reference to your belief in a God) only means that you think that we cannot know the truth of a his existence - beyond that an agnostic could lie anywhere believing in God (but not claiming to be able to prove it absolutely) and not believing in God (but not claiming to be able to disprove it absolutely). It does not necessarily mean a "50-50" position.

Although to add a little more; people are absolutely right that lack of evidence does not prove that something is not true. I am listening to music as I type this. Do I have any evidence to give you to back that up? No. But obviously that is not "proof" that I am not listening to music.

Likewise, if there is no evidence for the existence of a particular God, that does not "disprove" that God's existence. However, I do not believe that means that everyone should take a "neutral" view - i.e. say that because there is no evidence to "disprove" God, we should consider it just as likely he exists as does not, or even to start at that position and wait for evidence to push us either towards the negative (atheism) or positive (theism). Because, as most people are quick to point out, there is essentially no such thing as "negative" evidence. 

And it is very easy to make claims that can't be disproven. So if you use the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument to arrive at the conclusion that we should take a "50-50 position", then we should do that for any claim someone makes as long as it can't be falsified. I have a pet lizard that is invisible to everyone else and completely undetectable using any sense or measuring instrument. Technically you can't disprove that - as I said, any lack of evidence arises from my lizard being completely undetectable. But I have zero evidence to actually give you. So what do you think about my lizard? Do you think it's 50-50 that he exists?

Obviously a facetious example, but like I said, taking the view that lack of negative evidence means you should be neutral in your belief of something's existence leads you to some absurd conclusions. That's because there's a problem with using a "neutral" approach and waiting for either positive or "negative" evidence to sway you towards belief or disbelief - that is that although you can have mountains of evidence supporting something, there is a sort of "ceiling bumping" when it comes to the other side; you can't really go much further than just having "no evidence". So claiming that "no evidence" automatically means you should take a neutral view doesn't seem sensible, when that is as far negative as anything can go.

That's why, for me, I'm comfortable putting God into the "I believe he doesn't exist, pending any further evidence" category, along with everything else supernatural. I will not try to "prove" he doesn't exist because, like I said before, I don't really think that's possible when the claims made about him are that he is "outside of the universe", "untestable by science" and such things like that. The only thing that's required for my disbelief is the fact that there is no evidence, or a logical or philosophical argument that (to me) lends any support to the fact that he does. And that's why "arguments for atheism" as they were called, might consist of trying to make a case that "arguments for theism" are inadequate - because it is the lack of adequate arguments or evidence that leads to disbelief. Of course, I am not trying to say that I can state with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, and if evidence or (even less likely) a new argument came about that seemed good enough to me, I would then end up believing God existed (while still maintaining it was impossible to prove absolutely, unless new evidence did that in which case agnosticism was just plain wrong). But until that time, I'm fine with disbelief.

[eric42434224]

Im not an atheist, but I can certainly understand how someone could be a "positive" or "hard" atheist.  The so-called "proof" that there cant be a god looks to me as just as legitimate (in the particular persons view) as any "proof" that there is one.
There is no hard evidence either way.
Believers point to miracles, the complexity of nature, the idea of a prime mover, personal revelations/visions etc.  None of these are proof of god, but can foster a belief and faith.  One can just as easily look at all the suffering and injustice in the world, the scientific explanations for nature, and a feeling of an inner locus of control, look to me as legitimate reasons to think there is no god.  Using miracles as the justification for god is equally logical as using suffering as the justificaion for a lack of god.

Miracles are events that cant happen in the natural world, and can only be manifested by a god.  Logical if you believe there is no natural explanation for a miracle.  Some dont believe the events are miracles, and are scientifically explainable, or will be at some point.  Both logical depending on your personal view or premise.

A god would not allow suffering and injustice, much less cause it, and there is more than enough suffering happening, so there is no god.  Some believe a god not only would allow such suffering and injustice, but may actually need it as part of a plan, therefore allowing for a god.  Both logical.

Atheism is no more or less logical than Theism.  I can easily see why differing views, along with agnosticism (which is my vbiew) can exist.

And to the original question.....in the absence of any exposure to any evidence, it would seem to be that it would be the natural initial view.  I dont think it is an inate human trait to believe.  It requires at least exposure to the initial question and some type of outside fact/opinion/knowledge/experience to form an opinion.
So to me, yes, the default position is neutral.

[Chino]

There is no absolute truth or certainty, there are only probabilities.
For something to be actually true, it must never be false. And for something to be false it must never be true. Both can never be proven. The only exceptions here are logical statements... Such as "up is up" which is always true, or "red is blue" which is always false (when not taken out of context).

Could there be truth that we can not see though? For example, the belief of going to heaven when you die. When you die, the truth is brought to light. If you go to heaven it's true, if nothing happens it's false. As living beings we can not know the truth, but in death we know for certain, whether we (the deceased) are aware of it or not. In this scenario, there is absolute truth or certainty, the living just can't prove it.

[kári]

If what your saying is that when you die either something happens or nothing happens then yes, I agree. But that is just another tautology. How can there be absolute truth or certainty about a statement when its validity cannot possibly be established?

[Chino]

If what your saying is that when you die either something happens or nothing happens then yes, I agree. But that is just another tautology. How can there be absolute truth or certainty about a statement when its validity cannot possibly be established?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Although its validity can't be established, it does have absolute truth.

[Ħ]

An agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know with certainty, one way or another, whether a God exists or not. And since most of the Gods people believe in are unfalsifiable, it is technically true. You can be agnostic but still think one is more likely to be true than the other, even though you acknowledge you will never be able to prove it or know with absolute certainty.

this is what I'm talking about, why would you introduce the term agnostic here?  I don't know a single atheist who claims that a God can be proven or dis proven.

Exactly.  No one should actually be an atheist; no one should believe "There is no God."  There's just no argument for that proposition.

Instead, a person ought to identify with one of the forms of agnosticism: strong agnosticism ("I cannot know") or weak agnosticism ("I do not know at this moment right now").  The latter is the more helpful in my opinion.  It means that you're open to changing your mind, which is a quality I'm sure you want to have.

As far as invisible pet lizards, faeries, and orbiting teapots go, I'd say we ought to, on principle, be weak agnostics and withhold belief in either existence or nonexistence of these things.

[the Catfishman]

An agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know with certainty, one way or another, whether a God exists or not. And since most of the Gods people believe in are unfalsifiable, it is technically true. You can be agnostic but still think one is more likely to be true than the other, even though you acknowledge you will never be able to prove it or know with absolute certainty.

this is what I'm talking about, why would you introduce the term agnostic here?  I don't know a single atheist who claims that a God can be proven or dis proven.

Exactly.  No one should actually be an atheist; no one should believe "There is no God."  There's just no argument for that proposition.

Instead, a person ought to identify with one of the forms of agnosticism: strong agnosticism ("I cannot know") or weak agnosticism ("I do not know at this moment right now").  The latter is the more helpful in my opinion.  It means that you're open to changing your mind, which is a quality I'm sure you want to have.

As far as invisible pet lizards, faeries, and orbiting teapots go, I'd say we ought to, on principle, be weak agnostics and withhold belief in either existence or nonexistence of these things.

well... your 'weak agnostics' equals the definition of atheism (especially in your last sentence)... you do not believe in invisible pet lizards... why would you call that 'weak agnostic' instead of just atheism (not believing) towards invisible pet lizards.

I think it's nonsense to further differentiate different between levels of not believing in a God, making it a discussion about semantics.  Saying 'I don't believe in God' (atheism) is not equal to saying 'there is no God'

[Ħ]

Saying 'I don't believe in God' (atheism) is not equal to saying 'there is no God'

That's exactly what I'm saying, but you've got it backwards.  Saying "There is no God" is atheism.

I mean, traditionally, you're right, if you look at the Latin roots.  Atheism should mean "I don't believe in God."  "There is no God" should be called antitheism.  But our language developed in such a way that agnosticism says "I don't believe in God" and atheism believes "There is no God."  To jumble up these set terms is to cause confusion, yet Dawkins and the rest insist on doing so.