I can’t say anything about a Gliptz because I do not know what one is, so I can neither believe or lack belief. I can’t even be agnostic unless I have at least a known and understood definition.
If you do not have the positive belief that something (X) exists then, by definition, you
lack that positive belief that X exists. Where X is God, this is sufficient for some to use the label "atheist".
Some might require one to have at least
thought about X, even if only to conclude that they are not otherwise aware of it, or find a definition meaningless etc. This is to distinguish, for example, someone who has concluded that they lack belief in X, from someone who has yet to give it any thought.
So, no, you don't necessarily need a known and understood definition to lack belief that the thing exists. You don't know what a Gliptz is, so you can not say that you have a positive belief that a Gliptz exists, can you. True, you also can not say that a Glipitz does
not exist. But an atheist, at least as commonly understood here, only requires the former, not the latter.
Agnosticism is a different position, about what is known, or the knowability, of the subject matter.
If you don't have a meaningful definition of something then that in itself is sufficient for some to consider themselves necessarily agnostic on the matter. They couldn't go so far as to say that Glipitz are an unknowable phenomenon precisely because they, personally, don't know what is meant by the term. But in so far as they deem themselves to lack any knowledge of Glipitz, even as far as a meaningful definition, is surely sufficient to say "I don't know...".
Having a definition allows me to decide whether or not a Gliptz exist, and if asked why I lack a belief, I would be able to explain based on my definition/understanding. I would not need to know your definition unless it differed from mine.
Sure, but until you decide that they
do exist, you necessarily lack belief that they do, right?
So my question (what evidence would convince you about the reality of God?) is legitimate because all I hear is “lack of evidence” with regards God.
To me "God" is a meaningless concept, akin to asking what happened before time began.
I therefore lack belief that God exists - i.e. an atheist (as I have at least considered the position) - and I also can not say what evidence would convince me. Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't exist. I don't know, precisely because I find God to be a meaningless concept. I am therefore agnostic. I also consider God to be unknowable, precisely because I think it a meaningless concept.
If you know there is a lack of evidence, despite evidences all over the internet which you reject, it signifies that you would know what the evidence would be, if it were to show up. All I’m doing is asking what it would be because at this point I have no clue what you mean by God.
It depends on what you want to call "evidence". For example, an observation could be "evidence" for 2 competing theories, if it fits both. There is plenty of such evidence - so much that it actually encapsulates existence itself.
But if you mean "evidence" as in "supports the concept of God while not also supporting the non-God theory" then I am not aware of any evidence. Are you?
What do you think “belief” is?
Do you think you can believe in anything without having some knowledge or understanding of that thing?
One can not have a positive belief (e.g. "I believe that...") without some understanding of what it is you are asserting.
One can lack that positive belief without needing to have any understanding of it.
Regardless, you still have to know something about why you believe something does not exists.
“I don’t believe the Gliptz exists because…”
“I don’t believe in the Gliptz because…”
The former can be the reason for the latter, but for it to be rational you have to have some knowledge of said Gliptz.
Both of these can be answered with "... because I don't know what a Gliptz is/means". That is, surely, the rational position to take when you don't know what is being discussed?
All that means is that you lack belief in the word God.
I’m asking about the meaning of the word.
What do you think God is, why you lean toward atheism or agnosticism?
No, we are talking about the concept itself, not the label of the concept. Noone is suggesting belief or lack of belief in a
word but in the
concept that the word represents.
I think God is a meaningless concept. Explain to me why it isn't?
Until then, this is the reason I am both atheist and agnostic.
