I am inclined to agree. It is a belief about the nature or status of evidence, and thus non-neutral (or at least non-default) position.

@@PhilosophyVajda What do you even mean by "non-neutral"?

@@americanliberal09 It isn't describing a view where the person necessarily has, pardon the idiom, no dog in the fight. They might, for example, have been a theist then been an atheist, and having evaluated a large corpus of evidence and arguments, resigned to the conclusion that no progress or confidence toward theism or atheism *can* be justified. One might debate with a firmly entrenched agnostic. This is not incoherent, because it is its own position.

@@PhilosophyVajda But it is for a fact that agnosticism is a neutral position.

Care to unpack the nature of the disbelief? Beliefs are usually "propositional attitudes". It is also a popular view that beliefs are dispositional. I am not sure what is the best way to describe disbelief. Is it a privation of belief? I ask because if I ask a theist "Is God real?" They say Yes. If I ask an atheist the same question, they say No. They don't say "I don't know" or "I can't say" or the like. Those usually say they are agnostic. Saying "No" to the reality question is what matters for the definition and the practical use of the term, not the nature of the belief which amounts to how to cash out the definition.

@@PhilosophyVajda Atheists don’t say ‘no’. They say, what do you mean by god and can you demonstrate your claim? - The reason so many atheists will say ‘disbelief’ is because theists always try to shift the burden of proof. We do not claim that god does not exist (some will of course) because you can’t prove that something does not exists. - But as soon as a theist can show me what method they would use to demonstrate that something, that doesn’t exist, doesn’t exist I will demonstrate that god does not exist. - Besides, it is completely illogical to state that a god doesn’t exist. What god? All theists have their own definition of ‘their’ god. How are we going to say god does not exist when theists can’t even define what we are talking about? Let’s even forget that nobody in the history of mankind has ever even made the case for god or the supernatural. - The evidence for the FSM or the Quantum Multiplier is just as strong as the evidence for god. If you see no reason to believe in those 2 you should also see no reason to believe in a god.

@@absquereligione5409 just because someone attempts to shift the burden of proof illegitimately doesn't mean that atheists (especially in the English speaking world) don't have beliefs about the existence of Judeo-Christian supernatural entities. Rather it is because they have investigated and found wanting, just as one might for Big Foot or the Illuminati (or if those comparisons sound unfair to the religious, then moral qualities or dark matter)

@@absquereligione5409 there are plenty of demonstrations, if you mean "logically valid, deductive arguments", but if you mean demonstration to be a sound argument (logically valid deductive argument with true premises), that seems like too high of a bar IMO. Most of science nowadays is inductive and above all aiming for cogency (inductively strong, true premises), and I wouldn't want to impose a double standard

@@PhilosophyVajda Those ‘beliefs’ are just reactions to the apologetic arguments. - As I said before. A position on something that nobody can even demonstrate to be an option, is just illogical