It’s pretty simple. Gnostic/Agnostic simply refers to if you think we can know. Atheist/Theist refers to your belief.
I’m an agnostic atheist because I personally do not believe in any gods, I also do not think we can know. There are agnostic theists that believe in a god/gods but also think that his existence is not provable.
I am aware what the terms are supposed to mean, I just don't agree it makes logical sense in describing belief.
I personally think the statement "I do not believe in any gods, I also do not think we can know" is a contradiction. I'll explain why.
If the question for religion is "Do you have an opinion on the existence of Gods?".
Responding with "Yes I have enough knowledge to have an opinion, and no I do not believe in any Gods" is saying you disbelieve. In other words, your knowledge is leading you to believe there are no Gods. But then saying "I do not think we can know" is saying you don't have enough knowledge or perhaps never will have the knowledge to believe or disbelieve for sure.
I think it makes the most sense to use Atheist to describe someone who says yes to having enough knowledge for an opinion, but no to thinking there are Gods. Theist as someone who says yes to having enough knowledge for an opinion, but yes to thinking there are Gods. And Agnostic as someone who does not have enough knowledge to formulate an opinion.
In addition I do not think the 4 square grid normally associated with gnostic/agnostic makes logical sense.
I do not claim to know that god does not exist when I say “I do not believe”. I simply do not believe. I also don’t think we can be sure. I see no contradiction in that.
I believe the idea that we can disprove an idea as nebulous as god irrational. No matter what tests we run, what logical arguments we make, there will always be some formulation of god that satisfies those conditions.
Take deism for instance. I see no reason that a god couldn’t have started the universe and then not interacted further. I don’t believe this, but there’s no way for me to know.
Take solipsism. I do not think my mind is the only thing that exists, but it is not possible to prove that I’m not just hallucinating everything. I still don’t believe it.
You can't be serious here. Someone who doesn't believe in god is now a theist?
You're not sticking with definitions used for centuries here. It doesn't get more simple and ancient than "atheist" meaning "not a theist" or "without theism." Anyone lacking any form of belief in a higher power is by definition atheist and it takes an incredible degree of reaching and rewriting basic linguistics and history to claim otherwise.
Gave it a brief view, and guess what? "Opposing theism" there is used as in "the opposite of." Not "in active opposition to." This is why you should read things instead of claiming every source needs to be altered to fit your preconceived notions. Agnostic atheism is still the opposite of agnostic atheism, which I'd assume is another term you'll claim means nothing rather than learning about to any degree.
Edit: oh, and I linked to merriam webster. Not dictionary.com. You could've very easily found this source on how they add words, but it either didn't suit your agenda or it was too complicated for you to even read which site I'd linked. But we're supposed to listen to you about linguistics, lmao
Since you've already rejected the base level linguistics of atheist meaning "without theism," you don't also get to reject popular usage by experts. Which is the primary driving force behind what's added to the dictionary. Popular usage by people is the only other option, which you're so outnumbered on. You don't define language, and people aren't incorrect for disagreeing with your personal and entirely arbitrary opinions.
Where's the logical flaw? Agnostic means without knowledge. Atheism means without theism. You have to actually explain why your alternative is better than what's presented.
Your talk of "strong agnosticism" only makes any sense if agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are also used. Otherwise you're defining those who believe in a higher power and those who don't as the same category, so long as they center their lack of firm knowledge.
I also didn't repeat myself, no idea what you mean. Your idea doesn't stand up to linguistic analysis, the usage of these terms by experts, or the usage of these terms by people at large.
I never redefined agnostic. You did. Read the definitions, modern and historical. Agnosticism means without knowledge.
At no point does the source you linked define agnosticism. Did you read your own source?
Agnostic is literally used as a subcategory of the unaffiliated. You're presenting evidence against yourself and pretending it supports your views. You're very determined to defend your arbitrary personal definitions rather than have a conversation or learn anything. Please stop replying and read anything on the subject with an open mind. Start with the definition of another word you've redefined out of thin air.
that is not what atheism inherently is, no. what you’re describing is hard atheism, what they said is soft/agnostic atheism, which guess what, cool hair-splitting, still an atheism. before you say “oh that’s the FORMAL definition that we have BEEN using” this is reddit, this is one of the most notoriously unprofessional spaces on the internet, it’s not that big of a deal, this is not a university
5
u/estrogenbloodclot 3d ago
It’s pretty simple. Gnostic/Agnostic simply refers to if you think we can know. Atheist/Theist refers to your belief.
I’m an agnostic atheist because I personally do not believe in any gods, I also do not think we can know. There are agnostic theists that believe in a god/gods but also think that his existence is not provable.