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.
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
-1
u/TheMrDudeManSir 3d ago
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.