This is actually atheist. Atheism as a label pertains only to the question of “Are you convinced a god exists”, if the answer is no - you’re atheist.
If you are convinced of a god, but feel your reasons are bad, that’s where agnostic would apply.
The history of the term “agnostic” is as a deliberate way to make leaving religion harder, and you continuing to use it incorrectly perpetuates the stigma and social costs.
You can help people in horrible, abusive, situations, and join millions of us in doing so, just by using the term atheist correctly. Incidentally, being more precise in your language is also super useful, and gives loads of new and better ways to convey information.
I agree. I’ve just not had any luck with presenting this while trying to convey the point to someone who identifies as agnostic. It kind of requires the recipient to already be sold on the concept of precise language, and be ready to ignore their own connotations with each of the terms.
Which to my experience is rare.
I find most agnostic people are cowards that want both sides to leave them alone. They’re usually okay with religious bigotry as long as it doesn’t affect them personally.
In my experience they’re more afraid of being an atheist because it has strongly negative connotations from their time in religion. There’s a kneejerk reaction to the label and so, while they are atheist and don’t believe, they hang into the agnostic label to feel more comfortable.
That’s certainly what I did for quite a while after deconverting.
Oh for sure, I see them as the religious equivalent to “enlightened centrists.” I’ve literally heard people complain that atheists and Christians are equally annoying because they won’t stop talking about it.
Yes, I’m sorry that I don’t want their church making reproductive choices for my wife, I do understand how that’s the same as letting you know the root cause of our political divide. My bad.
To me, I’ve seen how Douglas Adams described his own atheism, and that’s just not for me.
Adams described himself as a “radical atheist”, adding “radical” for emphasis so he would not be asked if he meant agnostic. He told American Atheists that this conveyed the fact that he really meant it.
I certainly lean towards atheism, but I can’t say with 100% certainty that a God can be ruled out. God could still be a complete asshole who likes torturing his creations, or more like a Lovecraftian Eldritch god who doesn’t even register our existence, those are still possibilities.
Then what point is there to calling them a god? Leaving the possibility open to their existence is logical, it doesn’t mean you can’t highlight the improbability.
I think Terry Pratchett highlights this well in Disc World with his atheists. They deny gods are real in a world where gods clearly exist and manifest physically. When the inverse is true it borders on insanity.
This is actually atheist. Atheism as a label pertains only to the question of “Are you convinced a god exists”, if the answer is no - you’re atheist.
If you are convinced of a god, but feel your reasons are bad, that’s where agnostic would apply.
The history of the term “agnostic” is as a deliberate way to make leaving religion harder, and you continuing to use it incorrectly perpetuates the stigma and social costs.
You can help people in horrible, abusive, situations, and join millions of us in doing so, just by using the term atheist correctly. Incidentally, being more precise in your language is also super useful, and gives loads of new and better ways to convey information.
the 2 words answer different questions, Theist vs Atheist: do you believe in god? Gnostic vs Agnostic do you know you are correct?
Gnostic Theist: There is a god and I know he is real
Agnostic Theist: I believe in god, and faith is enough proof
Agnostic Atheist: I don’t believe in god, but don’t think that it can’t be proven that it doesn’t exist.
Gnostic Atheist: I know there is no god, like I know there is no Santa Clause.
Antitheist: God is a lie and religion is poison.
I agree. I’ve just not had any luck with presenting this while trying to convey the point to someone who identifies as agnostic. It kind of requires the recipient to already be sold on the concept of precise language, and be ready to ignore their own connotations with each of the terms. Which to my experience is rare.
I find most agnostic people are cowards that want both sides to leave them alone. They’re usually okay with religious bigotry as long as it doesn’t affect them personally.
In my experience they’re more afraid of being an atheist because it has strongly negative connotations from their time in religion. There’s a kneejerk reaction to the label and so, while they are atheist and don’t believe, they hang into the agnostic label to feel more comfortable.
That’s certainly what I did for quite a while after deconverting.
Oh for sure, I see them as the religious equivalent to “enlightened centrists.” I’ve literally heard people complain that atheists and Christians are equally annoying because they won’t stop talking about it.
Yes, I’m sorry that I don’t want their church making reproductive choices for my wife, I do understand how that’s the same as letting you know the root cause of our political divide. My bad.
To me, I’ve seen how Douglas Adams described his own atheism, and that’s just not for me.
I certainly lean towards atheism, but I can’t say with 100% certainty that a God can be ruled out. God could still be a complete asshole who likes torturing his creations, or more like a Lovecraftian Eldritch god who doesn’t even register our existence, those are still possibilities.
Then what point is there to calling them a god? Leaving the possibility open to their existence is logical, it doesn’t mean you can’t highlight the improbability.
I think Terry Pratchett highlights this well in Disc World with his atheists. They deny gods are real in a world where gods clearly exist and manifest physically. When the inverse is true it borders on insanity.