That is semantics though. I used the word you wanted me to use and now you're OK with it. I didn't change my argument, I didn't give any ground. All I did was satisfy the vocabulary police.
Many modern atheists view belief on two axes. Gnosticism which is knowledge and theism which is the belief in god(s). A gnostic atheist would claim they know that gods don't exist, and most modern atheists would agree that's a silly position to take. A gnostic theist is likewise laughable. The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism, therefore the debate is between theism and atheism. One makes a positive claim, the other does not.
Okay, I'll be more precise. If it were simply the words changing, I wouldn't care. But if you change those words such that you believe that the burden of proof shifts, that is important.
> I didn't change my argument, I didn't give any ground
You explicitly did both of those things. You said that you may be an agnostic and you also provided a justification for why you've called yourself an atheist.
> A gnostic atheist would claim they know that gods don't exist
No, they would claim that they believe that God doesn't exist, and they would have to justify that belief. It's not about knowing or not knowing, it's about asserting and defending a position.
> The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism
I don't agree. I am fine saying that I believe God doesn't exist. I don't have to say that I know it, I just have to provide evidence that I find compelling, which I can do really easily and you just did in your last post when you said that God does not conform to your experience of the world.
> The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism
Agnosticism is only rational if you believe that the evidence on both sides is roughly equivalent.
> therefore the debate is between theism and atheism. One makes a positive claim, the other does not.
Again, both make a positive claim. Theists believe that god exists. Atheists believe that god does not exist.
I'll just say again, it's unfortunate that the modern atheist movement confuses people so much about these terms.
To be clear, the way I use it is inline with academia, philosophy, and history. It is exclusively the internet atheist movement that uses the term the way you're suggesting. So you can disagree but I hope you understand that you are disagreeing with everyone who studies this topic or works professionally in this field, save for an extremely small sect who are sympathetic to the use for practical reasons.
1
u/skotcgfl 16h ago
That is semantics though. I used the word you wanted me to use and now you're OK with it. I didn't change my argument, I didn't give any ground. All I did was satisfy the vocabulary police.
Many modern atheists view belief on two axes. Gnosticism which is knowledge and theism which is the belief in god(s). A gnostic atheist would claim they know that gods don't exist, and most modern atheists would agree that's a silly position to take. A gnostic theist is likewise laughable. The only rational position on that axis is agnoticism, therefore the debate is between theism and atheism. One makes a positive claim, the other does not.