Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable.
So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic?
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable. So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.