isn’t this more of an argument for agnosticism? atheism makes the claim that god does not exist, while agnosticism says it’s impossible to know either way.
Depends on what your definition is. As how I and from my experience, most atheists define atheism, atheism is the lack of belief in god for whatever reason. Your reasoning for this can stem from gnosis (knowledge) or agnosticism (without knowledge).
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who do not make any claims regarding the knowledge of existence of any particular gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate concept from theism/atheism and can be applied to other concepts, not just gods.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.
isn’t this more of an argument for agnosticism? atheism makes the claim that god does not exist, while agnosticism says it’s impossible to know either way.
Depends on what your definition is. As how I and from my experience, most atheists define atheism, atheism is the lack of belief in god for whatever reason. Your reasoning for this can stem from gnosis (knowledge) or agnosticism (without knowledge).
Most atheists are agnostic atheists, who do not make any claims regarding the knowledge of existence of any particular gods.
Gnosticism/Agnosticism is a separate concept from theism/atheism and can be applied to other concepts, not just gods.
Wrong again. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. If you claim that gods don’t exist, you have the burden of proof again and that is impossible to prove.
okay i looked it up and apparently atheism can mean a lot of different things. it can mean you either believe there is no god, or that you are basically agnostic, or something in between. (at least that’s what i got from the wikipedia page.) but anyways, the whole “burden of proof” argument does not apply to all forms of atheism, as certain kinds of atheism involve an active belief that no god exists. however, the “burden of proof” argument does apply to all forms agnosticism. so it is still a better argument for agnosticism than it is for atheism.