• Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 days ago

      The distinction is just semantics in my mind, too, yeah. I hold the same position as agnostics, in that I do not believe this whole god concept can be disproven, because it is not rigorously formulated like a scientific thesis.

      But I put that as “I do not believe that there is a god” and respectively I call myself an atheist, because well, there’s many other things which cannot be disproven, like for example Big Foot.

      And if a kid were to ask me, whether Big Foot exists, I’m not going to lead with “we really can’t know”. That’s just misleading.
      I guess, agnostics differentiate between gods and Big Foot, because there’s so many more people who are convinced of these gods’ existence. But yeah, I don’t do that either, because I’ve seen how many people are willing to believe climate change isn’t real. Lots of people believing something is just not an argument to me anymore.

      • Enkimaru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Neither atheism nor any “real religion” has to do anything with proving. Agnostics: there might be a god, but I do not know … never saw one! Does that count? Atheist: I am convinced there are no gods (but can not prove it: how the funk do you prove a non existing?) Bottom line, I do not care. Just like an Agnostics, I am just convinced and he leaves it open to surprise, when he dies … or when ever he meets a god(dess).

        And I most certainly have not any desire to convince a believer that his believes are BS. Because: I am an Atheist: I do not fucking care about his/her believes!!

    • CXORA@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Well yeah, most theists and atheists are agnostic.

      Which makes it a rather pointless label.