There are several well written books on the topic. Generally though you can use the dictionary definitions:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Knowing / not knowing does not imply the position of/on belief. Oft, casually, agnostic is used as a wiggle word to escape pressure to define a position (the second definition) or to explain that the position held is unimportant.
Theism/atheism is the position that is either knowable or unknowable. Conflating the two is common because an unknowable is often taken as not knowing a person’s position on a topic regardless of that individuals actual beliefs.
Commonly people, incorrectly, assert (like you have) that there are three positions: gnostic theism, agnosticism and gnostic atheism.
While most theists are gnostic theists (they know that their God they Believe in is real) most atheist are agnostic atheists (they lack the belief in a god and they don’t know or not if it is possible to know of a god if one did exist (or not)).
Edit: a reply to your edit.
The definitions are not muddled in the academic/theological world. They are absolutely muddled practically when speaking with people who are not well versed in the topics.
For example, depending on a persons depth of understanding of philosophy I will classify myself as an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist (or just an atheist if gnostic/agnostic split is difficult to disambiguate for them). I am a philosophical physicalist (a form of materialism) which by definition excludes a supernatural god… Which makes me a gnostic atheist. But without understanding that philosophical position I am practically an agnostic atheist because of the ways most people interpret the ability to know things.
I made an edit to my comment just around the time you posted your reply, just fyi I don’t want to be sneaky or anything.
Huh, I always took atheist to be the complement of theist, not to be confused with the opposition. So because I’m a math guy: atheist = NOT(theist). For example, theist: “I believe in a god”, atheist: “I’m not with this guy”, antitheist: “Your god is fake, there is no god, it’s impossible”.
It mentions both of our definitions of atheism - not having belief and having belief against god - and where they came from and arguments for or against them, but they do seem to lean toward yours, the “philosophical” definition as they call it
There are several well written books on the topic. Generally though you can use the dictionary definitions:
Knowing / not knowing does not imply the position of/on belief. Oft, casually, agnostic is used as a wiggle word to escape pressure to define a position (the second definition) or to explain that the position held is unimportant.
Theism/atheism is the position that is either knowable or unknowable. Conflating the two is common because an unknowable is often taken as not knowing a person’s position on a topic regardless of that individuals actual beliefs.
Commonly people, incorrectly, assert (like you have) that there are three positions: gnostic theism, agnosticism and gnostic atheism.
While most theists are gnostic theists (they know that their God they Believe in is real) most atheist are agnostic atheists (they lack the belief in a god and they don’t know or not if it is possible to know of a god if one did exist (or not)).
Edit: a reply to your edit.
The definitions are not muddled in the academic/theological world. They are absolutely muddled practically when speaking with people who are not well versed in the topics.
For example, depending on a persons depth of understanding of philosophy I will classify myself as an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist (or just an atheist if gnostic/agnostic split is difficult to disambiguate for them). I am a philosophical physicalist (a form of materialism) which by definition excludes a supernatural god… Which makes me a gnostic atheist. But without understanding that philosophical position I am practically an agnostic atheist because of the ways most people interpret the ability to know things.
I made an edit to my comment just around the time you posted your reply, just fyi I don’t want to be sneaky or anything.
Huh, I always took atheist to be the complement of theist, not to be confused with the opposition. So because I’m a math guy: atheist = NOT(theist). For example, theist: “I believe in a god”, atheist: “I’m not with this guy”, antitheist: “Your god is fake, there is no god, it’s impossible”.
I’ll be real with you I did not and have no intentions of reading this whole thing, but sections 1 and 2 is relevant to this discussion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
It mentions both of our definitions of atheism - not having belief and having belief against god - and where they came from and arguments for or against them, but they do seem to lean toward yours, the “philosophical” definition as they call it
You are correct, and I should have worded my example differently.
They lack the belief (as opposed to active disbelief).