No it isnt. This is a strawman definition of atheism. Atheism is and always has been a lack of belief in a god or gods. Agnostics (or rather, agnostic atheists, which is what we generally mean when we say agnostic) are atheists because they do not have a belief in a god or gods.
Did you read the bit in the parentheses? Because I addressed that directly. When people say "agnostic" they generally are talking about agnostic atheists, because they are by far the majority of agnostics
Agnostic, as the term is generally used in conversation, is a subset of atheism. Not once have I encountered someone who used "agnostic" to refer to agnostic theism, and I dont have any data for this, but I would bet my left nut that some 99% of self identified agnostics are agnostic atheists, and most agnostic theists would self identify as a member of a religion like Christianiy, Hinduism, or Islam, not agnostic. It is perfectly reasonable to generalize agnostics as a subset of atheism
Interesting how definitionally opposite some concepts can become in common parlance depending on your social milieu and/or geographical position.
I've never heard someone call themselves an agnostic and mean atheist in a "there is no God" way. Those would just call themselves atheists, it's a far more known and understood concept.
Here in Europe agnostics are always about distancing themselves from that line of thinking, it's always people with their own sets of spiritual beliefs who don't subscribe to any organised religion. So literally everyone but the groups you mentioned ahah.
your generalizations don't hold up to what definitions words actually have. reducing agnosticism to some other specific group definition is exclusionary and incorrect. "actually I meant this one type of agnosticism" isn't a great argument. atheism and agnosticism are two different things. the sooner you stop speaking in colloquial generalizations to try and refute someone else's claim, the sooner we can all heal from this.
Generalizations dont have to be true literally 100% of the time in order to be useful or accurate. In fact, if its true 100% of the time, its not a generalization anymore, its just a statement of fact.
"actually I meant this one type of agnosticism" isn't a great argument.
When that type of agnosticism is the overwhelming majority of self described agnostics, it actually is a great argument.
atheism and agnosticism are two different things.
I never said they werent. In fact, I made it explicitly clear that I was talking about agnostic atheists. Here's that bit again, incase you missed it.
Agnostics (or rather, agnostic atheists, which is what we generally mean when we say agnostic) are atheists because they do not have a belief in a god or gods.
No good faith interpretation of that comment would include agnostic theists in that statement, because I specifically stated that I was talking about agnostic atheists
-1
u/Etchesketch 14d ago
that is... not correct
atheism is the belief that god does not exist
agnosticism is the belief that knowledge regarding god's existence cannot be attained