Agnostics

[Whateverist]

Gee I don't like that way of putting it.

It is put clearly.  Maybe we just don't agree.   

"Don't believe one way or the other" sounds more like a garden variety agnostic to me.

If we use what I call the old system (oldsys), then we have these definitions:

• Theists believe that gods do exist.
  
• Atheists believe that gods do not exist.
  
• Agnostics don't believe either way.
  

The problem with oldsys is that it also uses these definitions:

• Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
  
• Agnostics don't know whether gods exist.  
  

So "agnostic" defines two different situations, which causes endless confusion.  

Newsys doesn't have that problem, so newsys is more clean and clear.  

Oldsys can probably claim more users.  Newsys is overwhelmingly more popular among people who identify as atheists.  

Both oldsys and newsys are normalized databases:  Everybody fits in a category; nobody fits in more than one category.  

There are other systems, of course, but these are the two main ones.  Both are supported by dictionaries and common usage.  That is, both are "right" or "true" insofar as any definition can be.  

Other systems can be disregarded as personal or eccentric.  Whatever is in third place behind the two main systems is way out of sight back there. 

If you're going to have your own system, it would be good of you to use new terms.  If you use "agnostic" to refer to weak atheists, people will assume that you are using oldsys.  If you use "weak atheist" (or its equivalent, "soft atheist) at all, people will assume you are using newsys.  

[/quote]


My objection is that as a weak atheist I too answer "no I do not believe in any gods".  I'm pretty sure my certainty is as strong as any gnostic atheist or anti-theist, so percents do not enter into it.  I claim the weak atheist position because I have nothing convincing to say to anyone inclined to believe gods do exist. Convincing for me, yes, but generally convincing to all?  Obviously not.