Is it logical for a Theological Noncognitivist to identify as an atheist?

[IanHulett]

Hai. So, yesterday I was watching the Drunken Peasants Podcast... ...with ben and TJ bringing you opinions of the news from an altered perspective... and there was a video by a feminist reviewed where she equated atheism to cyberbullies(What?!), and instead of identifying as an atheist, she identifies as a secular humanist. Again... What?! So, I wrote in an IRC chat I run for the show:

<IanHulett> So, by her logic, me being a Theological Noncognitivist, I'm not an atheist. lolwut?

Then one of the chatters responds with:

<H***A**R***> One could say that you have to understand a claim before you can take a position of belief or disbelief on it. I'm an ignostic, and I think that nonsense claims, like god, fail before you can take a position of belief or disbelief.

So... wait... if I'm a theological noncognitivist, I'm not an atheist? I sort of see his point, but I still don't fully understand. Whether I can or can't take a position of belief or disbelief, I still don't actively believe in God(atheist), in other words, I still lack a belief in God(atheist again), all that's different is that I believe "God" is a nonsensical concept. That's why I am a theo noncog. But aren't I still an atheist, because I don't actively believe in god?

If someone can help me understand further, I'd be grateful.

[Alex K]

By the definition most here use, you'd still be an atheist.

[thehedglin]

Theism/Atheism is what most of us would probably consider to be a binary concept, by which I mean, you either believe in it or don't. If you don't, it doesn't so much matter why you don't, you would still be in the same camp as the rest of us(even if in a different section). Take it this way, does a Baptist stop being a Christian simply because they don't consider the papal doctrines infallible?

Same kind of thing here.

[Cephus]

If you do not actively believe in some kind of god, you are, by definition, an atheist.

[robvalue]

Yeah I'm ignostic, which is pretty much the same thing I believe.

It seems there is some debate, but I'd say we are still atheists. Being atheist isn't about taking a position, it's about not taking a position. And you can't take the position to believe in something if you don't understand what it is.

I mean, I lack a belief in loads of weird things that I've never heard of. What are they? I don't know, I've never heard of them. But I don't believe in them, so I'm a-weirdstuff.

Once a claim is made meaningful, only then can we actually believe in it at all. We may have believed in such a thing before then had it been explained properly, or even believed in it under a different name. (God is the universe, blah blah.)

[Longhorn]

[Pyrrho]

[abaris]

Why is it even important? You are you and it's up to you to identify youself with what you see as appropriate.

[Pyrrho]

Why is it even important? You are you and it's up to you to identify youself with what you see as appropriate.

It matters if one wishes to communicate one's beliefs to others.  Using words improperly often leads to a failure to communicate.

[IanHulett]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism

This explains it pretty nicely

Maybe my lack of knowledge could still fall under agnosticism. That being: I don't know nor understand enough about God or his existence, so I choose not to take a position on the matter.  It sounds like even though I feel the concept of God makes no sense, especially with the contradictory definitions, that would still fit under agnostic atheism. So, it sounds like I could still identify as Agnostic Atheist. Am I correct on this assumption?