Atheists did a slight of hand with the term of atheism. If it used to mean disbelief in God, and now they've just turned it into a redundant word which they claim means "lack of belief in God" aka agnostic.
Ok I've seen this weird distinction before and I'd love to figure out what it's supposed to mean. Lack of belief = disbelief, what is the slight of hand supposed to be? You either believe or you don't, it's a binary, in the quoted description atheist and agnostic are functionally the same thing.
"Partial belief" or "belief, terms and conditions apply" isn't belief, it's just a suspicion, because it's in the definition of belief that it exists above rationalization or doubt. If your definition of agnostic is half way between atheism and truly devout then that's "I suspect there might be a Good but don't truly believe it in my heart, I'm just hedging my bets" not just "a lack of belief in God", in which case you're calling the wrong people agnostic, those agnostics are in churches every other Sunday.
Although I think you have the timeline flipped there. Atheist is a 16th century word with a pretty clear etymology that means "without God", or more literally "not a Theist" - AKA "lack of belief in God", whereas "against God" would be constructed as "antitheist" from those same roots. Agnostic is a 19th century word that from its etymological roots would be synonymous with atheist, if perhaps slightly more broad as to applying to not just all personable God's but all unknown powers in the universe.
The split to atheism being considered a belief against God and agnostic being a lack of belief is a more recent development, and is a evolution that is still incomplete, probably even reverting in most modern usage. Possibly because the language roots are so obvious and at odds with that context driven interpretation that people unfamiliar with the conflict will see "atheist" and immediately think "that must mean lack of faith"
Ok I've seen this weird distinction before and I'd love to figure out what it's supposed to mean. Lack of belief = disbelief, what is the slight of hand supposed to be? You either believe or you don't, it's a binary, in the quoted description atheist and agnostic are functionally the same thing.
"Partial belief" or "belief, terms and conditions apply" isn't belief, it's just a suspicion, because it's in the definition of belief that it exists above rationalization or doubt. If your definition of agnostic is half way between atheism and truly devout then that's "I suspect there might be a Good but don't truly believe it in my heart, I'm just hedging my bets" not just "a lack of belief in God", in which case you're calling the wrong people agnostic, those agnostics are in churches every other Sunday.
Got it, I think.
Although I think you have the timeline flipped there. Atheist is a 16th century word with a pretty clear etymology that means "without God", or more literally "not a Theist" - AKA "lack of belief in God", whereas "against God" would be constructed as "antitheist" from those same roots. Agnostic is a 19th century word that from its etymological roots would be synonymous with atheist, if perhaps slightly more broad as to applying to not just all personable God's but all unknown powers in the universe.
The split to atheism being considered a belief against God and agnostic being a lack of belief is a more recent development, and is a evolution that is still incomplete, probably even reverting in most modern usage. Possibly because the language roots are so obvious and at odds with that context driven interpretation that people unfamiliar with the conflict will see "atheist" and immediately think "that must mean lack of faith"