because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing.
You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing. You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
deleted comment -
i had misread this part here “To be a gnostic atheist” and attempted to politely correct what i misread as “agnostic atheist” my bad. good comment!