Agnostics and Atheists

[Mike]

I'm interested in the difference between the two. I watch Christian/atheist debates when I can, and I've often heard in the atheist argument, "Officially, I suppose you could call me an agnostic, because I don't know there is not a god. I just look at the evidence and find it decidedly against there being one." And then they go on talking as if they're an atheist.

ChattyMute and I exchanged posts in a thread that was asking another question. I would quote more from her, but earlier on she had said she has met a number of agnostics that were aggressive in their stance. I replied, how can someone who "doesn't know if there's a god, let alone the Christian God" be aggressive in their unknowingness? She replied:

You can not believe in a God while also not claiming any knowledge on whether or not they exist. The two aren't contradictory. In fact, most agnostics I know do exactly that, but they won't admit it. And an atheist doesn't claim there is no God. Some do, but all that is required to be an atheist is that one doesn't believe in a god. Which is completely different from saying there absolutely isn't a god. Anyways, I'm getting off topic.

If an agnostic is fiercely opposed to the belief of a theist, wouldn't that make them an atheist? I don't know if there is intelligent life on other planets. A DVD I watched called "The Privileged Planet" left me with the probability that there isn't intelligent life on other planets because of the required circumstances (20-30) all have to be perfectly tuned to specific points to allow it. But I don't emphatically argue it with someone who believes there is. I just don't know.

It seems if someone is truly an agnostic, they wouldn't make arguments for or against theism. They would just be looking for answers or set it aside as something they will never know and move on to other things. If they do argue against theism, I would suppose they are an atheist cloaked as an agnostic.

I'm interested in other peoples' thoughts.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I suppose that an agnostic believes that we cannot know God. This will lead them to deny the Bible as being Gods word (as he is not knowable). They might take exception to the fact that Christians claim to have a relationship with Christ. Then I believe he could be aggressive in defending his viewpoint.

And an atheist doesn't claim there is no God.

This is very shocking as an atheist by definition does not believe in God or gods. A person cannot change that. If a person does not believe that we can have knowledge of God, yet God may exist, the he is an agnostic not an atheist.

 

[Mike]

From dictionary.com (because we know this is where ultimate answers come from ;) :

ATHEIST
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

AGNOSTIC
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

It sounds like ChattyMute's description of an atheist applies more to agnostics, but I imagine dictionary.com isn't a complete picture of their meanings. I suppose given point 2 of Agnostics, they could argue that there's no way a theist or Christian could know God exists, but from their perspective, I don't see the motivation to argue the point. I would say if they do, they are actually an atheist.

I always love your input, Ed. Thoughtful and insightful every time.

 

[ChattyMute]

I suppose that an agnostic believes that we cannot know God. This will lead them to deny the Bible as being Gods word (as he is not knowable). They might take exception to the fact that Christians claim to have a relationship with Christ. Then I believe he could be aggressive in defending his viewpoint.

And an atheist doesn't claim there is no God.

This is very shocking as an atheist by definition does not believe in God or gods. A person cannot change that. If a person does not believe that we can have knowledge of God, yet God may exist, the he is an agnostic not an atheist.

Actually, that would make them an agnostic atheist. No one is just an agnostic. You are either agnostic atheist or agnostic theist. I have met both. Disbelieving in something and saying it doesn't exist are two different things and makes the difference of whether you are an agnostic or not.

With regards to God, you either believe or you don't. There is no middle ground with something as simple as that. However, you could say that while you don't believe in a God because of a lack of evidence, there is no evidence that says there isn't a god either. Therefore, you don't make the claim that there is no God and that there could be, which makes someone agnostic.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic Look at the 1b definition there. The "true atheism" they are referring to is strong atheism, which claims that there is no God.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm Also, look at the definition there of weak atheism. That's what I've been saying, but in a different way. It's kind of confusing trying to describe the different atheist beliefs and trying to divide it.

 

[logical bob]

The word agnostic (without knowledge) was coined in the nineteenth century by T.H. Huxley (famous as Darwin's bulldog). Following the philosophical ideas of Kant and Hume he suggested that it's impossible for us to know about things outside of possible human experience, so we can't know whether gods exist or not. In this strict sense an agnostic isn't someone who's yet to decide one way or other but someone who thinks it's impossible for us to know. Since faith and knowledge are different things, it would be possible to be both an agnostic in this sense and a religious believer as well. As most people agree it's very difficult to prove something doesn't exist, it's also possible to be an agnostic and an atheist.

Ironically, the word atheist (without god) was originally used in Roman times to describe people like Christians who wouldn't sacrifice to the Roman civic cults. Later on in Christian times it was used as a negative term for someone seen as morally bad. Only quite recently has it come to mean what it means now.

I don't think we'll come up with precise definitions of atheism and agnsoticism which will satisfy everyone and long discussions about it usually end up splitting hairs. In everyday use I'd say that neither an atheist nor an agnostic believes in god(s) but the atheist regards the existence of god(s) as less likely than the agnostic does.

 

[seekandlisten]

This is an interesting topic that has actually been on my mind lately. Not so much in the sense as to what the definition of each is but more along the lines in coming to terms with my own beliefs and with how other people label me on my position. I honestly don't see the point of 'labeling' myself but can understand if one is going to talk to another on matters of beliefs and religions that it makes it easier for the other person to have a general idea of where you are coming from.

I have considered the majority of my beliefs would fall along the lines of an agnostic pantheist, but at the same time could be misleading as they also are not a full description. On the other hand I could be considered an athiest as I don't believe in the definitions of 'God' that people hold.

In looking at the terms athiest and agnostic and how they would apply to myself it becomes confusing. On one hand I believe in an 'unknowable God' which is essentially saying I don't believe in any 'described' God's as a 'definition of God', which in turn is really no different than not believing in any God(s) but not ruling out the possibility of a 'God'. I also look at the point that, for example, a Christian doesn't believe in any Gods but their own which technically makes them an atheist in terms of other religions Gods does it not? So then if I look at it that way well I guess I would be an athiest in ruling out the Christian God along with the others one would think?

If someone asks now I just say I'm an agnostic in that I question God and believe that if such a being exists I will be shown if I am to believe. From there I will discuss my beliefs on certain subjects even though they come from many sources. Most of the 'religious' beliefs that I hold come from the 'eastern religions' and I only believe in them as applying to myself in order to better me as a person not as a means of 'salvation'. I believe if there is a 'God' that 'saves' people, 'he' would be a just and reasonable God.

I personally don't believe in religion in general but I do study some as they have formed the history of our world we live in and agree with certain aspects, again applying to the 'eastern religions more than the big 3. I see a progression from believing in many gods to believing in one god to believing in no gods. I look at the overwhelming belief of gods in general through history, but question the need to fit God into one small picture. I don't know, I think I'm beginning to ramble so I'll stop. Any thoughts on any of this or is it just not being able to let go of my religious influence of my parents choice to raise me in a religious setting(church, christian school, youth group, any other strictly christian event, separation from the real world) that keeps me from coming to terms with being an athiest by definition? Any opinions or thoughts are welcome, I'm not looking for a debate on what I said but another perspective in regards to these questions I have.

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

It seems if someone is truly an agnostic, they wouldn't make arguments for or against theism. They would just be looking for answers or set it aside as something they will never know and move on to other things. If they do argue against theism, I would suppose they are an atheist cloaked as an agnostic.

I can't say as I have ever seen an agnostic argue against theism unless it's referring to some of the beliefs thiests hold. I think some beliefs that people hold in religions can be dangerous and would disagree on certain issues but I wouldn't say I would argue against theism. For example, someone's interpretation of the bible can be flawed and in a discussion of such terms their may be a disagreement but it is no different than a Christian that doesn't hold the same beliefs as another Christian on a certain matter.

I agree with the 'agnostic looking for answers' in taking on certain arguments on different aspects of theism as I have done that from time to time, I try to remain respectful of the others belief though. I don't look at things as I'll never know and move on though. To me, that is the same as giving up on something. I don't approach my studies as trying to find God but simply with an open mind to learn about certain groups beliefs and history. We all live together on the same planet and it doesn't hurt to understand your neighbor's approach to life.

cheers

 

[Mike]

Well the reason personally that I brought this up was to take the discussion away from a thread intended for advice on another matter. Someone had asked what to do about their child who had come to state that he is an atheist and how the "agnostic" spouse was determined not to allow this person convince the child away from atheism.

I wondered why someone who "doesn't know and is looking for answers" could or would fiercely refuse to allow the other parent to persuade the child. I suppose I had a simplistic definition of "agnostic". In my mind, I was thinking an agnostic would be of the mindset that if they don't know, but they know their spouse feels passionate about the need for the Christian faith, they would understand the motivation to persuade. I would understand if they were convinced there is no god, and the spouse is filling their child with nonsense, but not an agnostic.

I would imagine there is a continuum from being 99.9% sure there is no God to those that are completely dumbfounded. All the way back around to the much more reasonable, logical and correct belief in God I joke, but it's not a joking matter. I'll save arguments for another thread. I've learned some things here about agnostics. You can't take that label (or any other) for granted.

 

[seekandlisten]

Someone had asked what to do about their child who had come to state that he is an atheist and how the "agnostic" spouse was determined not to allow this person convince the child away from atheism.

I wondered why someone who "doesn't know and is looking for answers" could or would fiercely refuse to allow the other parent to persuade the child. I suppose I had a simplistic definition of "agnostic". In my mind, I was thinking an agnostic would be of the mindset that if they don't know, but they know their spouse feels passionate about the need for the Christian faith, they would understand the motivation to persuade. I would understand if they were convinced there is no god, and the spouse is filling their child with nonsense, but not an agnostic.

I can understand the point of the agnostic spouse not wanting the other to 'convince' their athiest child as it should be the child's decision. If their child has chosen to be an athiest, then the parents should respect that decision. I would assume the child has seen the Christian aspect as well as the Agnostic aspect from their parents. There should always be the option for an open discussion of each others beliefs in a rational manner as well if they feel it's important as a family to discuss their beliefs but this shouldn't be a time to 'convince'.

From a personal point, my daughter who is 10 has had the influence of Christianity from my parents who she goes to church with every Sunday, JW's as her mom's aunt and grandparents are and take her to their meetings when she is there, the church her mom attends sometimes when she's there for 2 months in the summer, as well as my point of view. She just recently told me that she told her aunt she is not going to the JW meetings anymore due to her aunt's beliefs and comments in regard to my parent's church. I was quite happy at this age, she is already able to evaluate certain beliefs and make an educated decision. We talk about certain beliefs and obviously she's still young so she is still learning, but in the end I believe her religious preference to be her own decision to make even if it is not the same as mine.

cheers

 

[logical bob]

Any thoughts on any of this or is it just not being able to let go of my religious influence of my parents choice to raise me in a religious setting(church, christian school, youth group, any other strictly christian event, separation from the real world) that keeps me from coming to terms with being an athiest by definition?

Interesting to hear that it may be your rejected Christian upbringing that stops you identifying as an atheist. Many of the most hardened atheists are former Christians - I suspect some people just like absolutes.

I would have to admit that I'm a Christian atheist. While I don't believe in any other religions either I realise that my mindset is different to what it would have been if I'd grown up in a culture dominated by another faith.

Here's the British philospher John Gray:

Unbelief is a move in a game whose rules are set by believers. To deny the existance of God is to accept the categories of monotheism. As these categories fall into disuse, unbelief becomes uninteresting, and soon it is meaningless. Atheists say they want a secular world, but a world defined by the absence of the Christians’ god is still a Christian world. Secularism is like chastity, a condition defined by what it denies. If atheism has a future, it can only be in a Christian revival; but in fact Christianity and atheism are declining together.

 

[Mike]

I can understand the point of the agnostic spouse not wanting the other to 'convince' their athiest child as it should be the child's decision. If their child has chosen to be an athiest, then the parents should respect that decision. I would assume the child has seen the Christian aspect as well as the Agnostic aspect from their parents. There should always be the option for an open discussion of each others beliefs in a rational manner as well if they feel it's important as a family to discuss their beliefs but this shouldn't be a time to 'convince'.

Back to the premise of my OP (and I realized I assumed too much by the tag "agnostic"), let me set up a situation:

a. One spouse is a committed Christian and feels this is the only means of salvation.
b. The other spouse doesn't know if there is a god, let alone God.
c. The child proclaims that he rejects belief

I know this is hypothetical, but I would assume the agnostic spouse (who loves the other) understands the belief of her partner, knows how critical he feels the consequences are, would allow him as a parent to pursue his son. Agnostics and atheists have to always consider that Christians believe in the necessity of faith.

This is a horrible analogy, but whatever. Take faith out of the equation. (I know that's hard for you ;) ) Suppose my wife is completely convinced that an island that they live on is going to be destroyed and people are evacuating the island. I don't feel strongly either way, but I lean toward the fact that it's not. One day our son states that he doesn't believe this and is not getting on the evacuation boat with my wife. My wife is horrified and has extreme anxiety over her child. Since I really don't know, and I love my wife, I would acquiesce on the grounds that she could possibly be right and I can see the anxiety she has over our child.

Now, in my set of 3 points above, let me make a change.

b. The spouse has weighed the evidence and is all but completely convinced that this emergency is contrived and the panic is unhealthy and destructive. She's an atheist to the threat.

I could understand from the atheist perspective, her telling her husband to let the boy make his own decision. But not from an agnostic perspective.

I understand if an atheist is allowing the last ship to leave the island without himself, but allowing a child to watch it sail away is another story. That being from a Christian perspective of course.

 

[demented cookies]

The most common use of the term "agnostic", when used in the religious sense, usually means unsure of whether there is a God or gods, and not really wanting to be sure of it. Of course, almost all atheists aren't sure either, but by looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) of the existence of a supernatural deity, can infer that there most likely is no supernatural deity.
In my opinion, an agnostic is just a sissy atheist, to say it bluntly, or they just do not want to admit that they are an atheist to those who would disapprove.

However, some people, especially atheists, apply different levels of atheism, including agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. An agnostic atheist would be an atheist who is unsure of the existence of a supernatural being, but is pretty sure there isn't one. A gnostic atheist could also be called an anti-theist, I think, because they deny the existence of a supernatural being and are 100% sure there isn't one.

 

[Mike]

The most common use of the term "agnostic", when used in the religious sense, usually means unsure of whether there is a God or gods, and not really wanting to be sure of it. Of course, almost all atheists aren't sure either, but by looking at the evidence (or lack thereof) of the existence of a supernatural deity, can infer that there most likely is no supernatural deity.
In my opinion, an agnostic is just a sissy atheist, to say it bluntly, or they just do not want to admit that they are an atheist to those who would disapprove.

However, some people, especially atheists, apply different levels of atheism, including agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist. An agnostic atheist would be an atheist who is unsure of the existence of a supernatural being, but is pretty sure there isn't one. A gnostic atheist could also be called an anti-theist, I think, because they deny the existence of a supernatural being and are 100% sure there isn't one.

Sounds more and more like organized religion all the time. Do you have orthodox atheists and progressive ones? We theists love to watch you fight over your lack of god ;)

By the way, I don't know if I missed your intro. Welcome to the boards, DC.

 

[demented cookies]

Sounds more and more like organized religion all the time. Do you have orthodox atheists and progressive ones? We theists love to watch you fight over your lack of god ;)

It's not an organized religion or a religion at all because the only thing atheists have in common is our belief that there probably is no supernatural being. Everyone is an atheist when it comes to most gods, like Shiva and Thor and Zeus, but people who identify as atheist just go one god more. We don't share any list of "do"s and "don't"s but follow laws and general common sense. There's no one we're required to hate or kill or shun because there's no one telling us to hate or kill or shun anyone.

Atheists believe all sorts of things. For example, I myself am strongly against capital punishment/death penalty/etc. but, while some atheists agree with me, there are some I know that heartily for it. That's just one example, but there are many more.

We also don't meet up anywhere at any one time for a single reason. We could get together at a cafe to drink coffee and talk about the weather, but we don't meet in a particular building on a particular day to remind ourselves of what we believe. There's no hierarchy, either.

Atheism is not a religion.

By the way, I don't know if I missed your intro. Welcome to the boards, DC.

Thanks! I'm enjoying myself already.

 

[Mike]

Sounds more and more like organized religion all the time. Do you have orthodox atheists and progressive ones? We theists love to watch you fight over your lack of god ;)

It's not an organized religion or a religion at all because the only thing atheists have in common is our belief that there probably is no supernatural being. Everyone is an atheist when it comes to most gods, like Shiva and Thor and Zeus, but people who identify as atheist just go one god more.

You realize that was my attempt at humor, right? And I don't think the argument about us being atheists will work if someone is strong in their faith. We wouldn't be committed Christians if we didn't see clear differences between our faith and all others. It sounds like you were using this example to help explain yourself, but I've heard this as part of an atheist platform in debates.

Atheists believe all sorts of things. For example, I myself am strongly against capital punishment/death penalty/etc. but, while some atheists agree with me, there are some I know that heartily for it. That's just one example, but there are many more.

We also don't meet up anywhere at any one time for a single reason. We could get together at a cafe to drink coffee and talk about the weather, but we don't meet in a particular building on a particular day to remind ourselves of what we believe. There's no hierarchy, either.

Do you go on unicorn boards and state your case there? More seriously, do you spend your time espousing your atheistic views anywhere else? Muslim boards? Mormon boards?

By the way, I don't know if I missed your intro. Welcome to the boards, DC.

Thanks! I'm enjoying myself already.

So I've learned. I read somewhere since I posted here that you've been a member for a year. You should be welcoming me. You took a hiatus, eh? Steep in the throws of a Hindu board? ;)

 

[demented cookies]

Sounds more and more like organized religion all the time. Do you have orthodox atheists and progressive ones? We theists love to watch you fight over your lack of god ;)

It's not an organized religion or a religion at all because the only thing atheists have in common is our belief that there probably is no supernatural being. Everyone is an atheist when it comes to most gods, like Shiva and Thor and Zeus, but people who identify as atheist just go one god more.

You realize that was my attempt at humor, right? And I don't think the argument about us being atheists will work if someone is strong in their faith. We wouldn't be committed Christians if we didn't see clear differences between our faith and all others. It sounds like you were using this example to help explain yourself, but I've heard this as part of an atheist platform in debates.

Yes, I figured that. Thought I'd try to explain why atheism isn't a religion though, because there are others who still think atheism is a religion for some reason.
(and that's me trying to cover up that I thought you were serious. Heh...heh, heh... )

Do you go on unicorn boards and state your case there? More seriously, do you spend your time espousing your atheistic views anywhere else? Muslim boards? Mormon boards?

I do, actually. I don't just single Christianity out. I do, however, spend more time with Christianity, only because I live in a part of the United States where Christianity is more prominent than Islam and Mormonism. I'm sure if I lived in the Middle East I would be more concerned with Islam, or if I lived in Utah I would be more concerned with Mormonism. I don't go on Invisible Pink Unicorn boards or FSM boards except to humorously pronounce my complete devotion to either religion because those two were made up purely for fun.

By the way, I don't know if I missed your intro. Welcome to the boards, DC.

Thanks! I'm enjoying myself already.

So I've learned. I read somewhere since I posted here that you've been a member for a year. You should be welcoming me. You took a hiatus, eh? Steep in the throws of a Hindu board? ;)[/quote]
Yeah, I came here before I think...I had a different account before in which I was "promoting" Tolkienism because I was feeling a little high (not literally ;) ) and wanted to have some fun but I got banned. So I came back as the real me but forgot about it for a little bit.

 

[Mike]

You realize that was my attempt at humor, right? And I don't think the argument about us being atheists will work if someone is strong in their faith. We wouldn't be committed Christians if we didn't see clear differences between our faith and all others. It sounds like you were using this example to help explain yourself, but I've heard this as part of an atheist platform in debates.

Yes, I figured that. Thought I'd try to explain why atheism isn't a religion though, because there are others who still think atheism is a religion for some reason.[/quote]

And I'm one of them. I'd waste time and bore you, discussing the definition of "religion", but no doubt you've been down that road many times.

Do you go on unicorn boards and state your case there? More seriously, do you spend your time espousing your atheistic views anywhere else? Muslim boards? Mormon boards?

I do, actually. I don't just single Christianity out. I do, however, spend more time with Christianity, only because I live in a part of the United States where Christianity is more prominent than Islam and Mormonism. I'm sure if I lived in the Middle East I would be more concerned with Islam, or if I lived in Utah I would be more concerned with Mormonism. I don't go on Invisible Pink Unicorn boards or FSM boards except to humorously pronounce my complete devotion to either religion because those two were made up purely for fun.

I figured as much. Even if you didn't live in the U.S., Christianity is so wide spread, you probably fight that battle more than others. I've heard if you live in Utah, and you're not a Mormon, it can be just as difficult to be a Christian as it is an atheist.

Yeah, I came here before I think...I had a different account before in which I was "promoting" Tolkienism because I was feeling a little high (not literally ;) ) and wanted to have some fun but I got banned. So I came back as the real me but forgot about it for a little bit.

I checked your historical posts. By name, you dropped off way back last July! I wonder if your new name carried over with your IP address and stamped you with your current name back then when you were under something other. I also read in one of your first threads that you have always been an atheist. Were your parents atheists or so far removed from the Church that you didn't have a Christian background? Of course, I have no doubt that God has been reaching out to you, and you wouldn't necessarily need to have been exposed to the faith, but it does create another obstacle for you. Is there anything that stands out as your biggest reason for disbelief? Origins of the universe? Creation vs. evolution? Scientific explanations for everything nature? Do you see anything historically accurate in the Bible? If so, where do you draw the line in your disbelief?

My kids caught a glimpse of your avatar. I thought it was freaky, but I'm going to need your address to send you the bill for their therapy! :o

 

[Evointrinsic]

There are quite a bit more "titles" than most of you will assume. Let's take a look at a few:

~Theist
~Agnostic Theist
~Agnostic
~Agnostic Atheist
~Atheist

Some people even add more due to the fundamental individuals of each one or the ones who just barely believe by adding things like Strong/Weak Atheist or Strong/Weak Theist to the list.

For theist, I'm sure we all know that one. A person Who believes in a deity, god, higher being, or higher power, creator of Blank, Supernatural being. People like Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindu's, and any mono or polytheistic religions/belief systems.

For Atheists; Simply, a person who does not Believe in any Deity, god, higher being, ect. People like most Buddhists and other inner-self belief systems as well as various people that simply do not believe in any god(s).

Then we get into the more complex point of views. An Agnostic is simply a person who claims that there is no way we can know if there is or isn't a god.

However, you CAN have a combination of Agnosticism and either Theism or Atheism.

For example; I personally use evidence as a source of judgment. I need something to be proven for me to ensure it is correct. And since it is so far impossible to 100% prove that there is and isnt a god, I cannot come to an ultimate conclusion that there is or isn't. HOWEVER!!!! Because of what we do know and can test, the universe does not require, in my eyes, a god to have guided and shaped the universe to what it is today. There for, the possibility of a god is very unlikely, as described by all the religions. Which makes me believe there isn't a need for a god, but since we cannot know for sure, i cannot say that there absolutely isn't a god. Which would make me an Agnostic Atheist.

On the opposite side how ever. There are people out there that do not belong to a religion or worship any gods because they don't see any evidence from scripture or stories and all of that. But! they still believe that "something had to have made everything" in a Deity-type way. They still believe there is no evidence of this deity, but they still believe it as a more possible reason for why everything exists. Making them an Agnostic Theist.

As for agnostics. They simply say that it is impossible to conclude either or and have no real decisive factor on the entirety of the god situation.

However, most people only know what Theism is, the next highest population knows what both Theism and Atheism both mean, and few people know what all three Theism, Agnosticism, AND atheism mean. And the newer terms which describe a more separated point of view is the least known. Although still credible

 

[TZS]

I think I can add something to this discussion...

Looking at the root words of "atheist" and "agnostic", we have "theist" and "gnostic"

Theist = belief in a god/gods
Gnostic = knowledge

So theism has to do with beliefs, and gnosticism has to do with knowing something (the two terms deal with different things). So we can look at different types of believers and non-believers:

1. Gnostic Theist = Someone who claims to know that they're right about their god beliefs (a faith position)
2. Agnostic Theist = Someone who believes in a god/gods but doesn't claim absolute certainty (a faith position)
3. Agnostic Atheist = Someone who lacks belief in any gods but doesn't claim absolute certainty (no faith required)
4. Gnostic Atheist = Someone who claims to know that there is no god/gods (a faith position)

So an atheist can be either a 3 or a 4, and an agnostic can be either a 2 or a 3. I'm a 3 myself.

Your thoughts?

 

[Mike]

I think I can add something to this discussion...

Looking at the root words of "atheist" and "agnostic", we have "theist" and "gnostic"

Theist = belief in a god/gods
Gnostic = knowledge

So theism has to do with beliefs, and gnosticism has to do with knowing something (the two terms deal with different things). So we can look at different types of believers and non-believers:


Your thoughts?

I believe you stopped short in your definition of "gnostic". "gnostic" actually means: possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

So, with a word that has the prefix of "a", this means "not" or "without". Therefore an agnostic is one who is "without knowledge of spiritual matters" as it relates to this conversation.

I would submit that posing theists as those with "beliefs in god/gods" and gnostics as those with "knowledge" is not being intellectually honest. I'm not saying you're doing this purposefully, but it does create a superiority hierarchy. I've never heard the word term "agnostic *anything*" being associated with an absolute knowledge of something. It's just been the lack there of.

An "agnostic" doesn't know if there is god, but doesn't believe it there is.
An "atheist" knows there isn't a god.
A "theist" believes there is a god.
&
A "Christian", believes in the True Living God. This is not "believes" as in uncertainty, but actually in being certain. We have faith, and as Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."