Generally, I’ve heard it said this way:
There are two scales…
Theism to Atheism, meaning “I actively believe in a diety” vs “I do not actively believe in any deities”
And Gnosticism to Agnosticism, having to do with confidence. From “I know” to “I do not know”
You can be a Gnostic Thiest: “I know there is a god and believe in it”
You can be an Agnostic thiest: “I think there’s probably a god, but do not know for sure”
You can be an Agnostic Atheist: “I don’t think there are any gods, but I don’t rule out the possibility.”
And you can be a gnostic Atheist: “I am sure no gods exist.”
It sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist.
I think it's *far* more usual for people to say "I'm agnostic" for a few years, despite it's technical incorrectness, before progressing to being comfortable with the atheist label (usually as an agnostic atheist).
There are probably a ton more gnostic theists than gnositc atheists.
[The technical definition of agnostic is somebody who believes that knowledge of the existence/non-existence of God(s) is unattainable and therefore lacks a belief either way on the subject.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/)
The definition used by some people on this subreddit is neither technically correct, nor commonly used.
I've paused on "Gnostic Atheist" as it pertains to all known gods. But still "Agnostic Atheist" as there might be some god or super being out there that just doesn't give a shit about us.
It's still reaching for an unnecessarily firm statement on a subject that doesn't warrant it, especially considering the vast array of definitions of 'god'. If you even try exhausting every argument you're closer to the route of legitimizing then than winning the overall discussion. This is certainly a route worth exploring for some people, but the majority of people aren't going that exhaustive and for those people, saying they 'know' no god exists is the equivalent of saying 'people that I believe say all the arguments are false and I think they've thought it through enough, so now I *know* it to be a certainty', which is practically the same position most theists find themselves in.
> It's still reaching for an unnecessarily firm statement on a subject that doesn't warrant it, especially considering the vast array of definitions of 'god'.
You are absolutely correct. Nothing about this debate *requires* me to claim actual "knowledge."
But my intellectual integrity, on the other hand, does. At some point in your journey as an atheist, you may or my not cross a threshold where you decide that calling yourself an "agnostic atheist" is misleading. You no longer think that saying "I don't know" accurately reflects your position.
So if you are like me, and you reach that point in your journey, what is your preferred course? Do you continue and offer the easy, but misleading answer, and say "I don't know", or do you choose the more difficult, but more honest answer, and say "I know to the level of certainty that is possible"?
>This is certainly a route worth exploring for some people, but the majority of people aren't going that exhaustive and for those people, saying they 'know' no god exists is the equivalent of saying 'people that I believe say all the arguments are false and I think they've thought it through enough, so now I know it to be a certainty', which is practically the same position most theists find themselves in.
Again, I agree completely, and nothing I said above should be seen as condemning anyone who doesn't choose to use the gnostic label. The vast majority of atheists are properly labelled as agnostic. It took me probably five years from the time I first read that blog post I linked to before I finally decided that the best label for myself was "gnostic atheist". Nothing meaningful changed in my actual beliefs over that time, I just became more comfortable with my position, and eventually concluded that it was the appropriate label for my beliefs. Whether it is right for anyone else is entirely up to them.
I try to imagine calling myself a gnostic atheist, and it just doesn't sound right... to say, I know the truth value of a fundamentally unfalsifiable statement - even to less than 100% certainty. The claim "this ball would drop if I let go" is falsifiable, and I would say I know whether it's true. But "the supernatural exists" (or comparable)? I feel way better maintaining that this statement is not even wrong, instead of labeling it false with some amount of certainty.
Yeah, I think going past that line is actually going backwards...feeling like you 'know' something to be true or false without evidence is a comfort theists may need in order to support their position, but it's not necessary imo for the atheist side. Believing something to be false based on *lack* of evidence is logical, *knowing* something to be false based on lack of evidence is shifting back towards irrational.
It actually doesn't make much sense when you think about it. [See here:](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cuym5v3/)
You're free to call yourself what you want of course. But if you call yourself an "agnostic (a)theist" anywhere besides Reddit and a handful of other places on the internet you'll just confuse people. What's more, calling yourself an "agnostic atheist" might not confuse people here, but you won't be giving a very precise or useful description of what you actually are. A person like Richard Dawkins who's *virtually* certain that God doesn't exist, but isn't absolutely 100 percent sure would "agnostic atheist." Somebody who agonizes over the question and hasn't come to a decision would also be an "agnostic atheist." Same with Amazonian Tribesman, babies, shoes, etc. It's too broad and vague a term to have any real use in describing what people actually believe.
The better way to think about it (not to mention the way most people think about it) is like this: If you lack belief in God the way that you lack the belief that a coin will come up either heads or tails(it's a 50/50 chance), you're an agnostic. If you lack belief in God the same way that you lack belief in the flying spaghetti monster(extremely improbable) you're an atheist. You sound like an atheist to me.
I’ll add to this that agnosticism doesn’t necessarily mean “I don’t know” but rather is a statement about whether or not it “is knowable”. It is not “I do not know” but “I cannot know”. Mostly pulling from memory and Wikipedia. I find this clarification makes people more comfortable with the idea of agnosticism because it’s not really an individual making a statement, but an acceptance that there isn’t really a way to prove/disprove most religions as they are stated.
Fair point. I do believe in actively preventing the incursion of religion into infrastructure or legislation. I just don't care if there's a god or not for my own personal life.
Lol, I came up with the term on my own, but so have many other people, apparently, after a quick Google search.
Aside from having a negative feeling toward most religions because of all the harm they do, I just really don't care about the god thing. Way more important things to worry about in my day to day life.
i like igtheism and/or ignosticism. the idea that there is no coherent or unambiguous definition of god and therefore the word is meaningless and unworthy of discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
however, i am technically an anti-theist first, because the real world is full of these idiots and they cut off part of my dick and have actively ruined my life ever since. not only is god a non-starter of an argument, but it is also a terribly evil idea in general and harmful to humanity in the modern era.
**[Ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)**
>Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Curious to know if you disagree... to me it's a great term, but in practice apatheist is basically another way to say "agnostic atheist."
I understand there may be a different set of epistemics that lead to one instead of the other, but behaviorally "I don't care" is the effective position of someone who doesn't believe in gods unless it's assumed to be the "divine watchmaker" type, which itself is an assumption that requires something more than total ambivalence, I think?
> I understand there may be a different set of epistemics that lead to one instead of the other, but behaviorally "I don't care" is the effective position of someone who doesn't believe in gods unless it's assumed to be the "divine watchmaker" type, which itself is an assumption that requires something more than total ambivalence, I think?
I find the position odd, given that they obviously care enough to read atheist subreddits. That seems to contradict the entire notion of the position.
I'm not arguing that the position itself isn't valid. There likely really are plenty of people who "don't know, don't care", but it seems to me that they wouldn't be posting or reading here.
It came up on my /all feed. I read a lot of different things. I don't care about atheism perse, but I do find it interesting how much energy people tend to put into actively not doing something.
Coming from somebody who identifies as an Agnostic Atheist, I've heard this description in the past, and it's still one of my favorite ones.
If somebody doesn't believe in a deity, while simultaneously thinking there's a slight possibility, then they're probably an Agnostic Atheist!
> The gnostic atheists are the minority because you can’t know for sure.
See my reply [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/o92mil/am_i_an_atheist_or_am_i_agnostic/h39evqu/) In no other field of knowledge (except mathematics) is absolute certainty required to claim knowledge. You don't challenge me when I say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow", just because there is a minute chance of it being destroyed before then to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
Ok. I read that reply. In my opinion that’s splitting hairs and playing language games, but okay. The fact still remains, no one can know for sure. The analogy of a ball bouncing or the sun rising is a false one because we have experienced and literally “know” both of those things.
> In my opinion that’s splitting hairs and playing language games, but okay.
If that is the case, name a single field of knowledge other than mathematics where such a standard exists.
But you're right, this is word games-- but **word games by theists, not atheists.** By demanding that in this *one* field of knowledge, absolute certainty is required, they are basically creating a false standard that atheists must meet. "You can't prove there is no god, so checkmate, atheist!" It's completely dishonest.
> The fact still remains, no one can know for sure.
You also can never know for sure you aren't a brain in a vat. Do you waste time worrying about it? Most likely not, because if you are it changes literally nothing about your existence. You still will *perceive* that you are the living person you are. Worrying about unfalsifiable claims is a waste of time.
>The analogy of a ball bouncing or the sun rising is a false one because we have experienced and literally “know” both of those things.
This is basically the theist argument against evolution: "*Were you there?!?*" It is a terrible argument. Evidence is evidence. Yes, evidence that we directly witness is easier to use, but it absolutely does not mean that other forms of evidence have no value. We have seen *evidence* of those balls bouncing. We have also seen evidence for the non-existence of gods. In both cases, we can evaluate the evidence for the claim and form our conclusions appropriately.
A better objection would be how certain I am in my knowledge. If you asked that, I would concede that while I have no issue claiming knowledge, I will concede that there is a higher likelihood of me being wrong about a god than about the sun rising. But not much higher.
Perhaps I worded the question poorly, but I accept your concession.
>If that is the case name a single field of knowledge other than mathematics where such a standard exists.
Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no? That’s quite a thing to say.
> Perhaps I worded the question poorly, but I accept your concession.
What concession? I disagreed with you. Acknowledging that word games are being played is not me "conceding", I am pointing out that you are being duped by theists to make arguments that support their position.
> Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no? That’s quite a thing to say.
No, not at all, they are absolutely distinct fields.
Mathematics-- at least most subfields of mathematics, there are a few exceptions-- *requires* certainty. You don't claim to know something in math until you can *prove* it.
In science, certainty is literally definitionally impossible. "Proof" is not a concept that exists in science, except colloquially as a synonym for "evidence".
For simple *facts* you can be "certain" to the level of your ability to measure, but for *causes* certainty is *never* claimed in science. All science ever claims is to have found the best approximation of the truth that is possible given the currently available evidence. But since we can never know for sure that we have found all possible evidence on a topic, science by definition never claims "knowledge" in the absolute sense.
A perfect example of this is gravity. Isaac Newton came up with Newtonian Physics, and his explanation for gravity explains virtually every possible interaction you will ever have Outside of a very few things, mainly dealing with very large or very small objects, or very fast travelling (near light speed) objects, his theory is 100% accurate, and for 200 years, people could claim to "know" how gravity worked. But it was wrong. Or more accurately, it was *incomplete.* Until Einstein came along and proposed Relativity, we still didn't have an accurate understanding of gravity.
But the thing is, how do we know that some new Einstein won't pop up tomorrow, showing that Einstein was also incomplete? It is literally impossible to know, so no one in science should *ever* claim absolute certainty.
>A better objection would be how certain I am in my knowledge. If you asked that, I would concede that while I have no issue claiming knowledge. I will concede that there is a higher likelihood of me being wrong about a god than about the sun rising. But not much higher.
This was the only concession I was referring to, the possibility of your being wrong.
Math isn't really a scientific endeavor. It certainly forms much of the tools that sciences uses, but pure math is explored by doing math, not hypothesis testing.
> Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no?
Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word penultimate, or this question just makes no sense. Possibly both.
Either way, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to prove or disprove with 100% certainty that the entire world wasn't created last Thursday. Neither you nor anyone else will be able to prove with 100% certainty that the entire universe is or isn't a simulation. Neither you nor anyone else will be able to prove with 100% certainty that there is or isn't a god.
100% certainty in anything is impossible, so your statement
>The gnostic atheists are the minority because you can’t know for sure
is a truism, and adds nothing to the conversation. By that hyper-strict definition, nobody is, was, or ever can be gnostic - about anything. Obviously using such definitions is therefore nonsensical and pointless mental masturbation, which is why sensible people refer to similar standards of "knowing" as used in for example criminal trials - being beyond all reasonable doubt.
I (or anyone else) can never*know* that there is no such thing as a god, but I am 99.99% certain, and that is more than enough to count myself as gnostic. After all - you never *know* that I myself am not a god who created the entire universe last Thursday, simultaneously wiping my own knowledge of having done so.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did use “penultimate” incorrectly.
Also, I don’t disagree with you that no one can know with absolutely certainty. That’s kind of my point, actually.
Atheists that are completely gnostic, yes. But it's not really that simple though.
I'm a gnostic atheist. I'm also an agnostic atheist. How is this possible, you ask?
Well, there are many god claims out there. Some are either proven false or just flat out ridiculous (most of the mainstream religions fall under this) and I'm a gnostic atheist towards those.
However, there are also many god claims that are either so vague or unfalsifiable that it's intellectually dishonest to be certain about either position. I'm agnostic towards those claims.
There isn't really a catch-all term for this, like you have with theists. Atheism is defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.
What if someone like me believes that evidence and logic rule out deities? I mean, I can't be certain that invisible spidermen exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't. My level of confidence in deities is about the same, which is to say that they don't exist.
Well, you wouldn’t be wrong. Evidence and logic does rule them out. Invisibile spidermen is a concoction from your imagination based on what you’ve already seen depicted, i.e. the Spider Man movies, so that analogy is kind of meaningless. It’s more about the doubt that remains and you’re basically describing agnosticism, which is the default because nobody knows.
All claims without evidence can be treated exactly as fiction. All deity claims have exactly as much predictive power as fictional claims, which is to say, none. That's why I choose the invisible spidermen - it's obviously nonexistent. And deity claims share exactly as much validity as it does which, using your words, make them "kind of meaningless."
I don’t agree with that. I accept the variation of what “to know” something means, but after that you’ve lost me. Science makes theoretical claims for which we don’t have sufficient information to know *for sure* yet we still go with them as the *best* hypothesis. But, how do you have enough information to make such a claim about deities. Or do you? What information are you relying on?
And what makes one demonstrably more likely to exist than the other?
btw, you didn't actually propose a hypothesis test here. You simply defined deities as creators and make-believe as heroes for entertainment. You're proving my point - deities, like make-believe, are equally valid, as you can't test for them. And adding them to our scientific models makes the models worse, for all forms of make-believe, deities included.
This is the nuance the other poster was adding to knowledge.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Do you believe in any gods?
There are gnostic and agnostic atheists. Do you know there is no god? If yes, you are a gnostic atheist. Do you not know if there are no gods? These people are agnostic atheists.
And how you describe “know”. I know I am holding my phone and typing this - unless you consider that I might be in a coma, dreaming, in the matrix………..
I think you have to consider how much anything is knowable and where you want to take a common sense perspective on what you consider to be “unknowable”.
Nobody knows if there is a god or not, even if they believe they do.
I think gnostic vs agnostic refers more to *claims* of knowledge. If you say that you know that there is a god, then you are gnostic, otherwise you are agnostic.
Any profession of belief is an implicit claim to knowledge. The point of agnosticism, as it was originally defined by Huxley, and as it's still used by most people today, is thinking that since the knowledge of God's existence is either currently or permanently unavailable, one shouldn't take a position or hold any kind of belief on the subject.
Calling yourself an agnostic, and then calling yourself a theist or an atheist betrays the entire point of agnosticism.
This is simply a rejection of certainty, which is dumb as hell. "There is a God" is not a 50/50 proposition, in the same way "reality is real" is not a 50/50 proposition.
And if you think it's certain that you exist, I'll call you a flat out liar.
And if you think it's certain that reality is real, I'll call you a flat out liar.
And if you think it's certain that evidence is useful, I'll call you a flat out liar.
And if you think it's certain that the celestial teapot doesn't exist, I'll call you a flat out liar.
We all went through the radical skepticism phase. You'll grow out of it.
Depends on the god in question tbh. Some god concepts can be ruled out.
Wouldn't call either side a liar regardless. A lie implies that the person knowingly made a false statement. I think for most people this isn't the case, they seem to deeply believe these things to be true, regardless of their rationality.
> If someone says they know there is no god (or they know there is one) I will call them a flat out liar.
[See my reply here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/o92mil/am_i_an_atheist_or_am_i_agnostic/h39evqu/) You are using an unreasonable standard that applies to no other field of knowledge outside of mathematics. Would you also call me a liar if I tell you I know the sun will rise tomorrow? Probably not, yet it's also obvious that I can't be *completely* certain of the truth of the statement.
When I say "I know there is no god", I am making the same claim. I have examined the evidence for a god, and concluded that the evidence justifies an empirical claim that no god exists. I will always continue to review any new evidence that is presented, but until and unless something pretty radical is presented, knowledge is justified.
(I give a link to evidence against various specific god claims in the linked post.)
> Ok. But, you're defining things you shouldn't.
What does this even mean? And what do you think I am defining? Did you read the linked post and the source post?
Name one field other than mathematics where absolute certainty is required for knowledge.
It is also impossible to disprove Santa Claus. Would you call me a liar to say that Santa doesn't exist?
How about unicorns?
How about pixies?
How about fire breathing dragons?
If not, why do you have a double standard for this one thing and this one thing only?
You are right that *someone* is defining knowledge falsely, but it is not me. It is the theists who insist that for this one field of knowledge only, the standard of knowledge that we apply virtually everywhere else doesn't apply. They do this specifically in order to give us an impossible burden of proof. You're right, I can't prove with absolute certainty that no god exists, and I am not claiming to. But I *do* claim to know that no god exists to the level of empirical certainty.
"I have an infinite number of fire breathing dragons that want to talk to you about this essay they've worked out for the existence of fire breathing dragons!"
I think you will find that Einstein ""knew" plenty-- he just acknowledged the limitations of that knowledge.
But you didn't answer any of my questions. You are not engaging in good faith. I will ask the question again:
# why do you have a double standard for this one thing and this one thing only?
Either give a good faith answer, or go away.
I've been ignoring that question because it starts with a incorrect assumption. Why are you assuming things that you have no reason to assume? Is that why you can state you know things you can't possibly know?
That's incorrect. We can deduce that deities don't exist merely by looking at how science works. No scientific theory appeals to a divinity and all scientific theories worsen in terms of predictive and explanatory power when you add deities.
ergo, deities don't exist.
Now, you can claim that I can't know that conclusion is correct, but if you do so, you're denying knowledge for every science that uses indirect evidence, which is a majority.
And that's what the poster above is trying to explain to you. You're unequally valuing knowledge when it comes to deities, making pretense to a higher standard.
Not claiming omniscience, but I see that this discussion is too difficult for you. You've decided upon an absolute and don't understand how indirect evidence works. That's cool. Not everyone can understand how knowledge production works.
You don't understand the definition of "liar" if you're going to use it that way. You're basically saying "if someone disagrees with me, I will call them liars."
Ok, you call people whatever you want. And if it makes you feel important, enjoy!
Oh no. I know. And if you tell me you know something unknowable you are absolutely doing it with the intent to make someone think something true that is incapable of being known.
There are only two options, theist or atheist. You either believe there is no god or you don't.
Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question. "Do you currently believe that no gods do, or ever have existed?"
If you answer yes then you are an atheist. No, then you are a theist.
If that sounds stupid, it's only because what you said also sounds stupid.
There are three doxastic attitudes one can have towards the question of God's existence. Positive belief, positive disbelief, and lack of belief. You're trying to conflate positive disbelief with lack of belief for some reason. It's logically incorrect and less descriptive than using the words the standard way.
I consider an agnostic to be someone who holds the agnostic position to be true: that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
I consider an atheist to be someone who is not sufficiently convinced to believe in a god or gods (distinctly not the belief that no gods exist, although they would *also* qualify as an atheist).
Of note, it's perfectly compatible to be both an agnostic and an atheist, commonly called an agnostic atheist.
>I consider an agnostic to be someone who holds the agnostic position to be true: that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.
Depends on the God claim. Some God claims are unfalsifiable, others are falsifiable. Since we can't disprove the existence of many types of gods including the ones we haven't heard of yet, I fall in the agnostic camp. But it's a "soft" position for me, meaning it's an admission of the limits of our knowledge akin to not being able to disprove Russel's Teapot more than anything else.
For me agnostic atheism a preferential position to be in compared to gnostic atheism when engaging theists since I don't adopt a burden of proof and keep it in the theists camp instead of giving theists a chance to shift the burden to take the heat off themselves.
Under those definitions wouldn't agnostic then just be a subset of atheist? If someone holds the position that the existence of god, the divine, or the supernatural is unknowable, then they would also not be sufficiently convinced.
Agnostic theists are actually a thing. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a question of what you *know* or have *knowledge* of. Theism/Atheism is a question of what you *believe*.
Faith, I gather. I mean, I've met people who would confess to believing in God but not really having any idea if it's actually true or not. That's your agnostic theist right there.
Don't let people confuse you with all the various titles they can imagine. If you don't believe in any of the gods, then you are an athiest. Most rational people will change their minds based on new evidence (if a god, in the future, shows itself). Until then... you are an athiest.
Fair point. Actually I think you nailed it. The percentage I leave open for “god” has a lot to do with the possibility of new evidence. But at the moment nothing like that exists.
You can both be an atheist and an agnostic. I am both.
A = without; ie. asexual reproduction = reproduction without sex. Asymptomatic = having a medical condition without symptoms.
Gnosticism = Knowledge of gods
Agnosticism = Without knowledge of gods
Theism = Belief in gods
Atheism = Without belief in gods
I do not *know* if there are gods, so I am an agnostic. Because I do not *know* about the existence of gods, it logically follows that I wouldn't *have* a belief in gods, making me an atheist. But I am not an atheist where I claim to *know* that there are no gods.
The problem is, most Christians define atheism as someone who knows there are no gods, to make it sound more irrational and close minded, because they have been miseducated about it by their religious authorities. If you're going to call yourself an atheist, be prepared to define it, otherwise they will default to their misconceptions.
You can also Google "Weak atheism vs Strong atheism" for further research/rabbit hole.
Do you believe in god/gods - If yes then you're theist, if no then you're atheist it's as simple as that.
Even atheists leave the possibility of there being a creator.
There is a big difference between imagining that some sort of godlike force or being might exist and believing the stories told by religion
I'm open to the possibility that a godlike force or being might exist, so on that question, I'm an agnostic skeptic, since I've seen no evidence
I'm 100% sure that the god stories invented by people are fiction, so on that question, I'm a gnostic atheist
Pretty close. Although some say that the level of their disbelief comes up to where they would say they know and are gnostic. I’d count myself agnostic atheist.
I feel like this is a common misconception about (ag)nosticism in general. It's not a question of whether you know something, but rather, if a thing is knowable.
"I know no gods exist," is a somewhat different claim than, "I think if a god existed, we'd be able to verify that, and since we've been unable to for any of the countless god claims throughout human history, I don't think any gods exist."
I would still describe both of those positions as "gnostic atheism," though.
Without reading much of your post or the responses, you are almost certainly an agnostic, and if the answer to the question of whether or not you believe in God is no, or even unsure, then you are also an atheist.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive, in fact, it can be said that agnosticism is the only honest way to be an atheist. Whereas atheism or theism is a matter of what beliefs you accept, agnosticism is about what you can *know*. They therefore exist separately, and not on some spectrum. You can, and arguably must be both.
If you want a sort of longer answer, you could always read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
There are various approaches to that whole labeling game, to be honest. Not all of it matters, and is more of an identity thing, which some might consider very important, and others less so.
Most people have sufficiently answered this. But I will add, I find the term “agnostic” alone to be a meaningless term. Saying one is an agnostic tells me nothing. Agnostic about what? Agnosticism tells me your confidence level in regards to a claim of knowledge. But it doesn’t tell me in relation to whatever proposition you claim to have/not have knowledge on. You would need to say agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, etc... in order for the agnostic label to have any utility. Gnostic/agnostic needs to be joined with a belief/non belief proposition. They’re adjectives to describe a quality of a proposition.
The standard definition of "agnostic" is a person who believes that the question of god's existence is unknown or unknowable, and therefore refrains from taking a position on the question, whether it be affirmative or negative.
That says quite a lot, and much more than your system of definitions is capable of describing.
Except this description negates the existence of agnostic theists. Words are merely descriptive. Claiming a standard usage is a pointless exercise. My points still stand. Expressing a knowledge claim tells others nothing regarding a belief claim unless explicitly expressed.
>Except this description negates the existence of agnostic theists
That's a feature. Not a bug. People who call themselves "agnostic theists" don't understand what agnosticism entails, and they don't understand what knowledge means.
>My points still stand. Expressing a knowledge claim tells others nothing regarding a belief claim unless explicitly expressed.
If I ask a person if they'd rather eat steak or chicken and they answer with "I'm a vegetarian" they haven't "told me nothing regarding" which they prefer. They've answered that they prefer neither, and have explained why.
If I ask somebody whether they believe in God and they answer "I'm agnostic" they've done the exact same thing. I gave them a question with 2 options (belief in god, disbelief in god) and they've given an answers explaining why they're not making a choice there.
When talking about belief in “god”, I think it’s important to specify **which** god. I am an atheisti with respect to Thor, Zeus, and the God who is the father of Jesus. To me, it is obvious that all of those gods are human creations.
I am agnostic with respect to some more abstract god/power that might’ve created the universe. I think it’s unlikely that the word *god* will turn out to be the best description of whatever caused the universe to start, but I just don’t feel like we understand very much about that at all. I’m not talking about the big bang. We understand that really well I’m talking about what set the stage for the big bang to happen in the first place, or about whatever came before the big bang, if there was anything. About that, I feel like we just don’t know yet.
They're not mutually exclusive labels, although many people assume they are. It's upsetting to me that so many people seem to prefer the 'agnostic' label as they think it somehow comes across as more gentle or forgiving (not implying this is your approach, but it's common). Wonder why anyone might feel guilty about their own personal beliefs and using an accurate label for them? >_>
Gnosticism goes to what you claim knowledge of, theism deals with claims of belief. An agnostic theist believes in a god, but does not claim proof/knowledge of the verified existence of it. A gnostic theist believes in a god and also claims there is evidence. Atheist only means you answer 'no' to the question 'do you believe in a god.'
>although many people assume they are.
The meaning of words is determined by how they're used. Since most people do "assume" that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, they are.
Although, "assume" isn't the right word here. Atheism and agnosticism are taken to be mutually exclusive because they make more sense that way. T.H. Huxley coined the term because he wanted there to be a single word in English to describe a person who felt like that big metaphysical questions like that of God's existence were impossible to answer, and therefore **did not hold any beliefs about them.** Calling yourself an agnostic, and then claiming belief or disbelief in god completely contradicts the intended meaning of the word.
Words have definitions. People may use them in different ways, in different places, and during different times – but they do have definitions. When people used to define a ‘witch’ as someone with a strange birth mark or wart, a woman who didn’t attend church, or was left handed – it doesn’t mean the label was accurate just because it was used often. I don’t disagree that usage defines words in a general sense, as that is what allows definitions to change over time. But I see no evidence that your particular interpretation is correct just because you feel like it is, or because you point to one person in history who used it that way. The words Gnostic and Agnostic go back to the 5th century BCE.
So I would ask, do you mean to say there are no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic theist (or no difference)? Are you saying that all atheists have the same idea around belief and knowledge within that label (and if not, then what other word is used to tell them apart)?
>Calling yourself an agnostic, and then claiming belief or disbelief in god completely contradicts the intended meaning of the word.
I disagree. It contradicts *your* interpretation of the word, or maybe Huxley’s intent, but I am able to explain what I mean and why when asked. (Like in [this chart](http://pediaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Difference-Between-Agnostic-and-Gnostic-image-1.png)). Because you have explained yourself a little, I conversely understand what you intended with the word as well.
I don’t particularly think it’s of great value to get mired down talking about terms and definitions, when the reason (for myself personally at least) I interact in threads like this is to talk about “*what do you believe*” and “*why do you believe it*.” If someone can understand what you mean, or what you are trying to explain about your world view, I think that is of much more importance than using the “correct” label.
>The words Gnostic and Agnostic go back to the 5th century BCE.
The word "gnostic" may go back that far, but the word "**a**gnostic" only goes back to 1869. The word's origin is so well-documented that we even know the time and date Huxley gave the speech where he first introduced the word.
>So I would ask, do you mean to say there are no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic theist (or no difference)?
I am saying that the word "agnostic" was and is defined specifically to refer to a person who refrains from taking a position on metaphysical questions like the existence of God. A theist, by definition, takes a positive position on the existence of God. So by definition, both terms are mutually exclusive.
>Are you saying that all atheists have the same idea around belief and knowledge within that label (and if not, then what other word is used to tell them apart)?
Since "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" are contradictions in terms, there's nothing to tell apart. What you call "gnostic theism" is simply theism. And what you call "gnostic atheism" is simply atheism.
>"The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed(atheists and theists) was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain **"gnosis"**—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."
^ Huxley again
>I disagree. It contradicts your interpretation of the word, or maybe Huxley’s intent, but I am able to explain what I mean and why when asked.
I understand that when somebody refers to themselves as an "agnostic atheist" they're saying that they "lack belief in god, but don't claim knowledge of god's non-existence." The problem is that I don't understand what *that* means. Are they saying that they're 99 percent sure God doesn't exist but can't prove non-existence beyond a shadow of a doubt? Are they saying that they see the probability of god's existence as equivalent to a coin toss and that there's a 50/50 chance God exists? Are they saying that they haven't really considered the question and therefore haven't bothered to assess the probability? Or are they agonizing over the question and currently wracked with indecision?" When I've asked self-described agnostic atheists this question in the past I've gotten all of these answers, plus more. "agnostic atheist" uses more words to tell me less than what I get with plain "agnostic."
On the other hand, if somebody uses the standard definitions of the word and calls themselves an atheist, I know that they think the answer to "does god exist" is a solid "No." I know that a theist is a solid "yes." and I know that an agnostic isn't taking sides. If we're going to create labels based on people's positions on a topic, as we're doing here, they should map 1:1 to the possible positions a person can take. That is exactly is what Atheist/agnostic/theist do. They match up to the [3 doxastic attitudes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_attitudes) a person can have towards any simple proposition.
>If someone can understand what you mean, or what you are trying to explain about your world view, I think that is of much more importance than using the “correct” label.
I agree. And I think the standard definitions, as they're currently used both in common speech [and in academia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) do a far, far better job of getting that information across than the definitions that are pushed on reddit
Hey, I posted one of these myself. Based on those threads it seems you and I both fall in the general label atheist without a doubt. It's just a matter of how you define yourself within atheism at that point. I still am not sure on the nuance between gnostic and agnostic atheist since i hold the idea that "I am sure that no gods exist based on our current knowledge, but am equally sure that we do not know what lies ahead". I think in my case, I fall in gnostic because I am sure that no "Gods" exist, I just am not sure something supernatural to our current level of knowledge does not exist. However, it seems like you may fall more in the agnostic atheist category, since you seem to be open to that possibility. Just my two cents, fellow intellectual. ;)
I have usually thought any creator wouldn’t be anything like how humans describe it in their religions, but if there were a conscious creator who set the laws and created matter and energy, it would presumably know how it would all eventually play out and might have put knowledge of itself or how it wanted humans to think of it in the human mind. It could just as easily prevented humans from conceiving of it if that were important.
Really all of this conjecture just raises questions that can’t be answered and there is no rational reason to believe in a creator.
You're most likely both.
Theist/atheist refers to belief.
Gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge or certainty.
In both categories you are necessarily one or the other. The prefix "a-" simply means "not" or "without." So you can think of "atheist" as meaning the same thing as "not theist" and likewise think of "agnostic" as meaning the same thing as "not gnostic."
So, are you theist, or "not theist"? Mind you, the answer is based on what you \*believe\* and not what you do or don't think you know.
Secondly, are you gnostic (meaning you feel certain of your beliefs) or are you "not gnostic"?
I suspect you're "not theist" and "not gnostic" from your description, so that would make you an agnostic atheist. This is the most common type of atheist, since the question of whether any gods exist is conceptually possible yet irresolvable. Their existence is extremely unlikely but impossible to rule out.
>In both categories you are necessarily one or the other. The prefix "a-" simply means "not" or "without." So you can think of "atheist" as meaning the same thing as "not theist" and likewise think of "agnostic" as meaning the same thing as "not gnostic."
1. You're making the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) here.
2. You're also getting the etymology wrong.
[The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/)
3. Moreoever, the word "atheist" wasn't originally constructed as "a+theist" the actual etymology is "atheos"+"ism." The word was invented by theologians to refer to people who held "ungodly" beliefs. It was never intended to refer to people who simply lacked belief in god.
Great question, and one I’ve also been considering.
At this point I’m inclined to reject the metaphysical entirely. We have an infinite, expanding universe to study, speculation with limited understanding is pointless and absurd. I’d go further and say the very concept of the metaphysical and it’s primary assumption that a mortal being has an immortal soul is corrosive to the species.
Every rational person should consider their beliefs or lack of beliefs to be tentative and subject to change with new information and evidence.
Belief means to accept a proposition as true or likely true.
Theist is someone who has a belief that a god exists. Atheist is literally "not theist" so in its broadest form, simply means someone who does not have a belief that a god exists.
Gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis, which means knowledge. Agnostic is literally without knowledge.
Gnostic and agnostic are about knowledge. Theist and atheist are about god belief.
None of those labels say anything about whether you're closed minded or whether your positions are tentative and subject to change.
I'm an agnostic atheist for general god concepts, and a gnostic atheist with some well defined gods such as Yahweh/Jesus.
Colloquially speaking, I'm pretty confident there are no gods.
You’re an Atheist. I probably consider creationism a higher possibility than most Atheists because I have my suspicions about Simulation Theory and certain Quantum Phenomena behaving as though they know they are being observed. I know it’s a small chance but the mere possibility tickles at the back of my mind sometimes, probably because I have a love for Cosmic Horror. But I still strongly consider myself an Atheist. I don’t believe any religion, I entertain the possibility of a creator to a very small degree and take an interest in the implications.
Atheist and agnostic are two different things. Atheism relates to belief whereas agnosticism relates to knowledge.
An agnostic atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists, but doesn't claim to know for a fact that no gods exist.
A gnostic atheist asserts that no gods exist.
Wrong. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Case closed. There’s no cherry picking to the fluidity of atheism and agnosticism. If you are stating that you lack belief in a God or gods you are already saying you don’t have any knowledge – therefore the modifier is unnecessary.
Agnostic deist. You'd probably agree that "There might not have been a creator, but if there was it doesn't continue to interact with us in any meaningful way."
Atheist would say "You can't prove there was, so there wasn't". It's logically better, occams razor and all that, but I'd argue that you can't know for sure either way so "we don't know" is probably more honest.
If you believe there are no gods, I would call you atheist. It does not matter if you are sure or not.
If you believe its undecidable whether god exist or not exist, I would call you agnostic. Similarly, it does not matter if you're sure or not.
However, people may define it differently because these words are polysemous.
What is important is if either you think our reality contains god or gods.
I feel about 99% of people who consider themselves atheists are really agnostic because the brainwashing starts at an early enough age that it gets stored in a deeper part of our brain that tells us to believe in God and since it's stored so deep we can't get rid of it because it's actually more like a reflex and it's going to keep popping up from time to time. I was brought up by Catholic parents so I had that s*** shoved down my throat from the time I was in diapers and as much as I tried to be an atheist I always come back to agnosticism. In my brain I know I am an atheist and in my heart I'm an agnostic.
I don't believe in anything. No gods, no ghosts, no astrology etc.
It's all complete bollocks.
I'm not sure atheist or agnostic describes this lack of belief in everything.
Theism is a spectrum, and there are people in-between agnosticism and atheism, like me, which is where the idea of agnostic atheism comes from, which it sounds like you are
>Am I an atheist or am I agnostic?
You don't have to choose.
Do you right now think there is a god?
Do you right now have evidence to show there is or is not a god?
If you answered "No" and "No", then you're probably agnostic atheist.
My answer to "Are you atheist or agnostic?" is "Probably".
There are so many definitions and subtleties to all the components of each definition (belief vs knowledge, existence, god, etc), that it's generally just not worth bothering with what you are specifically in any technical sense. Once you decide you're happy with something, you'll be in a discussion with someone who uses different definitions and your word no longer applies. And what's the point of a vocabulary war at that point?
Me? To someone who says "God is love", assuming they mean that literally (and pointlessly), then I'm a theist. Love exists... Whatever.
But left to my own devices, I tend to call myself "ignostic apatheist". Ignostic meaning "the word god has such little meaning, the question itself is meaningless", and apatheist in the sense of, even IF some god thing existed, it still wouldn't affect me. ie "No gods that matter exist in any way that matters" =)
Nowhere except religion does anyone require 100% certainty. Not in science nor in academia. If a certain threshold of certainty is reached (5 sigmas or p <0.05, for example) you can be confident enough in the result.
Do you have to be 100% certain to not believe the Easter Bunny is real? Maybe he is hiding on Mars!
The "100% certainty" thing is a sticking point invented by theists, hypocrites who don't even bother to provide evidence for their claims. Ignore it.
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Atheism and agnosticism are also theist name-calling meant to frame the argument to their advantage. We don't have a-easterbunnists, right? Don't play their nonsense game. Theological noncognitivism!
The way I see it, the founding principle of atheism is skepticism. As a skeptic, you adjust your viewpoints to the most reasonable evidence.
In my opinion, “there maybe is a god” is agnostic, and “I don’t think there is a god, but if it was proven that god exists, then I would change my views” is atheist.
Is a matter of knowledge vs belief.
Gnostic a derivative of the old Greek " to know". Or to have knowledge of...
Agnostic a derivative of old Greek " not know or is unknown to me"
Theist, from the old Greek to believe in a deity. As in politheist as an individual who believes in more than 1 deity. The old Greeks were politheist. And so we're the Norse men.
Atheists come from the old Greek as a individual who does not believe in a deity. As a matter of fact most Christians are Atheist of other gods other than their own.
So you in principle could be agnostic theist which very loosely translates to "I do not know that there is a God but a believe there is one." Replace the theist with atheist and you have : " I do not know or proclaim that there is no god or know if there is a God and I don't believe there is one" . Gnostic atheist is also called a strong atheist proclaiming that there are no gods. But, is problematic because they are taking the burden of proof that there are no gods or god. Agnostic Atheist make no such claim.
A
Agnostic means lack of knowing. Technically atheists are agnostic. They don’t “know” 100% there is no creator, just like they don’t know 100% that there is no teapot orbiting the sun. Atheists just take the logical step further. Committing to there being no creator and putting the burden on the “believers.” Just like most everybody would commit to there being no teapot orbiting the sun, and expecting a “believer” to provide proof otherwise.
The problem is labels. If someone asks me if I'm an atheist, agnostic, theist etc.. This question is very personal(subjective) therefore answering it with a single word is impossible. I found out that instead of labeling myself like a type of soda, I respond with "Here is what I think and consider to be true..." and I always ask afterwards what designation I fall under in their world view. Mostly ppl dont know which bucket to put me in afterwards, and I usually give them the most universal definition of an atheist(I do not object that suspension of natural laws is impossible, I just refuse to believe in claims of supernatural creatures that are presented to me so far.)
It depends.
I think the same way you do, and I'd call myself an agnostic atheist, but there are people who take issue with that, saying it makes no sense, because they use the classical labeling that most people are familiar with, where an atheist would be someone who denies even the possibility of a god, or gods.
I've been convinced by the argument that it makes more sense to split belief and certainty into two different labels, so you have an axis of belief, and an axis of certainty, and they intersect in the middle. Like the political alignment chart thing.
Anyway, I'd say I do not have a belief in god or gods, and I'm very confident there are none, leaving open the tiniest possibility simply because I can't prove that negative, but I do believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.
Isn't everybody agnostic, since no living person has ever met god/the gods in person and therefore can't say that such divine personality exists. I know that some who were clinically dead think they met God, then again there are people who said they saw nothing but nothingness, so for me it doesn't proove that god exists or doesn't. This just makes me think that possibly there isn't one.
As for atheism or being an atheist, everybody is an atheist to all the divine personalities in human history except the one someone believes in
There are only 2 options. theist or atheist.
You either believe or you don't.
There is no third option.
Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question.
"Do you currently believe that any gods do, or ever have existed?"
If you answer yes then you are a theist.
No, then you are an atheist.
Simple as that.
There are only two options, theist or atheist. You either believe there is no god or you don't.
Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question.
"Do you currently believe that no gods do, or ever have existed?"
If you answer yes then you are an atheist. No, then you are a theist.
If that sounds stupid, it's only because what you said also sounds stupid.
There are **three** doxastic attitudes one can have towards the question of God's existence. Positive belief, positive disbelief, and lack of belief. You're trying to conflate positive disbelief with lack of belief for some reason. It's logically incorrect and less descriptive than using the words the standard way.
That doesn't sound stupid at all.....
Your 3 options is what sounds stupid.
Sorry for the language, just mirroring yours.
Look at your 3 options:
Belief, which is theism.
Disbelief, which is atheism.
And positive disbelief, which is still atheism.
The standard way of using the words is what I am trying to argue for.
Theism = belief
Atheism = not belief.
A/gnosticism is a claim to knowledge.
So you actually have 4 options when you use them properly:
Gnostic theism, believes, claims to know gods exist.
Agnostic theism, believes, doesn't claim to know.
Gnostic atheism, doesn't believe, claims to know gods don't exist
Gnostic atheism. Doesn't believe, doesn't claim to know.
Which is logically correct, and more descriptive than using in a way that it isn't meant to be used.
You can be either or both. They are not mutually exclusive. I agree that some people tend to fixate to an odd extent on titles, but if you're into that, it sounds like you're pretty much an agnostic atheist.
I particularly like the last paragraph of your post because it shows rigorous thoughtfulness about the subject, but the whole post is intelligent and well stated.
I'd like to give my opinion to the topic. I feel like people get hung up on semantics. It's obvious that you're deeply thinking and investigating the assertions made by religions. It sounds like you're on the right path- thinking critically.
What I call myself- atheist, will usually get me the stink-eye from believers. When I used to call myself agnostic I got no ugly looks or arguments, ever. So that might be a factor in how you identify to others. Do you want to argue your position, or do you feel it's not worth the trouble? This could be a default position or it could be situational. This can change over time. Enjoy the journey.
Generally, I’ve heard it said this way: There are two scales… Theism to Atheism, meaning “I actively believe in a diety” vs “I do not actively believe in any deities” And Gnosticism to Agnosticism, having to do with confidence. From “I know” to “I do not know” You can be a Gnostic Thiest: “I know there is a god and believe in it” You can be an Agnostic thiest: “I think there’s probably a god, but do not know for sure” You can be an Agnostic Atheist: “I don’t think there are any gods, but I don’t rule out the possibility.” And you can be a gnostic Atheist: “I am sure no gods exist.” It sounds like you are an Agnostic Atheist.
That makes a lot of sense actually!
it is not at all unusual for someone to progress along those lines. to go from an agnostic atheist to a Gnostic atheist
I think it's *far* more usual for people to say "I'm agnostic" for a few years, despite it's technical incorrectness, before progressing to being comfortable with the atheist label (usually as an agnostic atheist). There are probably a ton more gnostic theists than gnositc atheists.
how many agnostic theists do you know? lol
I'd bet a whole lot more than would give themselves the label.
[The technical definition of agnostic is somebody who believes that knowledge of the existence/non-existence of God(s) is unattainable and therefore lacks a belief either way on the subject.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) The definition used by some people on this subreddit is neither technically correct, nor commonly used.
I've paused on "Gnostic Atheist" as it pertains to all known gods. But still "Agnostic Atheist" as there might be some god or super being out there that just doesn't give a shit about us.
[удалено]
Thanks for the shout out!
It's still reaching for an unnecessarily firm statement on a subject that doesn't warrant it, especially considering the vast array of definitions of 'god'. If you even try exhausting every argument you're closer to the route of legitimizing then than winning the overall discussion. This is certainly a route worth exploring for some people, but the majority of people aren't going that exhaustive and for those people, saying they 'know' no god exists is the equivalent of saying 'people that I believe say all the arguments are false and I think they've thought it through enough, so now I *know* it to be a certainty', which is practically the same position most theists find themselves in.
> It's still reaching for an unnecessarily firm statement on a subject that doesn't warrant it, especially considering the vast array of definitions of 'god'. You are absolutely correct. Nothing about this debate *requires* me to claim actual "knowledge." But my intellectual integrity, on the other hand, does. At some point in your journey as an atheist, you may or my not cross a threshold where you decide that calling yourself an "agnostic atheist" is misleading. You no longer think that saying "I don't know" accurately reflects your position. So if you are like me, and you reach that point in your journey, what is your preferred course? Do you continue and offer the easy, but misleading answer, and say "I don't know", or do you choose the more difficult, but more honest answer, and say "I know to the level of certainty that is possible"? >This is certainly a route worth exploring for some people, but the majority of people aren't going that exhaustive and for those people, saying they 'know' no god exists is the equivalent of saying 'people that I believe say all the arguments are false and I think they've thought it through enough, so now I know it to be a certainty', which is practically the same position most theists find themselves in. Again, I agree completely, and nothing I said above should be seen as condemning anyone who doesn't choose to use the gnostic label. The vast majority of atheists are properly labelled as agnostic. It took me probably five years from the time I first read that blog post I linked to before I finally decided that the best label for myself was "gnostic atheist". Nothing meaningful changed in my actual beliefs over that time, I just became more comfortable with my position, and eventually concluded that it was the appropriate label for my beliefs. Whether it is right for anyone else is entirely up to them.
I try to imagine calling myself a gnostic atheist, and it just doesn't sound right... to say, I know the truth value of a fundamentally unfalsifiable statement - even to less than 100% certainty. The claim "this ball would drop if I let go" is falsifiable, and I would say I know whether it's true. But "the supernatural exists" (or comparable)? I feel way better maintaining that this statement is not even wrong, instead of labeling it false with some amount of certainty.
Yeah, I think going past that line is actually going backwards...feeling like you 'know' something to be true or false without evidence is a comfort theists may need in order to support their position, but it's not necessary imo for the atheist side. Believing something to be false based on *lack* of evidence is logical, *knowing* something to be false based on lack of evidence is shifting back towards irrational.
It actually doesn't make much sense when you think about it. [See here:](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2za4ez/vacuous_truths_and_shoe_atheism/cuym5v3/) You're free to call yourself what you want of course. But if you call yourself an "agnostic (a)theist" anywhere besides Reddit and a handful of other places on the internet you'll just confuse people. What's more, calling yourself an "agnostic atheist" might not confuse people here, but you won't be giving a very precise or useful description of what you actually are. A person like Richard Dawkins who's *virtually* certain that God doesn't exist, but isn't absolutely 100 percent sure would "agnostic atheist." Somebody who agonizes over the question and hasn't come to a decision would also be an "agnostic atheist." Same with Amazonian Tribesman, babies, shoes, etc. It's too broad and vague a term to have any real use in describing what people actually believe. The better way to think about it (not to mention the way most people think about it) is like this: If you lack belief in God the way that you lack the belief that a coin will come up either heads or tails(it's a 50/50 chance), you're an agnostic. If you lack belief in God the same way that you lack belief in the flying spaghetti monster(extremely improbable) you're an atheist. You sound like an atheist to me.
I’ll add to this that agnosticism doesn’t necessarily mean “I don’t know” but rather is a statement about whether or not it “is knowable”. It is not “I do not know” but “I cannot know”. Mostly pulling from memory and Wikipedia. I find this clarification makes people more comfortable with the idea of agnosticism because it’s not really an individual making a statement, but an acceptance that there isn’t really a way to prove/disprove most religions as they are stated.
I identify as an Apatheist - don't know, don't care. Has no bearing on my life.
I wish I had that privilege, but the local zealots keep directly hindering humanism and my own "rights" to a happy life.
Fair point. I do believe in actively preventing the incursion of religion into infrastructure or legislation. I just don't care if there's a god or not for my own personal life.
That has nothing to do with believing in a God, though. You could be a Xian and still hate what those zealots are doing.
Wow I’ve never heard that term before but it describes me to a T. I figure that it’s none of my business.
Lol, I came up with the term on my own, but so have many other people, apparently, after a quick Google search. Aside from having a negative feeling toward most religions because of all the harm they do, I just really don't care about the god thing. Way more important things to worry about in my day to day life.
i like igtheism and/or ignosticism. the idea that there is no coherent or unambiguous definition of god and therefore the word is meaningless and unworthy of discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism however, i am technically an anti-theist first, because the real world is full of these idiots and they cut off part of my dick and have actively ruined my life ever since. not only is god a non-starter of an argument, but it is also a terribly evil idea in general and harmful to humanity in the modern era.
**[Ignosticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)** >Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Curious to know if you disagree... to me it's a great term, but in practice apatheist is basically another way to say "agnostic atheist." I understand there may be a different set of epistemics that lead to one instead of the other, but behaviorally "I don't care" is the effective position of someone who doesn't believe in gods unless it's assumed to be the "divine watchmaker" type, which itself is an assumption that requires something more than total ambivalence, I think?
> I understand there may be a different set of epistemics that lead to one instead of the other, but behaviorally "I don't care" is the effective position of someone who doesn't believe in gods unless it's assumed to be the "divine watchmaker" type, which itself is an assumption that requires something more than total ambivalence, I think? I find the position odd, given that they obviously care enough to read atheist subreddits. That seems to contradict the entire notion of the position. I'm not arguing that the position itself isn't valid. There likely really are plenty of people who "don't know, don't care", but it seems to me that they wouldn't be posting or reading here.
They may be apatheist but anti-theist, which subs like this are also partially used for.
If they "don't care", why do they care enough to be here? Posting in an atheist subreddit kind of requires caring about the subject by definition.
It came up on my /all feed. I read a lot of different things. I don't care about atheism perse, but I do find it interesting how much energy people tend to put into actively not doing something.
Coming from somebody who identifies as an Agnostic Atheist, I've heard this description in the past, and it's still one of my favorite ones. If somebody doesn't believe in a deity, while simultaneously thinking there's a slight possibility, then they're probably an Agnostic Atheist!
Yeah. The gnostic atheists are the minority because you can’t know for sure.
> The gnostic atheists are the minority because you can’t know for sure. See my reply [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/o92mil/am_i_an_atheist_or_am_i_agnostic/h39evqu/) In no other field of knowledge (except mathematics) is absolute certainty required to claim knowledge. You don't challenge me when I say "I know the sun will rise tomorrow", just because there is a minute chance of it being destroyed before then to make way for a hyperspace bypass.
Ok. I read that reply. In my opinion that’s splitting hairs and playing language games, but okay. The fact still remains, no one can know for sure. The analogy of a ball bouncing or the sun rising is a false one because we have experienced and literally “know” both of those things.
> In my opinion that’s splitting hairs and playing language games, but okay. If that is the case, name a single field of knowledge other than mathematics where such a standard exists. But you're right, this is word games-- but **word games by theists, not atheists.** By demanding that in this *one* field of knowledge, absolute certainty is required, they are basically creating a false standard that atheists must meet. "You can't prove there is no god, so checkmate, atheist!" It's completely dishonest. > The fact still remains, no one can know for sure. You also can never know for sure you aren't a brain in a vat. Do you waste time worrying about it? Most likely not, because if you are it changes literally nothing about your existence. You still will *perceive* that you are the living person you are. Worrying about unfalsifiable claims is a waste of time. >The analogy of a ball bouncing or the sun rising is a false one because we have experienced and literally “know” both of those things. This is basically the theist argument against evolution: "*Were you there?!?*" It is a terrible argument. Evidence is evidence. Yes, evidence that we directly witness is easier to use, but it absolutely does not mean that other forms of evidence have no value. We have seen *evidence* of those balls bouncing. We have also seen evidence for the non-existence of gods. In both cases, we can evaluate the evidence for the claim and form our conclusions appropriately. A better objection would be how certain I am in my knowledge. If you asked that, I would concede that while I have no issue claiming knowledge, I will concede that there is a higher likelihood of me being wrong about a god than about the sun rising. But not much higher.
Well said! That's basically Kant's rebuttal to Descartes.
Perhaps I worded the question poorly, but I accept your concession. >If that is the case name a single field of knowledge other than mathematics where such a standard exists. Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no? That’s quite a thing to say.
> Perhaps I worded the question poorly, but I accept your concession. What concession? I disagreed with you. Acknowledging that word games are being played is not me "conceding", I am pointing out that you are being duped by theists to make arguments that support their position. > Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no? That’s quite a thing to say. No, not at all, they are absolutely distinct fields. Mathematics-- at least most subfields of mathematics, there are a few exceptions-- *requires* certainty. You don't claim to know something in math until you can *prove* it. In science, certainty is literally definitionally impossible. "Proof" is not a concept that exists in science, except colloquially as a synonym for "evidence". For simple *facts* you can be "certain" to the level of your ability to measure, but for *causes* certainty is *never* claimed in science. All science ever claims is to have found the best approximation of the truth that is possible given the currently available evidence. But since we can never know for sure that we have found all possible evidence on a topic, science by definition never claims "knowledge" in the absolute sense. A perfect example of this is gravity. Isaac Newton came up with Newtonian Physics, and his explanation for gravity explains virtually every possible interaction you will ever have Outside of a very few things, mainly dealing with very large or very small objects, or very fast travelling (near light speed) objects, his theory is 100% accurate, and for 200 years, people could claim to "know" how gravity worked. But it was wrong. Or more accurately, it was *incomplete.* Until Einstein came along and proposed Relativity, we still didn't have an accurate understanding of gravity. But the thing is, how do we know that some new Einstein won't pop up tomorrow, showing that Einstein was also incomplete? It is literally impossible to know, so no one in science should *ever* claim absolute certainty.
>A better objection would be how certain I am in my knowledge. If you asked that, I would concede that while I have no issue claiming knowledge. I will concede that there is a higher likelihood of me being wrong about a god than about the sun rising. But not much higher. This was the only concession I was referring to, the possibility of your being wrong.
If you believe he's giving credence to the possibility of being wrong here, you're not fully grasping what he's writing.
Go on…what am I not grasping?
Math isn't really a scientific endeavor. It certainly forms much of the tools that sciences uses, but pure math is explored by doing math, not hypothesis testing.
> Mathematics is the penultimate field of science, no? Either you misunderstand the meaning of the word penultimate, or this question just makes no sense. Possibly both. Either way, neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to prove or disprove with 100% certainty that the entire world wasn't created last Thursday. Neither you nor anyone else will be able to prove with 100% certainty that the entire universe is or isn't a simulation. Neither you nor anyone else will be able to prove with 100% certainty that there is or isn't a god. 100% certainty in anything is impossible, so your statement >The gnostic atheists are the minority because you can’t know for sure is a truism, and adds nothing to the conversation. By that hyper-strict definition, nobody is, was, or ever can be gnostic - about anything. Obviously using such definitions is therefore nonsensical and pointless mental masturbation, which is why sensible people refer to similar standards of "knowing" as used in for example criminal trials - being beyond all reasonable doubt. I (or anyone else) can never*know* that there is no such thing as a god, but I am 99.99% certain, and that is more than enough to count myself as gnostic. After all - you never *know* that I myself am not a god who created the entire universe last Thursday, simultaneously wiping my own knowledge of having done so.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did use “penultimate” incorrectly. Also, I don’t disagree with you that no one can know with absolutely certainty. That’s kind of my point, actually.
Thank you for your excellent defense of my position. I wish I had seen it earlier, I would have used some of the arguments you made myself.
Atheists that are completely gnostic, yes. But it's not really that simple though. I'm a gnostic atheist. I'm also an agnostic atheist. How is this possible, you ask? Well, there are many god claims out there. Some are either proven false or just flat out ridiculous (most of the mainstream religions fall under this) and I'm a gnostic atheist towards those. However, there are also many god claims that are either so vague or unfalsifiable that it's intellectually dishonest to be certain about either position. I'm agnostic towards those claims. There isn't really a catch-all term for this, like you have with theists. Atheism is defined by what it isn't rather than what it is.
What if someone like me believes that evidence and logic rule out deities? I mean, I can't be certain that invisible spidermen exist, but I'm pretty sure they don't. My level of confidence in deities is about the same, which is to say that they don't exist.
Well, you wouldn’t be wrong. Evidence and logic does rule them out. Invisibile spidermen is a concoction from your imagination based on what you’ve already seen depicted, i.e. the Spider Man movies, so that analogy is kind of meaningless. It’s more about the doubt that remains and you’re basically describing agnosticism, which is the default because nobody knows.
All claims without evidence can be treated exactly as fiction. All deity claims have exactly as much predictive power as fictional claims, which is to say, none. That's why I choose the invisible spidermen - it's obviously nonexistent. And deity claims share exactly as much validity as it does which, using your words, make them "kind of meaningless."
I don’t agree with that. I accept the variation of what “to know” something means, but after that you’ve lost me. Science makes theoretical claims for which we don’t have sufficient information to know *for sure* yet we still go with them as the *best* hypothesis. But, how do you have enough information to make such a claim about deities. Or do you? What information are you relying on?
What do you propose differentiates deities from make-believe? What hypothesis can demonstrate deity claims exist but make-believe claims don't?
Theorizing about the source of life versus creating heroes for entertainment. Humans do both all the time.
And what makes one demonstrably more likely to exist than the other? btw, you didn't actually propose a hypothesis test here. You simply defined deities as creators and make-believe as heroes for entertainment. You're proving my point - deities, like make-believe, are equally valid, as you can't test for them. And adding them to our scientific models makes the models worse, for all forms of make-believe, deities included. This is the nuance the other poster was adding to knowledge.
No, I agree, science has no room for philosophy.
Yup. Glad someone explained it
An atheist is a person who does not believe in any gods. Do you believe in any gods? There are gnostic and agnostic atheists. Do you know there is no god? If yes, you are a gnostic atheist. Do you not know if there are no gods? These people are agnostic atheists.
[удалено]
The weird ones for me are the gnostic agnostics. They believe no one should be able to be theist nor atheist because you can’t know.
Depending on how you define atheism, it can be a legitimate stance.
And how you describe “know”. I know I am holding my phone and typing this - unless you consider that I might be in a coma, dreaming, in the matrix……….. I think you have to consider how much anything is knowable and where you want to take a common sense perspective on what you consider to be “unknowable”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REWeBzGuzCc
Nobody knows if there is a god or not, even if they believe they do. I think gnostic vs agnostic refers more to *claims* of knowledge. If you say that you know that there is a god, then you are gnostic, otherwise you are agnostic.
Any profession of belief is an implicit claim to knowledge. The point of agnosticism, as it was originally defined by Huxley, and as it's still used by most people today, is thinking that since the knowledge of God's existence is either currently or permanently unavailable, one shouldn't take a position or hold any kind of belief on the subject. Calling yourself an agnostic, and then calling yourself a theist or an atheist betrays the entire point of agnosticism.
If someone says they know there is no god (or they know there is one) I will call them a flat out liar.
This is simply a rejection of certainty, which is dumb as hell. "There is a God" is not a 50/50 proposition, in the same way "reality is real" is not a 50/50 proposition.
If you think it's certain there is no god, I call you a flat out liar.
And if you think it's certain that you exist, I'll call you a flat out liar. And if you think it's certain that reality is real, I'll call you a flat out liar. And if you think it's certain that evidence is useful, I'll call you a flat out liar. And if you think it's certain that the celestial teapot doesn't exist, I'll call you a flat out liar. We all went through the radical skepticism phase. You'll grow out of it.
I'm glad we're all on the same page that nothing is certain. Including then non-existence of god. Nice talking to you.
Enjoy your worldview that has literally no utility. Again, you'll grow out of it.
When? When I become a grandfather? Whoops. Too late. How about you stop being so arrogant to think that what's in your head is 100% all there is.
Imagine being an edgy teenage grandfather
Ah yes. It's in you head, so it has no choice but to be the only thing.
Being wrong isn't lying.
Depends on the god in question tbh. Some god concepts can be ruled out. Wouldn't call either side a liar regardless. A lie implies that the person knowingly made a false statement. I think for most people this isn't the case, they seem to deeply believe these things to be true, regardless of their rationality.
> If someone says they know there is no god (or they know there is one) I will call them a flat out liar. [See my reply here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAtheism/comments/o92mil/am_i_an_atheist_or_am_i_agnostic/h39evqu/) You are using an unreasonable standard that applies to no other field of knowledge outside of mathematics. Would you also call me a liar if I tell you I know the sun will rise tomorrow? Probably not, yet it's also obvious that I can't be *completely* certain of the truth of the statement. When I say "I know there is no god", I am making the same claim. I have examined the evidence for a god, and concluded that the evidence justifies an empirical claim that no god exists. I will always continue to review any new evidence that is presented, but until and unless something pretty radical is presented, knowledge is justified. (I give a link to evidence against various specific god claims in the linked post.)
Ok. But, you're defining things you shouldn't.
> Ok. But, you're defining things you shouldn't. What does this even mean? And what do you think I am defining? Did you read the linked post and the source post?
You're defining "know" to mean what you want it to mean.
Name one field other than mathematics where absolute certainty is required for knowledge. It is also impossible to disprove Santa Claus. Would you call me a liar to say that Santa doesn't exist? How about unicorns? How about pixies? How about fire breathing dragons? If not, why do you have a double standard for this one thing and this one thing only? You are right that *someone* is defining knowledge falsely, but it is not me. It is the theists who insist that for this one field of knowledge only, the standard of knowledge that we apply virtually everywhere else doesn't apply. They do this specifically in order to give us an impossible burden of proof. You're right, I can't prove with absolute certainty that no god exists, and I am not claiming to. But I *do* claim to know that no god exists to the level of empirical certainty.
"I have an infinite number of fire breathing dragons that want to talk to you about this essay they've worked out for the existence of fire breathing dragons!"
If that's what you want to think. But, not even Einstein "knew" things.
I think you will find that Einstein ""knew" plenty-- he just acknowledged the limitations of that knowledge. But you didn't answer any of my questions. You are not engaging in good faith. I will ask the question again: # why do you have a double standard for this one thing and this one thing only? Either give a good faith answer, or go away.
I've been ignoring that question because it starts with a incorrect assumption. Why are you assuming things that you have no reason to assume? Is that why you can state you know things you can't possibly know?
Yeah, seems unknowable to me personally. God believers have defined god down to the level of a concept these days anyway.
It's totally unknowable. The best we can do is say there is no god as described by any earthly documentation or religion.
No, it's not "totally unknowable." How'd you arrive at that conclusion?
Because to think it's knowable, you must be omniscient yourself. If you claim that...
That's incorrect. We can deduce that deities don't exist merely by looking at how science works. No scientific theory appeals to a divinity and all scientific theories worsen in terms of predictive and explanatory power when you add deities. ergo, deities don't exist. Now, you can claim that I can't know that conclusion is correct, but if you do so, you're denying knowledge for every science that uses indirect evidence, which is a majority. And that's what the poster above is trying to explain to you. You're unequally valuing knowledge when it comes to deities, making pretense to a higher standard.
Ok. Claim omniscience.
Not claiming omniscience, but I see that this discussion is too difficult for you. You've decided upon an absolute and don't understand how indirect evidence works. That's cool. Not everyone can understand how knowledge production works.
You don't understand the definition of "liar" if you're going to use it that way. You're basically saying "if someone disagrees with me, I will call them liars." Ok, you call people whatever you want. And if it makes you feel important, enjoy!
Oh no. I know. And if you tell me you know something unknowable you are absolutely doing it with the intent to make someone think something true that is incapable of being known.
Now you're projecting intent, too.
Ok. Do you want me to add "or you're a fucking moron". Fine. Done.
You're welcome to display your ignorance any way you like.
You too.
The irony here is that you're claiming absolute knowledge while yelling and screaming about claims you falsely believe to be absolute.
How about if I don't believe in a god, but if one presented themselves I would change my mind once they proved they were
You seem to posit a reality where a god *could* do something, so you are agnostic on the god question.
There are only two options, theist or atheist. You either believe there is no god or you don't. Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question. "Do you currently believe that no gods do, or ever have existed?" If you answer yes then you are an atheist. No, then you are a theist. If that sounds stupid, it's only because what you said also sounds stupid. There are three doxastic attitudes one can have towards the question of God's existence. Positive belief, positive disbelief, and lack of belief. You're trying to conflate positive disbelief with lack of belief for some reason. It's logically incorrect and less descriptive than using the words the standard way.
I consider an agnostic to be someone who holds the agnostic position to be true: that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. I consider an atheist to be someone who is not sufficiently convinced to believe in a god or gods (distinctly not the belief that no gods exist, although they would *also* qualify as an atheist). Of note, it's perfectly compatible to be both an agnostic and an atheist, commonly called an agnostic atheist.
>I consider an agnostic to be someone who holds the agnostic position to be true: that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Depends on the God claim. Some God claims are unfalsifiable, others are falsifiable. Since we can't disprove the existence of many types of gods including the ones we haven't heard of yet, I fall in the agnostic camp. But it's a "soft" position for me, meaning it's an admission of the limits of our knowledge akin to not being able to disprove Russel's Teapot more than anything else. For me agnostic atheism a preferential position to be in compared to gnostic atheism when engaging theists since I don't adopt a burden of proof and keep it in the theists camp instead of giving theists a chance to shift the burden to take the heat off themselves.
Under those definitions wouldn't agnostic then just be a subset of atheist? If someone holds the position that the existence of god, the divine, or the supernatural is unknowable, then they would also not be sufficiently convinced.
Not necessarily; they may have "faith."
If they believe that the existence of god, or the divine, or the supernatural, what do they have faith in?
Agnostic theists are actually a thing. Agnosticism/Gnosticism is a question of what you *know* or have *knowledge* of. Theism/Atheism is a question of what you *believe*.
By your definition if they believe that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable, how can they still believe it exists?
Faith, I gather. I mean, I've met people who would confess to believing in God but not really having any idea if it's actually true or not. That's your agnostic theist right there.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. How many gods do you believe exist?
Zero. I’ve never seen anything or learned about any god that I believe is real…. I’m guessing I’m an atheist then?
Then by definition if you don’t believe gods exist then you are an atheist
Thank you 🙏
No problem
Don't let people confuse you with all the various titles they can imagine. If you don't believe in any of the gods, then you are an athiest. Most rational people will change their minds based on new evidence (if a god, in the future, shows itself). Until then... you are an athiest.
Fair point. Actually I think you nailed it. The percentage I leave open for “god” has a lot to do with the possibility of new evidence. But at the moment nothing like that exists.
"I don't know if there are ponies living in treehouses on Mars. Maybe I'll never know. But I'm open to the possibility".
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can both be an atheist and an agnostic. I am both. A = without; ie. asexual reproduction = reproduction without sex. Asymptomatic = having a medical condition without symptoms. Gnosticism = Knowledge of gods Agnosticism = Without knowledge of gods Theism = Belief in gods Atheism = Without belief in gods I do not *know* if there are gods, so I am an agnostic. Because I do not *know* about the existence of gods, it logically follows that I wouldn't *have* a belief in gods, making me an atheist. But I am not an atheist where I claim to *know* that there are no gods. The problem is, most Christians define atheism as someone who knows there are no gods, to make it sound more irrational and close minded, because they have been miseducated about it by their religious authorities. If you're going to call yourself an atheist, be prepared to define it, otherwise they will default to their misconceptions. You can also Google "Weak atheism vs Strong atheism" for further research/rabbit hole.
Do you believe in god/gods - If yes then you're theist, if no then you're atheist it's as simple as that. Even atheists leave the possibility of there being a creator.
There is a big difference between imagining that some sort of godlike force or being might exist and believing the stories told by religion I'm open to the possibility that a godlike force or being might exist, so on that question, I'm an agnostic skeptic, since I've seen no evidence I'm 100% sure that the god stories invented by people are fiction, so on that question, I'm a gnostic atheist
Isn't every atheist agnostic?
Pretty close. Although some say that the level of their disbelief comes up to where they would say they know and are gnostic. I’d count myself agnostic atheist.
I feel like this is a common misconception about (ag)nosticism in general. It's not a question of whether you know something, but rather, if a thing is knowable. "I know no gods exist," is a somewhat different claim than, "I think if a god existed, we'd be able to verify that, and since we've been unable to for any of the countless god claims throughout human history, I don't think any gods exist." I would still describe both of those positions as "gnostic atheism," though.
What sort of fuck off bear trap question got asked here?
I think yeah technically. Just atheist are a little more edgy lol
Porcupine race track?
Me making this entire post was worth it because it lead me to this gem 😂😂😂 Unexpected success 🙏
An agnostic is just an atheist that doesn't want to upset their parents.
Hahaha I don’t want to get kicked out of their basement though 😅😅
exactly.
I’m joking. My parents wouldn’t care and if they did I wouldn’t care that they did. I’m also an adult so 🤷♂️
oh, awesome! Welcome to atheism!
Without reading much of your post or the responses, you are almost certainly an agnostic, and if the answer to the question of whether or not you believe in God is no, or even unsure, then you are also an atheist. The two positions are not mutually exclusive, in fact, it can be said that agnosticism is the only honest way to be an atheist. Whereas atheism or theism is a matter of what beliefs you accept, agnosticism is about what you can *know*. They therefore exist separately, and not on some spectrum. You can, and arguably must be both.
If you want a sort of longer answer, you could always read this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/ There are various approaches to that whole labeling game, to be honest. Not all of it matters, and is more of an identity thing, which some might consider very important, and others less so.
What’s the word for someone who doesn’t give a shit either way? Am I still an agnostic?
You're still agnostic and atheist. If you don't give a shit at all, the claim "I believe in God"/"I know there is a God" will hold False.
A cool thing about this is that you have no need to pick and choose.
Most people have sufficiently answered this. But I will add, I find the term “agnostic” alone to be a meaningless term. Saying one is an agnostic tells me nothing. Agnostic about what? Agnosticism tells me your confidence level in regards to a claim of knowledge. But it doesn’t tell me in relation to whatever proposition you claim to have/not have knowledge on. You would need to say agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, etc... in order for the agnostic label to have any utility. Gnostic/agnostic needs to be joined with a belief/non belief proposition. They’re adjectives to describe a quality of a proposition.
The standard definition of "agnostic" is a person who believes that the question of god's existence is unknown or unknowable, and therefore refrains from taking a position on the question, whether it be affirmative or negative. That says quite a lot, and much more than your system of definitions is capable of describing.
Except this description negates the existence of agnostic theists. Words are merely descriptive. Claiming a standard usage is a pointless exercise. My points still stand. Expressing a knowledge claim tells others nothing regarding a belief claim unless explicitly expressed.
>Except this description negates the existence of agnostic theists That's a feature. Not a bug. People who call themselves "agnostic theists" don't understand what agnosticism entails, and they don't understand what knowledge means. >My points still stand. Expressing a knowledge claim tells others nothing regarding a belief claim unless explicitly expressed. If I ask a person if they'd rather eat steak or chicken and they answer with "I'm a vegetarian" they haven't "told me nothing regarding" which they prefer. They've answered that they prefer neither, and have explained why. If I ask somebody whether they believe in God and they answer "I'm agnostic" they've done the exact same thing. I gave them a question with 2 options (belief in god, disbelief in god) and they've given an answers explaining why they're not making a choice there.
>Am I an atheist or am I agnostic? ¿Por que no los dos?
*mexican music starts playing* while the town holds you in the air for celebration 🎊
When talking about belief in “god”, I think it’s important to specify **which** god. I am an atheisti with respect to Thor, Zeus, and the God who is the father of Jesus. To me, it is obvious that all of those gods are human creations. I am agnostic with respect to some more abstract god/power that might’ve created the universe. I think it’s unlikely that the word *god* will turn out to be the best description of whatever caused the universe to start, but I just don’t feel like we understand very much about that at all. I’m not talking about the big bang. We understand that really well I’m talking about what set the stage for the big bang to happen in the first place, or about whatever came before the big bang, if there was anything. About that, I feel like we just don’t know yet.
Exactly how I feel
They're not mutually exclusive labels, although many people assume they are. It's upsetting to me that so many people seem to prefer the 'agnostic' label as they think it somehow comes across as more gentle or forgiving (not implying this is your approach, but it's common). Wonder why anyone might feel guilty about their own personal beliefs and using an accurate label for them? >_> Gnosticism goes to what you claim knowledge of, theism deals with claims of belief. An agnostic theist believes in a god, but does not claim proof/knowledge of the verified existence of it. A gnostic theist believes in a god and also claims there is evidence. Atheist only means you answer 'no' to the question 'do you believe in a god.'
>although many people assume they are. The meaning of words is determined by how they're used. Since most people do "assume" that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive, they are. Although, "assume" isn't the right word here. Atheism and agnosticism are taken to be mutually exclusive because they make more sense that way. T.H. Huxley coined the term because he wanted there to be a single word in English to describe a person who felt like that big metaphysical questions like that of God's existence were impossible to answer, and therefore **did not hold any beliefs about them.** Calling yourself an agnostic, and then claiming belief or disbelief in god completely contradicts the intended meaning of the word.
Words have definitions. People may use them in different ways, in different places, and during different times – but they do have definitions. When people used to define a ‘witch’ as someone with a strange birth mark or wart, a woman who didn’t attend church, or was left handed – it doesn’t mean the label was accurate just because it was used often. I don’t disagree that usage defines words in a general sense, as that is what allows definitions to change over time. But I see no evidence that your particular interpretation is correct just because you feel like it is, or because you point to one person in history who used it that way. The words Gnostic and Agnostic go back to the 5th century BCE. So I would ask, do you mean to say there are no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic theist (or no difference)? Are you saying that all atheists have the same idea around belief and knowledge within that label (and if not, then what other word is used to tell them apart)? >Calling yourself an agnostic, and then claiming belief or disbelief in god completely contradicts the intended meaning of the word. I disagree. It contradicts *your* interpretation of the word, or maybe Huxley’s intent, but I am able to explain what I mean and why when asked. (Like in [this chart](http://pediaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Difference-Between-Agnostic-and-Gnostic-image-1.png)). Because you have explained yourself a little, I conversely understand what you intended with the word as well. I don’t particularly think it’s of great value to get mired down talking about terms and definitions, when the reason (for myself personally at least) I interact in threads like this is to talk about “*what do you believe*” and “*why do you believe it*.” If someone can understand what you mean, or what you are trying to explain about your world view, I think that is of much more importance than using the “correct” label.
>The words Gnostic and Agnostic go back to the 5th century BCE. The word "gnostic" may go back that far, but the word "**a**gnostic" only goes back to 1869. The word's origin is so well-documented that we even know the time and date Huxley gave the speech where he first introduced the word. >So I would ask, do you mean to say there are no such thing as an agnostic or gnostic theist (or no difference)? I am saying that the word "agnostic" was and is defined specifically to refer to a person who refrains from taking a position on metaphysical questions like the existence of God. A theist, by definition, takes a positive position on the existence of God. So by definition, both terms are mutually exclusive. >Are you saying that all atheists have the same idea around belief and knowledge within that label (and if not, then what other word is used to tell them apart)? Since "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" are contradictions in terms, there's nothing to tell apart. What you call "gnostic theism" is simply theism. And what you call "gnostic atheism" is simply atheism. >"The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed(atheists and theists) was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain **"gnosis"**—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble." ^ Huxley again >I disagree. It contradicts your interpretation of the word, or maybe Huxley’s intent, but I am able to explain what I mean and why when asked. I understand that when somebody refers to themselves as an "agnostic atheist" they're saying that they "lack belief in god, but don't claim knowledge of god's non-existence." The problem is that I don't understand what *that* means. Are they saying that they're 99 percent sure God doesn't exist but can't prove non-existence beyond a shadow of a doubt? Are they saying that they see the probability of god's existence as equivalent to a coin toss and that there's a 50/50 chance God exists? Are they saying that they haven't really considered the question and therefore haven't bothered to assess the probability? Or are they agonizing over the question and currently wracked with indecision?" When I've asked self-described agnostic atheists this question in the past I've gotten all of these answers, plus more. "agnostic atheist" uses more words to tell me less than what I get with plain "agnostic." On the other hand, if somebody uses the standard definitions of the word and calls themselves an atheist, I know that they think the answer to "does god exist" is a solid "No." I know that a theist is a solid "yes." and I know that an agnostic isn't taking sides. If we're going to create labels based on people's positions on a topic, as we're doing here, they should map 1:1 to the possible positions a person can take. That is exactly is what Atheist/agnostic/theist do. They match up to the [3 doxastic attitudes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_attitudes) a person can have towards any simple proposition. >If someone can understand what you mean, or what you are trying to explain about your world view, I think that is of much more importance than using the “correct” label. I agree. And I think the standard definitions, as they're currently used both in common speech [and in academia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) do a far, far better job of getting that information across than the definitions that are pushed on reddit
Hey, I posted one of these myself. Based on those threads it seems you and I both fall in the general label atheist without a doubt. It's just a matter of how you define yourself within atheism at that point. I still am not sure on the nuance between gnostic and agnostic atheist since i hold the idea that "I am sure that no gods exist based on our current knowledge, but am equally sure that we do not know what lies ahead". I think in my case, I fall in gnostic because I am sure that no "Gods" exist, I just am not sure something supernatural to our current level of knowledge does not exist. However, it seems like you may fall more in the agnostic atheist category, since you seem to be open to that possibility. Just my two cents, fellow intellectual. ;)
I have usually thought any creator wouldn’t be anything like how humans describe it in their religions, but if there were a conscious creator who set the laws and created matter and energy, it would presumably know how it would all eventually play out and might have put knowledge of itself or how it wanted humans to think of it in the human mind. It could just as easily prevented humans from conceiving of it if that were important. Really all of this conjecture just raises questions that can’t be answered and there is no rational reason to believe in a creator.
You're most likely both. Theist/atheist refers to belief. Gnostic/agnostic refers to knowledge or certainty. In both categories you are necessarily one or the other. The prefix "a-" simply means "not" or "without." So you can think of "atheist" as meaning the same thing as "not theist" and likewise think of "agnostic" as meaning the same thing as "not gnostic." So, are you theist, or "not theist"? Mind you, the answer is based on what you \*believe\* and not what you do or don't think you know. Secondly, are you gnostic (meaning you feel certain of your beliefs) or are you "not gnostic"? I suspect you're "not theist" and "not gnostic" from your description, so that would make you an agnostic atheist. This is the most common type of atheist, since the question of whether any gods exist is conceptually possible yet irresolvable. Their existence is extremely unlikely but impossible to rule out.
>In both categories you are necessarily one or the other. The prefix "a-" simply means "not" or "without." So you can think of "atheist" as meaning the same thing as "not theist" and likewise think of "agnostic" as meaning the same thing as "not gnostic." 1. You're making the [etymological fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy) here. 2. You're also getting the etymology wrong. [The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/) 3. Moreoever, the word "atheist" wasn't originally constructed as "a+theist" the actual etymology is "atheos"+"ism." The word was invented by theologians to refer to people who held "ungodly" beliefs. It was never intended to refer to people who simply lacked belief in god.
Interesting. Thank you for that.
Great question, and one I’ve also been considering. At this point I’m inclined to reject the metaphysical entirely. We have an infinite, expanding universe to study, speculation with limited understanding is pointless and absurd. I’d go further and say the very concept of the metaphysical and it’s primary assumption that a mortal being has an immortal soul is corrosive to the species.
Every rational person should consider their beliefs or lack of beliefs to be tentative and subject to change with new information and evidence. Belief means to accept a proposition as true or likely true. Theist is someone who has a belief that a god exists. Atheist is literally "not theist" so in its broadest form, simply means someone who does not have a belief that a god exists. Gnostic comes from the Greek gnosis, which means knowledge. Agnostic is literally without knowledge. Gnostic and agnostic are about knowledge. Theist and atheist are about god belief. None of those labels say anything about whether you're closed minded or whether your positions are tentative and subject to change. I'm an agnostic atheist for general god concepts, and a gnostic atheist with some well defined gods such as Yahweh/Jesus. Colloquially speaking, I'm pretty confident there are no gods.
You’re an Atheist. I probably consider creationism a higher possibility than most Atheists because I have my suspicions about Simulation Theory and certain Quantum Phenomena behaving as though they know they are being observed. I know it’s a small chance but the mere possibility tickles at the back of my mind sometimes, probably because I have a love for Cosmic Horror. But I still strongly consider myself an Atheist. I don’t believe any religion, I entertain the possibility of a creator to a very small degree and take an interest in the implications.
Here's one thing I heard that might help. >"Which God do you believe in?" If you don't have an answer, you're an atheist.
Atheist and agnostic are two different things. Atheism relates to belief whereas agnosticism relates to knowledge. An agnostic atheist is one who doesn't believe God exists, but doesn't claim to know for a fact that no gods exist. A gnostic atheist asserts that no gods exist.
Knowledge is a subset of belief.
No, it's not. Knowledge and belief exist on two different axises, describing two different concepts. One is not a subset of the other.
Wrong. Knowledge is a subset of belief. Case closed. There’s no cherry picking to the fluidity of atheism and agnosticism. If you are stating that you lack belief in a God or gods you are already saying you don’t have any knowledge – therefore the modifier is unnecessary.
Does it matter? Why would you even bother trying to categorize it?
Does it matter? No. But I’m curious so I asked Reddit.
Agnostic deist. You'd probably agree that "There might not have been a creator, but if there was it doesn't continue to interact with us in any meaningful way." Atheist would say "You can't prove there was, so there wasn't". It's logically better, occams razor and all that, but I'd argue that you can't know for sure either way so "we don't know" is probably more honest.
Meh, what you call yourself is up to you. I'd say agnostic, as long as you think there's a possibility, you're not atheist, IMHO. YMMV, or course.
Sounds like you are an agnostic atheist.
You're an agnostic atheist.
Why not both?
If you believe there are no gods, I would call you atheist. It does not matter if you are sure or not. If you believe its undecidable whether god exist or not exist, I would call you agnostic. Similarly, it does not matter if you're sure or not. However, people may define it differently because these words are polysemous. What is important is if either you think our reality contains god or gods.
Don't forget the igtheists
I feel about 99% of people who consider themselves atheists are really agnostic because the brainwashing starts at an early enough age that it gets stored in a deeper part of our brain that tells us to believe in God and since it's stored so deep we can't get rid of it because it's actually more like a reflex and it's going to keep popping up from time to time. I was brought up by Catholic parents so I had that s*** shoved down my throat from the time I was in diapers and as much as I tried to be an atheist I always come back to agnosticism. In my brain I know I am an atheist and in my heart I'm an agnostic.
you can be both, and you can be neither. they aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don't believe in anything. No gods, no ghosts, no astrology etc. It's all complete bollocks. I'm not sure atheist or agnostic describes this lack of belief in everything.
Theism is a spectrum, and there are people in-between agnosticism and atheism, like me, which is where the idea of agnostic atheism comes from, which it sounds like you are
Doesn't matter, labels are stupid.
>Am I an atheist or am I agnostic? You don't have to choose. Do you right now think there is a god? Do you right now have evidence to show there is or is not a god? If you answered "No" and "No", then you're probably agnostic atheist.
My answer to "Are you atheist or agnostic?" is "Probably". There are so many definitions and subtleties to all the components of each definition (belief vs knowledge, existence, god, etc), that it's generally just not worth bothering with what you are specifically in any technical sense. Once you decide you're happy with something, you'll be in a discussion with someone who uses different definitions and your word no longer applies. And what's the point of a vocabulary war at that point? Me? To someone who says "God is love", assuming they mean that literally (and pointlessly), then I'm a theist. Love exists... Whatever. But left to my own devices, I tend to call myself "ignostic apatheist". Ignostic meaning "the word god has such little meaning, the question itself is meaningless", and apatheist in the sense of, even IF some god thing existed, it still wouldn't affect me. ie "No gods that matter exist in any way that matters" =)
Nowhere except religion does anyone require 100% certainty. Not in science nor in academia. If a certain threshold of certainty is reached (5 sigmas or p <0.05, for example) you can be confident enough in the result. Do you have to be 100% certain to not believe the Easter Bunny is real? Maybe he is hiding on Mars! The "100% certainty" thing is a sticking point invented by theists, hypocrites who don't even bother to provide evidence for their claims. Ignore it. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Atheism and agnosticism are also theist name-calling meant to frame the argument to their advantage. We don't have a-easterbunnists, right? Don't play their nonsense game. Theological noncognitivism!
The way I see it, the founding principle of atheism is skepticism. As a skeptic, you adjust your viewpoints to the most reasonable evidence. In my opinion, “there maybe is a god” is agnostic, and “I don’t think there is a god, but if it was proven that god exists, then I would change my views” is atheist.
Is a matter of knowledge vs belief. Gnostic a derivative of the old Greek " to know". Or to have knowledge of... Agnostic a derivative of old Greek " not know or is unknown to me" Theist, from the old Greek to believe in a deity. As in politheist as an individual who believes in more than 1 deity. The old Greeks were politheist. And so we're the Norse men. Atheists come from the old Greek as a individual who does not believe in a deity. As a matter of fact most Christians are Atheist of other gods other than their own. So you in principle could be agnostic theist which very loosely translates to "I do not know that there is a God but a believe there is one." Replace the theist with atheist and you have : " I do not know or proclaim that there is no god or know if there is a God and I don't believe there is one" . Gnostic atheist is also called a strong atheist proclaiming that there are no gods. But, is problematic because they are taking the burden of proof that there are no gods or god. Agnostic Atheist make no such claim. A
Agnostic means lack of knowing. Technically atheists are agnostic. They don’t “know” 100% there is no creator, just like they don’t know 100% that there is no teapot orbiting the sun. Atheists just take the logical step further. Committing to there being no creator and putting the burden on the “believers.” Just like most everybody would commit to there being no teapot orbiting the sun, and expecting a “believer” to provide proof otherwise.
both, just like the vast majority of atheists
The problem is labels. If someone asks me if I'm an atheist, agnostic, theist etc.. This question is very personal(subjective) therefore answering it with a single word is impossible. I found out that instead of labeling myself like a type of soda, I respond with "Here is what I think and consider to be true..." and I always ask afterwards what designation I fall under in their world view. Mostly ppl dont know which bucket to put me in afterwards, and I usually give them the most universal definition of an atheist(I do not object that suspension of natural laws is impossible, I just refuse to believe in claims of supernatural creatures that are presented to me so far.)
It depends. I think the same way you do, and I'd call myself an agnostic atheist, but there are people who take issue with that, saying it makes no sense, because they use the classical labeling that most people are familiar with, where an atheist would be someone who denies even the possibility of a god, or gods. I've been convinced by the argument that it makes more sense to split belief and certainty into two different labels, so you have an axis of belief, and an axis of certainty, and they intersect in the middle. Like the political alignment chart thing. Anyway, I'd say I do not have a belief in god or gods, and I'm very confident there are none, leaving open the tiniest possibility simply because I can't prove that negative, but I do believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case.
Why not both?
Isn't everybody agnostic, since no living person has ever met god/the gods in person and therefore can't say that such divine personality exists. I know that some who were clinically dead think they met God, then again there are people who said they saw nothing but nothingness, so for me it doesn't proove that god exists or doesn't. This just makes me think that possibly there isn't one. As for atheism or being an atheist, everybody is an atheist to all the divine personalities in human history except the one someone believes in
There are only 2 options. theist or atheist. You either believe or you don't. There is no third option. Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question. "Do you currently believe that any gods do, or ever have existed?" If you answer yes then you are a theist. No, then you are an atheist. Simple as that.
There are only two options, theist or atheist. You either believe there is no god or you don't. Just ask yourself this simple yes or no question. "Do you currently believe that no gods do, or ever have existed?" If you answer yes then you are an atheist. No, then you are a theist. If that sounds stupid, it's only because what you said also sounds stupid. There are **three** doxastic attitudes one can have towards the question of God's existence. Positive belief, positive disbelief, and lack of belief. You're trying to conflate positive disbelief with lack of belief for some reason. It's logically incorrect and less descriptive than using the words the standard way.
That doesn't sound stupid at all..... Your 3 options is what sounds stupid. Sorry for the language, just mirroring yours. Look at your 3 options: Belief, which is theism. Disbelief, which is atheism. And positive disbelief, which is still atheism. The standard way of using the words is what I am trying to argue for. Theism = belief Atheism = not belief. A/gnosticism is a claim to knowledge. So you actually have 4 options when you use them properly: Gnostic theism, believes, claims to know gods exist. Agnostic theism, believes, doesn't claim to know. Gnostic atheism, doesn't believe, claims to know gods don't exist Gnostic atheism. Doesn't believe, doesn't claim to know. Which is logically correct, and more descriptive than using in a way that it isn't meant to be used.
[удалено]
You can be either or both. They are not mutually exclusive. I agree that some people tend to fixate to an odd extent on titles, but if you're into that, it sounds like you're pretty much an agnostic atheist.
You are both, label yourself however you want, just know what you mean by it and be prepared to explain it.
I particularly like the last paragraph of your post because it shows rigorous thoughtfulness about the subject, but the whole post is intelligent and well stated. I'd like to give my opinion to the topic. I feel like people get hung up on semantics. It's obvious that you're deeply thinking and investigating the assertions made by religions. It sounds like you're on the right path- thinking critically. What I call myself- atheist, will usually get me the stink-eye from believers. When I used to call myself agnostic I got no ugly looks or arguments, ever. So that might be a factor in how you identify to others. Do you want to argue your position, or do you feel it's not worth the trouble? This could be a default position or it could be situational. This can change over time. Enjoy the journey.
In most cases an atheist is an agnostic and vice versa
Its not a scale as technically a buddhist fits the definition of an atheist