PSA: There's no such thing as an "Agnostic". You are either a Theist or an Atheist. You either believe that a god exists or you don't. It's binary.

@CopperCicada

lol we already agreed to disagree, let's not keep pushing the discussion into deeper esoterism 😉

@Pikachu Sorry. Wasn’t trying to be esoteric. Really just making a point from formal logic. It’s possible to have sentences that are indeterminate within a syntax. I would say for most materialists metaphysical statements are that way.

@CopperCicada

I have to admit that i don't understand that.

@LvChris IMHO if you do not affirm a belief in gods you'd land on agnostic atheist. I would call you an "apatheist" to combine apathy and theism because I like terms to be accurate.

@Burnley123

I'm afraid i can't see how. Can you elucidate?

@Pikachu You explicitly said it was binary, I gave multiple options.

@Burnley123


I don't think the options you proposed actually address the issue.

1) Its possible to not know (agnostic).
Certainly. Gnostic/agnostic pertains a position on knowledge. In the context of belief in gods, this knowledge position describes the belief position of theist/atheist.

2) Its possible to think but not know (athiest/agnostic)
Yup, that's an agnostic atheist. Or equally an agnostic theist. You believe or disbelieve in a god, that places you as either an atheist or a theist and your claim of knowledge places you as either a gnostic or agnostic.

3) Its possible to be athiest without being an anti-theist.
Absolutely. But this is not a different position, it's still atheism.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. When i refer to a binary condition here i'm talking about either atheist or theist as the only available categories. From there you may fall into a sub-category based on your knowledge claim.
Kinda like how you might be a human or a dog but you're both mammals.

@NorthernBear

I agree with that and you're right that i'm an agnostic atheist. In fact, i think that, that is the only kind of atheist any reasonable person can be.

One can indeed say "i don't know" and leave it at that and that will cover their position on knowledge.
But their position on belief is either "Yes, i believe that gods exist" or "No, i don't believe gods exist".
They are either theist or atheist and the addition of a knowledge position only adds gnostic or agnostic as an adjective.

@GJOFJ3


Well that is simply not true.


the·ist
/ˈTHēist/

1. a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

2. denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nowhere in either of those definitions is 100% certainty a necessary quality. But if you can find me a definition which includes as prerequisite only 100% certainty then de please share it.

But in reality there are many, many theists who believe in god but just aren't certain he's real. These are agnostic theists.
There are even more atheists (myself included) who are convinced that there exists no god but recognize that it is impossible to know for certain. These are agnostic atheists.

@Pikachu If you would take time to read my reply again, you will note I was careful not to reference all, but specifically referenced one theist, myself, that is 100% convinced there is a God, and one atheist, my college professor cousin, that is 100% convinced there is no god. Since not all theists would agree with me, and not all atheists would agree with him, and some agnostics would disagree with both of us, it is apparent to me that your binary argument is easily disproven.

@GJOFJ3


I definitely did read your examples...but i'm unsure why you think they disprove my argument.

You are a gnostic theist; a theist who is 100% certain that there is a god.
Your cousin is a gnostic (foolish) atheist; an atheist who is 100% certain there is no god.

In what way does this preclude people ( like me) who are convinced that there is no god but accept that it is impossible to be 100% sure that there is no god?

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Can you be a theist if you cannot honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?
2) Can an "agnostic" honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?

@ViciDraco You made that up, didn't you? The actual definiton:

"Agnostic - a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Everything added beyond that about theist agnostic, atheists agnostics, wolverine agnostic, whatever, is just made up to fit into a person's personal POV.

@ChipmunkErnie I did not make it up. It is the logical definition of the word.


Gnostic comes from the Greek and Latin words for knowledge. Thus Agnostic is without knowledge.

Simple use of word modification through defined prefixes.

@ViciDraco Over-simplification does not make a point. Knowledge of what? How to cook a pizza? The Gnostics were a specifc religion and, yes, they derived their name from a word meaning "knowlege", but saying "knowlege" does not explain their beliefs. And a full earch into the origins of them term shows it id nowhere as simple as the English word knowlege.

gnostic (adj.):

"relating to knowledge," especially mystical or esoteric knowledge of spiritual things, 1650s, from Greek gnōstikos "knowing, good at knowing, able to discern," from gnōstos "known, perceived, understood," earlier gnōtos, from gignōskein "learn to know, come to know, perceive; discern, distinguish; observe, form a judgment," from PIE *gi-gno-sko-, reduplicated and suffixed form of root *gno- "to know."

@redredred

Is Santa Claus a god?🤔

@Pikachu Again, your inability to go from the specific to the general us not complimentary to your intelligence. At its base the question under discussion is the nature of belief. For that question the entity can be Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, god, or Peter Pan.

@redredred

Oh odds and bodkins! Just gosh darn my determination to stick to the topic i originally set out! Ohhhh I must look a terrible lummox!😓



lol joking aside...


Sure. In the context of gnosticism/agnosticism the nature of the belief is one of conviction in unequivocal knowledge or the conviction that such knowledge is impossible. In the context of this discussion, that refers to the belief in gods.
The nature of your belief is a description of what kind of belief you have...and so far you have failed to demonstrate with any argument or example that there exists a third option between theist and atheist.

So is there third option when describing a belief in a god.?
In the context of the question of gods, can you produce a legitimate third option to theist and atheist?
Because so far your propositions have been conspicuously flawed and easily deconstructed.

I suspect that realization is what has galvanized you to repeated attempts to change the focus of the discussion.
To address your goal post moving criticisms briefly: I think that agnosticism is a thing in so far as it describes a lack of knowledge or a belief that knowledge cannot be achieved but in the context of belief in gods, that position is merely an adjective which describes the noun of belief/disbelief.
But perhaps i can make my point on this subject more succinctly with a couple of questions i've asked a number of times now but which every objector has so far shied away from answering:

1) Can you be a theist if you cannot honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?
2) Can an "agnostic" honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?

@Pikachu Couple of things if I may. We need to account for the subjective as well. Namely, the gnostic theist is wrong. Not whether there is God, we don’t know, but the gnostic theist is incorrect. She can’t know, for if we accept she knows, then we need to agree with her.

As for the gnostic atheist, can’t she make a credible argument where belief approaches knowledge? I assume your preference for the gnostic theist is based on the concept of faith. Which, as far as I know, is a particularly Christian idea, and is impervious to logic.

Shouldn’t empiricism be considered superior to faith? I am assuming here you are not sympathetic to intelligent design.

@Fukfacewillie

I think you can make very good arguments to be convinced that gods do not exist but that by the very nature of the entities under discussion, you can never know that for sure. So i think the gnostic atheist is ultimately unjustified in their claim to know.
The gnostic theist on the other hand, i believe can be justified. I don't think they're right but i think they can be justified because of things like divine revelation, ecstatic visions, miraculous signs etc.
It seems to me that these things by the nature of religious belief are sufficient to justify to the faithful experiencer that knowledge has been revealed to them.

And no, i'm not a believer in intelligent design.

@Pikachu It’s interesting what seems to be required in modern times to be a gnostic atheist. Sounds close to mental illness and prone to zealotry. In contrast, a pre-modern person might only need to see the sun rise…

@WaryWitchWandering

Do you believe a god exists?

Note: I am not asking you if you know a god exists, only if you believe that at least one gd exists whether you are certain or not.

@WaryWitchWandering Not sure if that defines "agnostic" but if it works for you, fine. :)

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow

I've asked you a straight question. Do please show me the respect of giving me a straight answer.
For a final time:

1) Can you be a theist if you cannot honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?
2) Can an "agnostic" honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?



Feel free to make an argument to that effect. Simply asserting it is meaningless.

@Pikachu I have given you straight answers and all you have done is repeat yourself.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow

I'm not interested in playing games so i'm only going to request that you meet me head on once more.
Please show me the respect of answering these two simple questions. If you choose not to then you choose to end the discussion.

One last try:

1) Can you be a theist if you cannot honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?
2) Can an "agnostic" honestly say "Yes, i believe in a god"?

@Pikachu Speak for yourself. I reserve the right to hold anything and everything in doubt. I doubt both the existence and the non-existence of a deity. Like Schrodinger's Cat, I'm in both states at once. I won't be forced into one your pigeonholes.

@ElwoodBlues

Your position of doubt is what makes you agnostic.
But if you can't affirm that you believe in a god (you can doubt it but still believe) then you're an atheist. In this case an agnostic atheist.

Simply stated: Your belief set meets the criteria to be considered an atheist, one who is unsure but an atheist none the less.

I'm not trying to force you into that category any more than i would force you into the category of human, primate or mammal. You meet the criteria to be placed in those groups. Same thing with agnostic atheism.

@Mistakesmakeus
Source?

You sure you didn't just hear a transphobe say this?

@BohemianBabe https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm

Peer reviewed updated as of February 2022

@Mistakesmakeus Medicinenet is widely considered untrustworthy.

https://www.aacp.org/sites/default/files/posters/2018/pdf/b-adams.pdf

Is that where you learned people think there are 74 genders?

@Ferise1 Some are.

@Pikachu All of it.

@Burnley123

lol a little too vague to work with...

@AbbySvenz

Exactly 👍

@SatanBurger

Well you can definitely have beliefs in the supernatural and still be an atheist. Remember: Atheist only refers to the fact that one disbelieves or lacks belief in a god.
And in fact there are religions that are atheistic because while they may worship or venerate someone or some being, they don't believe they are gods.

@Pikachu Oh okay that clears things up, thanks!

@SatanBurger

Cool!

@Spunkylama

And unless that agnostic believes in a god they are an agnostic atheist.

Think of it as you being a human but also a mammal.

@MalteseFalconPunch

Well in a colloquial sense, a scientific theory is the same as a hypothesis or a guess.
Do we accept that as accurate?
Words have meaning.
Gnostic/agnostic describes knowledge. Theist/atheist describes belief.

@MalteseFalconPunch

Fair enough👍

@ChipmunkErnie


Ah, that's where you're wrong.
That is NOT the definition of theist or atheist.

the·ist
/ˈTHēist/

1. a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

2. denoting or relating to belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.

a·the·ist
/ˈāTHēəst/

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theist/atheist is a position of belief, NOT certainty and certainly not knowledge.

Theist/atheist describes a position of belief.
Gnostic/agnostic describes a position of knowledge.

@Pikachu You DO realize the actual definitions you gave are just what I said, right? -- despite the little disclaimers after the definitions. And nowhere did you address the basic point of the original post, the denial of agnostics.

@ChipmunkErnie


No they're not. You spoke of certainty which is not included in the definition of either.

@walabby

Well that's a bit of a broader question. But there are certainly atheistic religions.

@DunningKruger

I'm an atheist.
I'm willing to accept that a god could exist.

That's because theist/atheist describes a position of belief while gnostic/agnostic describes a position of knowledge.

An atheist is a person who disbelieves that gods exist or lacks belief that a god exists.
A theist is a person who holds a belief that gods exist.
Either one of these can be gnostic or agnostic.

@SW-User

Do you believe you're magic?

@Pikachu no

@MistyCee

Hate it you may, but can you propose an argument as to why it is not appropriate in this circumstance?

@Pikachu lol. Not really. You defined the line, and why someone's not sure they're on the right side doesn't mean they're not on whatever side they're on.

But I'll still argue about what the utility of the line is.

@itsoeasy

Well sort of.
Alternate example: You can have as much freedom as you want but you're still a primate, a mammal and a vertebrate because these words describe categories to which as a human you unavoidably belong.

Similarly, there is a specific condition of belief which unavoidably defines someone as either theist or atheist.

@basilfawlty89

I'm not sure why you disagree. You can be an gnostic/agnostic theist or a gnostic/agnostic atheist.
You're an agnostic theist. No issues there.

@SW-User

You can certainly be unsure as to whether or not a god exists but that is a position of knowledge and not belief.
If you believe that a god exists but are unsure then you are an agnostic theist.
If you don't believe that a god exists but are unsure then you are an agnostic atheist.

@LvChris

...is that a butt stuff euphemism? 😜

@LvChris

lol again. i'll take your word for it .

@Ferise1

Truth hurts bud🤣

@Ferise1

Wow, that's a pretty major accomplishment. Go me!🤣