• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Agnostic VS Atheist

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
This short piece is written to deal with the argument stating, often quite vocally, that Atheists are just as bad as Theists who claim with certainty that there is a god. This, they assess, is because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, and an Atheist who made such an absolute claim would indeed be out of his or her depth. Therefore, some argue, the only viable position is to be an Agnostic. In the minds of some people there is a degree ranging from Atheist to Agnostic to Theist. On both sides of the fence, this sort of argumentation stems from a misunderstanding of what the words actually mean.

Notice: I am using the Oxford Online English Dictionary for all word definitions.

The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.

Likewise, the term “Theism” is defined as “belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe”. That last part of the sentence is important because it represents the dividing line between a Theist and a Deist. But like in the Atheism example, the active word is “belief”, not knowledge.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek “gnostikos” and means “to know”, and likewise the connotation “Agnostic” means “not to know”. Therefore someone who considers themselves to be a Gnostic implies that they are absolutely certain about the subject at hand, while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain. This leads to the conclusion that no-one is “just” an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject.

So, to sum up, one is either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself. It’s as simple as that. Still, this position might change depending on which god one is talking about. Unless one was to find that a person believes in all gods everywhere (there are thousands of religions, some with thousands of gods), that person is an Atheist with regards to some, usually most, gods.

Just sayin'... :)
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
This short piece is written to deal with the argument stating, often quite vocally, . . . that Atheists are just as bad as Theists who claim with certainty that there is a god. This, they assess, is because it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God, and an Atheist who made such an absolute claim would indeed be out of his or her depth. Therefore, some argue, the only viable position is to be an Agnostic. In the minds of some people there is a degree ranging from Atheist to Agnostic to Theist. On both sides of the fence, this sort of argumentation stems from a misunderstanding of what the words actually mean.
I've noticed this before, theists and some atheists will define atheism as a flat out denial that god exists: there is no god. And while everyone has the right to define their beliefs as they may, for an atheist to declare there is no god does set oneself up for challenge. So, I think the prudent approach is to couch atheism in terms of unbelief. And, of course the theist would be better off dropping the tiresome arrogance of knowledge, and sticking to what it is, a belief/faith. Claims of knowing god exists doesn't impress non-believers one wit, and, in fact, suggests that such people have gone around the bend.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I believe that it is possible that god(s) exist.
However, why anyone would want to worship a god that goes to such great lengths to hide its existence whilst demanding the world worship it is beyond me.
You realize that you didn't actually answer the question, right? ;)
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Aren't people who call themselves "agnostic," generally just spineless weasels who, by not picking a side, end up annoying the crap out of everyone?
 

jarofthoughts

Empirical Curmudgeon
Picking a convenient label with little room around it like atheist or creationist makes it easy to know what a persons limits in a discussion is going to be. Agnostic leaves more things up for discussion I think.

Did you read the OP?

The whole point of this tread is that there is no such thing as a pure "agnostic", "atheist" or "theist". Being agnostic is not a position, it's the degree of certainty to which you hold your position.

Gnostic/Agnostic indicates whether you (claim to) know something or not while Theist/Atheist indicates whether you believe in a god or not.
That means that there are Gnostic Theists, Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Theists and Agnostic Atheists.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
The term “Atheism” is defined as “the belief that God does not exist”. Notice the word “belief”. That means that being an Atheist does not in any way indicate knowledge about the non-existence of god.
Without knowledge, there is nothing in which to believe.

The word Gnostic comes from the Greek “gnostikos” and means “to know”, and likewise the connotation “Agnostic” means “not to know”.
Or, "to know not" (those darned Europeans, putting nouns after verbs).
 

nrg

Active Member
Without knowledge, there is nothing in which to believe.


Or, "to know not" (those darned Europeans, putting nouns after verbs).
Um, you do too.

"I'm going to ride (verb) my bike (noun)."

SVO is not science fiction.
 
Last edited:
Top