• 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!



Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Lol, methinks you are trying to stir the pot. Is it better to distinguish agnostic from atheist or to have one as a sub category of the other?


Me? Stir the pot?? Regularly!!!
But on this occassion I wasn't really. There are a bunch of labels I use and accept. If someone told me they were agnostic, I'd figure they were undecided or thought God was unknowable.
If they said they were an atheist, I'd think they didn't believe in God.

But if someone called themselves an agnostic atheist I'd mostly just think they were brilliant.

(Ok...so the last bit was a pot stir, pure and simple...lol)


Well-Known Member
These were my results. Do I win?

1. Objectivist (100%)
More Info
2. Iconoclast (87%)
More Info
3. Rationalist (87%)
More Info
4. Secular Humanist (86%)
More Info
5. Strong Atheist (81%)
More Info


“Strive always to excel in virtue and truth.”
That quiz is garbo no offense.

I got atheistic pagan.



Rogue Animist
Premium Member
That quiz is garbo no offense.

I got atheistic pagan.

Quite likely it is garbage. But, it isn't saying that you ARE an atheistic pagan (or whatever else); it means that your answers are consistent at whatever percentage with the answers of people who are atheistic pagans (or the other groups) and the percentage associated with your responses to each of those groups.


I'm a planet
Meh, I'm bored. So I did a little quiz to tell me exactly what sort of non-theist a webpage thinks I am...

I'm, apparently, a Strong Agnostic, with the following definition provided;


A strong agnostic is defined as one who denies that any person can possibly know whether any gods exist or not. This definition distinguishes strong agnostics from agnostics more generally, those who don't claim to know whether any gods exist or not. A strong agnostic is thus one who takes a position on the limits of human knowledge, not simply on their own knowledge of the existence or non-existence of gods.

The term strong agnostic was coined as an analog to the term strong atheist. Both terms share a similar relationship with their parent concepts. Strong agnostics goes a step further than agnostics and strong atheists goes a step farther than atheists. Whereas agnostics don't claim to know something, strong agnostics denies that that knowledge is possible; whereas atheists don't believe in gods, strong atheists deny that gods exist.


In stressing our inability to pronounce on such lofty matters, Hume might be described as an agnostic or sceptic rather than an atheist. Nevertheless, the naturalist worldview that he espouses is practically identical to that of atheism.

God has no role to play in explaining the world and human experience, or the phenomena of art, morality, and religion. Hence a strong agnosticism tends to merge with a practical atheism whereby the concept of God becomes redundant in explaining or expressing features of the world and human existence.
- David Fergusson, Faith and Its Critics A Conversation


The quiz wasn't the worst I've seen, but I can't agree with it's conclusion.
I am assuming I get tagged as an agnostic since I think it's not possible to know whether God exists. But I find no reason to suppose he does. At all. Seems disingenuous, then, to call myself agnostic (or at least, agnostic without adding atheist to the term) simply because I don't figure it's possible to absolutely KNOW whether a non-interventionist God created us, and then forgot about us.

Anyone have any thoughts? Or any results, if you take the Godless-o-meter?
I just took the test, and also came out Strong Agnostic. I think it's pretty accurate.


My Results



Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form-a work of art-that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

2) 99%


An atheist does not believe in gods, but makes no demands believers to share their non-belief in god(s). An iconoclast seeks to attack and destroy all religion and religious beliefs



The belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. To the rationalists Immanuel Kant argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul. Kant referred to these objects as "The Thing in Itself" and goes on to argue that their status as objects beyond all possible experience by definition means we cannot know them.


Secular Humanist

Secular humanism is a comprehensive, nonreligious lifestance incorporating: A naturalistic philosophy. A cosmic outlook rooted in science. A consequentialist ethical system.

84% (Tied)

Strong Atheist

Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Richard Branson is an atheist who says he would be delighted if someone could convince him that God exists.1 I'm sure some of you would love to take up the challenge, but it might be a hard sell. He says he thinks "religion has done a lot of harm over the years," and that evolution and science are at direct odds with religion.


Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international and intellectual movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and creating widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

In conclusion I think this is a fairly good description of my views. All of these with a dash of freethinking, which was my next runner up at 79% are all things I can for the most part attest to believing in.


Well-Known Member
Redid the quiz:

Weak Agnostic
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not (ignoring the question of whether it's possible to know something but not consciously realize it). The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism and is commonly found alongside atheism.

... not completely correct but close enough


Active Member
Too much information. I don't really know what to do with this. Some of the questions seems insightful and I liked the certainty slider, though I didn't use it on questions toward which I mostly felt indifferent.

While I agree that god belief is first and foremost a matter of definitions, I don't think of agnosticism as saying much about what I actually think of all this. Like others I go on to ask what god belief has been based on everywhere people have gone and for as long as people have been people. I think gods have the same basis of existence we do, as products of our minds. The thing is, even if gods are products of the mind, that doesn't mean they are the deliberate creation of the person whose brain they inhabit. For that matter we, our sense of identity/self, is also not our deliberate invention; it is rather something we discover, something that is given.

I come at it in a Jungian depth psychology way. The architecture of the unconscious is there to be explored and I imagine that it rules over our emotions and determines what will bring satisfaction. But I don't think gods have any existence apart from our minds anymore than we do. And I don't know that we're all wired alike unconsciously, though I suspect there are common patterns. But IMO, thinking about the underpinnings of who we are and how we work as the operations of gods is probably not required for the maintenance of a positive conscious/unconscious in-house chemistry. But perhaps it can enhance that chemistry? I don't know.

Your Complete Results:

1. Ignosticist (100%)
2. Objectivist (96%)
3. Deist (95%)
4. Iconoclast (89%)
5. Strong Agnostic (87%)
6. Weak Agnostic (82%)
7. Unitarian Universalist (79%)
8. Ethical Culturist (78%)
9. Implicit Atheist (78%)
10. Rationalist (76%)
11. Strong Atheist (76%)
12. Atheistic Paganist (72%)
13. Naturalistic Pantheist (72%)
14. Secular Humanist (72%)
15. Taoist (64%)
16. Freethinker (62%)
17. Theravada Buddhist (61%)
18. Confucianist (56%)
19. Transhumanist (46%)

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I got 100% ethical culturist, freethinker and strong agnostic. 92% transhumanist (whatever that is), 90% secular humanist.


RF's pet cat
I got 100% ethical culturist, freethinker and strong agnostic. 92% transhumanist (whatever that is), 90% secular humanist.

Transhumanism is basically a movement that promotes technologically enhancing humanity. Think of things like implanting technology, becoming cyborgs, defying death, enhancing our body and/or brain, enhancing or creating new senses (for instance birds navigate using the magnetic field, so technology could give us this ability) and so on. I'm sure by now you get what it is. The goal is to evolve humanity with technology.

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Transhumanism is basically a movement that promotes technologically enhancing humanity. Think of things like implanting technology, becoming cyborgs, defying death, enhancing our body and/or brain, enhancing or creating new senses (for instance birds navigate using the magnetic field, so technology could give us this ability) and so on. I'm sure by now you get what it is. The goal is to evolve humanity with technology.

Wow, I only remember one question dealing with that. Interesting. Thanks!


1. Iconoclast (100%) More Info
2. Ignosticist (100%) More Info
3. Implicit Atheist (93%) More Info
4. Rationalist (91%) More Info
5. Strong Agnostic (91%) More Info
6. Deist (83%) More Info
7. Secular Humanist (83%) More Info
8. Strong Atheist (80%) More Info
9. Objectivist (78%) More Info
10. Weak Agnostic (78%) More Info
11. Ethical Culturist (75%) More Info
12. Naturalistic Pantheist (75%) More Info
13. Unitarian Universalist (75%) More Info
14. Atheistic Paganist (71%) More Info
15. Freethinker (71%) More Info
16. Transhumanist (64%) More Info
17. Theravada Buddhist (50%) More Info
18. Confucianist (42%) More Info
19. Taoist (40%)


Advocatus Diaboli
Premium Member
1. Rationalist (100%)
2. Implicit Atheist (99%)
3. Ignosticist (94%)
4. Strong Atheist (91%)
5. Iconoclast (90%)
6. Secular Humanist (89%)
7. Weak Agnostic (88%)
8. Deist (83%)
9. Ethical Culturist (82%)
10. Strong Agnostic (82%)
11. Objectivist (82%)
12. Transhumanist (80%)
13. Freethinker (74%)
14. Atheistic Paganist (65%)
15. Unitarian Universalist (63%)
16. Naturalistic Pantheist (56%)
17. Confucianist (47%)
18. Taoist (19%)
19. Theravada Buddhist (13%)