Theist vs agnostic vs atheist

[AKA_gnosis]

This is a post devoted to the discussion of the definitions of Theism vs. Agnosticism vs. Atheism, which seems to be somewhat in contention on this forum.

My understanding of the definitions are as follows:

Theist:

You know there is a God.

Agnostic Theist:

You don't know there is a God, but you believe there is a God.

Pure Agnostic:

You don't know whether or not there is a god, and/or don't believe it's possible to know, and don't have a belief either way.

Agnostic Atheist:

You don't know there is no God (or gods), but you believe there is no such thing as God or gods.

Atheist:

You know there is no such thing as a God or gods.


Do you agree or disagree with these definitions? If so, why?

[Johnny MacManky]

It might be helpful to clarify what you mean by the word "know".

[AKA_gnosis]

It might be helpful to clarify what you mean by the word "know".

Well, that may be somewhat difficult. Isn't that one of the great philosophical questions, the true meaning of "knowledge"? For the purposes of these definitions, I would say you "feel that you know".

[Philosophickle]

It sounds fair enough.

[Seasanctuary]

I would say:

Theist - You believe at least one particular God exists.

Agnostic Theist - You believe an unspecified God exists.

Agnostic Atheist - You don't have a positive belief in a God, but don't rule out the logical possibility of an unspecified God.

Non-agnostic Atheist - You rule out the logical possibility of any God.

Atheist - Either of the last two.

[Seasanctuary]

Well, that may be somewhat difficult. Isn't that one of the great philosophical questions, the true meaning of "knowledge"? For the purposes of these definitions, I would say you "feel that you know".

Agreed. The usual "believe" vs "know" definitions are completely unhelpful.

There is no way to distinguish between "believe" and "know" other than defining "know" as "believe strongly."

[Philosophickle]

Agreed. The usual "believe" vs "know" definitions are completely unhelpful.

There is no way to distinguish between "believe" and "know" other than defining "know" as "believe strongly."

That isn't true. There is a mountain of literature dating back hundreds of years that, even if a bit difficult, offers a partition between the two.

[Kenny]

In spite of the etymology of the term, I think it’s completely unhelpful to define “agnosticism” in terms of a person’s not actually knowing whether God exists. Here’s one of many problems with that way of using the term – whether one actually knows something is a partially an external matter – a matter not just of what goes on inside a person’s head, but how that person is related to the world. For example, S knows p entails p is true. So if theism is true, all (strong) atheists are agnostics. Likewise, if theism is false, all ardent believers in God are agnostics – but surely that’s not right.

It’s more helpful, I think, to define agnosticism in terms of what one takes one’s self to know. That being said, I don’t think it’s all that helpful. Typically in academic circles (well at least in the ones I run around in) an agnostic is defined as one who withholds belief. I think that’s the most helpful way to use the term.

[CarpeDeum]

Agreed. The usual "believe" vs "know" definitions are completely unhelpful.

There is no way to distinguish between "believe" and "know" other than defining "know" as "believe strongly."

Oh, I have to disagree here. Knowledge is a kind of belief, but it usually carries the additional connotations of being true and justified. An unjustified belief is a guess, and a false one is baloney. Most people would not consider either to fall under 'knowledge.'

But this runs into practical trouble, because you seldom know to an absolute certainty that a belief is true. You're never sure you can apply the word 'knowledge' in that sense. So a lot of people relax the requirement that the belief be true, and replace it, by making the justification have some degree of reliability. Hence we're left with

knowledge = highly reliably justified belief

And how do we reliably justify beliefs? Require consistency, parsimony, and evidence. Of course, the reliability can rarely, if ever, be absolute. But the point is that it's significantly better than a wild guess.

[mig_killer2]

This is a post devoted to the discussion of the definitions of Theism vs. Agnosticism vs. Atheism, which seems to be somewhat in contention on this forum.

My understanding of the definitions are as follows:

Theist:

You know there is a God.

Agnostic Theist:

You don't know there is a God, but you believe there is a God.

Pure Agnostic:

You don't know whether or not there is a god, and/or don't believe it's possible to know, and don't have a belief either way.

Agnostic Atheist:

You don't know there is no God (or gods), but you believe there is no such thing as God or gods.

Atheist:

You know there is no such thing as a God or gods.


Do you agree or disagree with these definitions? If so, why?

problem: It's not just a Theist or Atheist who knows that there is/is not a god, those are called "Gnostic Atheists" and "Gnostic theists (not to be confused with the 2nd-5th century heresy known as "gnosticism)". "gnosis" simply means "knowledge".

[AKA_gnosis]

problem: It's not just a Theist or Atheist who knows that there is/is not a god, those are called "Gnostic Atheists" and "Gnostic theists (not to be confused with the 2nd-5th century heresy known as "gnosticism)". "gnosis" simply means "knowledge".

Yes, but gnosis refers specifically to spiritual knowledge as opposed to other forms of knowledge.

[Brandon M.]

I consider myself an atheist for this simple definition : Lacks a belief in a God or Gods. I do not assert that there is no God, I simply lack the belief in one. A pure agnostic as you define it could be considered an atheist as well, for that lack a positive belief in a deity. For technicality purposes I consider myself an agnostic atheist with a tint if an ignostic mindset.

[sandlewood]

The way I prefer to define the terms, all people are bisected into two groups: theists and atheists. A person who holds a belief that one or more gods exist is a theist. All other people are atheists. That is simply the nature of the words. They work like synchronous/asynchronous and symmetry/symmetry. The 'a' prefix means 'without', so an a-theist is a person who is without a belief that a god exists.

I notice a lot of people don't like this definition, especially people who would rather call themselves agnostic. I subscribe to George Smith's definition where agnosticism is not some third alternative to theism and atheism. If you don't hold a believe that a god or gods exist, you're an atheist, period. It's not about what you know but about what you believe. If you withhold belief then you are an atheist...because you don't hold a belief that a god or gods exist. If you've been raised by wolves and have never heard of a such things as gods, then you're an atheist. If you're a one-day-old baby, you're an atheist.

And that last example is why theists don't like this definition either. Atheism is commonly associated with immorality, or at best amorality. So to suggest that a baby is an atheist is heard as a charge that it is bad. And I think some agnostics choose their label for the same reason: they would rather escape the negative stigma that saddles the term 'atheist'. Some of it is just due to the misunderstanding by average people of what atheism really is.

[AKA_gnosis]

Aren't almost all Christians technically "agnostic"?

Gnosticism was a heretical belief that was nearly wiped out around 500 AD by Catholic heresy hunters and the Roman Army.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

[shunyadragon]

Aren't almost all Christians technically "agnostic"?

Gnosticism was a heretical belief that was nearly wiped out around 500 AD by Catholic heresy hunters and the Roman Army.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm

Possibly some Christians and Baha'is as well may be agnostics if they claim to not know with any certainty that a God exists, but believes by a default position.

I believe the Gnostic position is different.

Probably the dominant agnostic position is a combination of a belief that God may or may not exist, and a distinct indifference to God's existence as an issue that is not important enough to be seriously concerned.