Theist/Atheist verses Gnostic/Agnostic

http://www.facebook.com/GuinnessX David Ashton

Simple.

Easy to understand.

Sadly, it will still completely go over some people's heads (i.e. die hard agnostics who think there is any sort of fence they can sit on, and theists who mistakenly think that atheists are absolutely sure that there is no god).

Jackson

being agnostic keeps me away from the dogs on either side of the fence, and allows me to see things from a higher viewpoint

http://www.facebook.com/GuinnessX David Ashton

If someone asked me "if" there was a god, my answer would probably be identical to yours. I don't know. If the questions is "do" I believe in a a god, then the answer would be "no."

My position on the possibility and probability of a god depends largely on what kind of god it is. Is the concept logically consistent? Is it coherent? Does it match up with our observations? Once you have a consistent concept, you still need to prove that such a being exists. The standard natural theological arguments (cosmological, teleological, ontological) are a mixed bag of invalid and unsound arguments that I'm not sure have ever convinced anyone, other than giving people who already believed reasons that they "thought" were valid and sound. The historical evidence for, say, the Christian god, are on extremely shaky ground. Is it rational to look at the actual eyewitness reports of witchcraft associated with the Salem Witch Trials in the USA and conclude that the accused were actually practicing magic? That historical evidence is FAR stronger than anything we have on the life and miracles of Jesus.

Labeling yourself an atheist does not mean that you are dogmatic in your rejection of a god. It is about looking at the available evidence and reasons for a god and not being convinced by them. If you are convinced by the reasons and evidence given for theism, you are a theist. If not, you are an a-theist ("a" being the greek prefix for: no, absence of, without, lack of, not). The bottom line is that knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand and hand together and provide for a variety of positions with a huge range of degrees of certainty, as you can see in the picture.

Maybe I'm wrong. Can you clarify your position for me? Now, I don't have a problem with people preferring one label over another. People should use what they are comfortable with. Sometimes the label will change depending on the situation. If someone is "more" in the center of the diagram above, I imagine they would be more comfortable with self-identifying themselves an agnostic. I'm reminded of an article Greta Christina did a month or two back on the parallels between the atheist movement and the gay rights movement (and the lessons atheists could learn). One of the points she made is that on the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation (0 to 6, 0 being completely heterosexual, and 6 being completely homosexual), she considers herself a 5, but self-identifies as bisexual. Most 5's would call themselves gay or lesbian, and not bisexual. That's just the label she chooses. It's not a perfect analogy because I know of no additional criteria that would provide another axis to the Kinsey scale, and sexuality itself isn't a good parallel to belief/knowledge of a god, but the point about labels remains.

http://twitter.com/ZachsMind @ZachsMind

If you don't know, then you're not an atheist. You're agnostic. Why does everything nowadays have to have a frikkin flowchart?! I have seen this weak & strong crap before and I discount it. It muddies the waters and adds to the confusion. I'm NOT talking about BELIEF! REMOVE belief from the argument! Go with what you KNOW.

If you don't know there's a god, then you're agnostic.
If you know there is a god, you're a theist.
If you know there's no gods, then you're atheist.

The Earth Is Flat.

http://twitter.com/madmanwoo @madmanwoo

*faceplam* I don't even know why you are debating this when you have no idea what you are talking about. Please learn to use a fucking dictionary, they are two different things. Example, I am atheist about Apples new Mac OS 14, as in I don't believe there is one, but I am also agnostic about it as I don't know they maybe working on one right now or have released it without me knowing. Poor example because atheism in this sense is not dealing with a God but it shows my point.

http://twitter.com/Katheist1 Katheist1

we don't need no educationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwjtIE
http://twitter.com/ZachsMind @ZachsMind

And thank you for proving MY point. By your own example, that approach just makes things more confusing.

Forget what you believe. Belief is not relevant. Have you any evidence that proves the Apple Mac OS 14 exists? What do you KNOW?

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

You actually think belief is irrelevant? People do all sorts of things on the basis of what they believe and don't know. I'm pragmatically sure (but not philosophically or epistimologically certain) the 911 hijackers didn't actually know they would turn up in paradise in the company of 72 virgins after their deaths. However, I am pragmatically confident they believed this to be the case, and they believed it with such force they were willing to die for it.

Tell me, do you know anything that you don't believe? Of course not, if you know it to be true then you're going to believe it.

Could you believe something you don't know? He is the crux of the issue and the point which reveals the heirarchy of belief to knowledge.

The reality is knowledge is a subset of belief, for example, my friend might say he has five $100 notes in his shoes, I have always found my friend to be trustworthy and decide to believe him. Ignoring my relatively low threshold of evidence it is actually irrelevant, I now believe something but I don't know if it is actually true, I merely have my friend's word.

Don't conflate appropriate methods to come to knowledge with insufficient methods and don't dismiss belief so readily. Everyone believes in something it is the reasons they believe them that differentiate the validity of those beliefs.

http://twitter.com/ZachsMind @ZachsMind

Try saying everything you just said without using the word belief, or its variants. Describe what you think and what you feel and don't just lump things into The Belief Zone.

Belief is this vague cloud we use that has some knowledge in it and some utter crap in it. Knowledge is not a subset of belief. That's old age thinking. Belief is akin to "truthiness" and no longer necessary in a modern world.

askegg

You don't believe the things you know?
http://www.facebook.com/GuinnessX David Ashton

The word belief, faith, and knowledge have a number of definitions, so I'll try to clarify what we mean in this context

Belief – acceptance of a proposition as true

Faith – belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

Knowledge – belief supported by logical proof or material evidence

For more on belief, including I suggest the Iron Chariots wiki:http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Beli…

I also suggest checking out the video of a speech that Matt Dillahunty gave on belief that David Gibson posted below. If you can't be bothered to scroll down, here it is again:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-55717171…

Everyone else here besides your buddies have done their best to explain it. Maybe Matt's in-depth explanation will help you to understand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Forget what you believe.

Tricky, because I believe many things and I KNOW some of them are true. Should I forget those beliefs too?

Belief is not relevant.

It is if you are claiming belief in a god thing, or refuting those beliefs from others because they cannot demonstrate them as true.

Have you any evidence that proves the Apple Mac OS 14 exists? What do you KNOW?

That's not the question. He might *believe* OS 14 is about to be released, and may continue to hold this belief to spite the complete lack of evidence supporting it. Does this sound familiar at all?

http://twitter.com/Katheist1 Katheist1

Zach, the only conclusion i can make of why these so-called atheists do this is so they can be unique and act smart and/or control. i don't know what else to say. they say getting atheists together is like herding cats. man, i think cats would be easier!
http://intensedebate.com/people/LuminousMonkey LuminousMonkey

You need to look up what the words mean then.

Agnostic vs gnostic concerns what knowledge you think is knowable.

Atheist vs theist concerns belief in a god(s).

You need to start using a different word from atheist, because atheist just means "not a" theist. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive, and anyone who thinks so needs to read up. Go read wikipedia.
Michael C

Atheism is all about belief, though. The definition (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods) is all about belief. If you remove belief, you have to remove the term "atheism" or "theism".

Agnosticism, which originates from the Greek word "agnostos", meaning "unknowable", (a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God), is all about knowledge, however. If you remove knowledge, you have to remove the term "agnosticism" or "gnosticism".

The Celestial Teapot is a great example to show the difference between the two. In fact, Richard Dawkins even stated that he is agnostic, however he is "…agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." That's same level as most agnostic atheists that I converse with and meet. He considers anyone with this thought of "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." to be a de facto atheist. However, I understand he is not the end-all-be-all of the term atheism, but I would think he knows a thing or two about the term.
http://twitter.com/askegg @askegg

if you don’t know, then you’re not an atheist. You’re agnostic.

Can you even see the picture above? Knowledge and belief are separate things. Related, but separate. You can be both an atheist (I do not believe there is a god) and an agnostic (I do not absolutely know either way). Just because the probability of a god (however you define it) is vanishingly small does not mean you get to round off the numbers and declare absolutes. We have told you this numerous times, but you seem hell bent on using the excluded middle to commit a non sequitur and construct a straw man to support your no true Scotsman. Nicely played.

If you don’t know there’s a god, then you’re agnostic.

Your definitions are muddled. Atheism does not require knowledge, merely disbelief. We do not have to make claims about the non-existence of a god, but refute theist’s claims and therefore reserve judgement until they can prove their case. In the past 2,000 years Christianity (to pick on one religion) has utterly failed to do this, but this does not exclude the highly improbable event that they might in the future.

If you know there is a god, you’re a theist.

All you have to do to be a theist is believe there is a god. Those who claim to know are gnostic theists.

If you know there’s no gods, then you’re atheist.

If youknow there are no gods you are a gnostic atheist.

Bastard Sheep

@askegg has it right. Theism/atheism is a position of belief in a god or gods. Gnosticism/agnosticism is a position of knowledge. It means either you do know for a fact (gnostic), or do not know for a fact, are unsure (agnostic). This knowledge can be about anything from theism/atheism, to global warming, political parties, physics, english liturature, history etc etc. One can be gnostic or agnostic about just about any topic you can think of.

That is all this diagram is trying to point out.

http://twitter.com/Katheist1 Katheist1

sorry, i don't acknowledge anything but what zach pointed out. theist, agnostic, atheist. also there are the believers in a particular faith. but that is all. as judge judy says, KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid). no offense.

http://twitter.com/madmanwoo @madmanwoo

Then I am sorry Katheist1 you have no idea, the terms are real, they have real meanings, go and look them up. Even if you and Zach don't like it, they have separate meanings and they are intended to address different things, live with it.

I used to think agnosticism was a fence sitting position between atheism and theism but I was wrong and have changed my point of view, I know better now and correct people who think the way I used to.

If people don't understand the proper definitions and how they are used then debates become very hard.

askegg

That's pretty much what it comes down to. We are not really disagreeing on the conclusion, but the definitions of these terms.

Amoebic Dissentary

Come on tweeps, it's all about LOVE! I know that everyone and no-one knows shit. Labels like gnostic, theist, agnostic and atheist are for pussies with no back-door-flow. If you know what I mean and I think you doo!
richo61

I basically agree with central point of the diagram – that we should keep seperate the question of knowledge (as Huxley meant it) and belief.
The only problem I have is that the label "Gnostic" is confusing – as that word already has a meaning outside of talk about agnosticism/ empiricism/ epistemology.

Here is the history – Huxley invented the term agnosticism – meaning "without knowledge" to refer to empirical objective knowledge about God. He is saying "I dont know if there is a God or some other ultimate being/ force – its beyond my knowing." And as Askegg says you can not know *and* not believe – be an agnostic and an atheist.

So far, so good. We have theists atheists and agnostics. What about Gnostics?
Now it gets messy.

In early christian history we have the Gnostics (with a capital G).
The Gnostics claimed to have knowledge – mystical "of the spirit" knowledge – they were not claiming Huxley type knowledge.
So it is logically possible (though historically improbable!) to be a Gnostic (a mystical christian) and to be an agnostic *simultaneously*.

Agnostic should be the opposite of Gnostic – from the construction of the words – but it aint because the two terms deal with two different conceptions of "knowledge". The word Gnostic had a meaning for 1900 years before the word agnostic was invented by Huxley.

I know I am muddying the waters here – but anyone familiar with the early christian church knows about the Gnostics – and knows it is nothing to do with empirical, objective, real world, knowledge – which is what the agnostics are concerned with.

One possible fix is to remember to not capitilize "Gnostic" unless you really want to refer to those particular mystical christians. If someone has a better label for what a not-agnostic should be called I would like to know.
'Cause "not-agnostic" is one bloody ugly bunch of letters.

Richo.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

I know this is a tangent, but modern Christians should ask themselves what happened to the Gnostics. Indeed what happened to the many flavours of Christianity (most of which almost nobody today would recognize as Christian) that sprang up in those early centuries. The history of today's Christian faith is a messy, violent, and often extremely brutal affair.
http://www.facebook.com/GuinnessX David Ashton

You bring up a good point. I've been aware of the historical context of Gnosticism for some time. It can be confusing, but paying close attention to the context helps. Fortunately, many Christians have little to no idea what the Gnostics were about.

As gnostic (small 'g') is the counterpoint to agnostic, I don't see any better alternatives without also dropping the word 'agnostic,' which I don't see happening. For the sake of clarity, I agree 100% with not capitalizing gnostic (or agnostic, or theist, or atheist, for that matter) as one way to differentiate between the two.

The English language is ambiguous. There are other words used in this debate that I also find myself misinterpreting based on historical context. Many atheists use the term 'rationalist,' but I personally avoid it. I identify much more with the empiricists. Most people aren't aware of the terms in a historical and philosophical perspective, so their original meanings are useless to most people today. At least we don't have any actual Gnostics running around adding to the confusion between Gnosticism and gnosticism, because the predecessors of today's Christians killed them all off.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

Wow I should of checked the site more regularly I've missed so much drama.

It is a shame the colloquial use of the word 'agnostic' has been so horribly inaccurate (partly due to Huxley's own misuse of the term who really reveals himself as a weak atheist in his writings, as are virtually every and any well-known agnostics). So many people (as a few have turned up here) think agnostic is merely someone who is unsure (on the fence) but as the picture attempts to show (apparently not clearly enough for some) you can still not know but take a position of belief. Furthermore, I suspect (but sadly lack evidence to support this) with the appropriately worded survey the majority of Australians are in fact agnostic atheists and the large number of people ticking the Christian box every census are in fact cultural Christians and nothing more.

I also find it amusing and somewhat confusing that people actually think there is a fence either way. While I acknowledge there is some scalar component to both axis in the diagram but there must come a point towards (but not at) zero where the scale stops short. How could someone neither believe or lack belief in God for example, belief or lacking belief is a true dichotomy, there is not room for a fence.

I couldn't recommend Matt Dillahunty's lecture "Belief" more if you want a really could analysis of knowledge and belief and how they interact http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-55717171…

Or the ironChariots wiki article on the whole issue (interesting read because, contrary to the picture linked here, they specify that a "gnostic atheist" is infact a stronger position than "strong atheist" because of its knowledge claim). It is also worth a read because it addresses the other argument running through this thread and the other which is really between a pragmatic or position position versus a philosophical position on the question of god's existence. http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Athe…
keleigh

so what do ya'll believe about the existence of man? how'd we get here? you don't think that God had anything to do with it…just poof we are here?

Nathan_Parsons

Abiogenesis followed by gradual evolution.

You want me to prove that I exist? To quote Descartes: I think therefore I am.
http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

"You don't think that God had anything to do with it…just poof we are here?"

I hate to tell you this, but God is the one who "poofs" things into existence. You just ridiculed your own argument.

paris apartment

Thank you so much for this cool post

eric
http://www.iphone4-free.co.uk Dyce

Yes. But if you go here http://www.iphone4-free.co.uk you can get an iPhone free from Apple themselves!

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

Theist/Atheist verses Gnostic/Agnostic

44 – An Atheist Temple

Further Reading

Dog Heads

Matt’s Human Morality

Aunt Matilda’s Cake

The perfect God

Atheism 2.0

The Bizarre Bible