Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism (lets discuss these terms)

[SomePunk]

If you disagree with religion then you are non-religious. Meaning religiosity isn’t something you take part in.

Atheism isn’t a worldview, yet it is the denial, doubt or rejection of any belief in god or the possibility that any god (could) exist. If someone doesn’t believe (whether it be in rose petals, goblins, their spouse or god) then they are an atheist. There is no room for skepticism other than some quack ideas about something they know little to nothing about, that nothing being god – if god exists, because atheist don’t know and don’t care to know and tend to follow the same old false dichotomy like many theist. This is a black and white way of thinking (example): “It’s either my way or the highway!�

Agnosticism is like a wacky conundrum that people sometimes mistake for atheism, which it is not. It is a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. A neutral position would also reject both atheism and theism and make no claims about either or, besides disagreeing with both positions, because neither one is plausible. That does not mean an agnostic does not or does believe in any god or excludes the possibility that any god exists.

Discuss!

I also posted this somewhere else (another forums) but wanted to know what people think about terms and such. You can post a definition for theism since I didn't and disagree with my definitions of agnosticism and atheism.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by SomePunk]

Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists. Thus atheism is the belief that zero deities exist. Just as in the case of theists, atheists can be more or less certain about their belief in the number of existing deity. Lack of absolute certainty about atheism does not make a particular atheist less of an atheist any more than a certain level of doubt makes a particular theist less of a theist.

Agnosticism, contrary to the popular notion is not a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. An agnostic may even believe that there are zero, one, three or several deities, but will not claim to know this.

[Angel]

If you disagree with religion then you are non-religious. Meaning religiosity isn’t something you take part in.

Atheism isn’t a worldview, yet it is the denial, doubt or rejection of any belief in god or the possibility that any god (could) exist. If someone doesn’t believe (whether it be in rose petals, goblins, their spouse or god) then they are an atheist. There is no room for skepticism other than some quack ideas about something they know little to nothing about, that nothing being god – if god exists, because atheist don’t know and don’t care to know and tend to follow the same old false dichotomy like many theist. This is a black and white way of thinking (example): “It’s either my way or the highway!�

Agnosticism is like a wacky conundrum that people sometimes mistake for atheism, which it is not. It is a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. A neutral position would also reject both atheism and theism and make no claims about either or, besides disagreeing with both positions, because neither one is plausible. That does not mean an agnostic does not or does believe in any god or excludes the possibility that any god exists.

Discuss!

I also posted this somewhere else (another forums) but wanted to know what people think about terms and such. You can post a definition for theism since I didn't and disagree with my definitions of agnosticism and atheism.

In some cases, agnosticism is a middle ground to atheism and theism, like when people in those positions believe and behave like gnostics. Now if you're not referring to gnostic atheism and gnostic theism then agnosticism is not a middle ground, but just simply an alternative SOME times and other times describes a type of atheist or theist. A middle ground to not believing that God exists and believing that God exists would be to have 'no belief' but that spot is already taken up by the definition of atheism.

If you want to consider agnosticism as a non-middle ground alternative to atheism and theism then I believe that's valid. I had a lengthy discussion with Fuzzy Dunlop about this point on another thread by referencing how how the mind comes to accept something and how that's not always binary. I discussed that in thread called, atheists or agnostics from page 2 to page 5.

[ProphetSHSU]

If you disagree with religion then you are non-religious. Meaning religiosity isn’t something you take part in.

Atheism isn’t a worldview, yet it is the denial, doubt or rejection of any belief in god or the possibility that any god (could) exist. If someone doesn’t believe (whether it be in rose petals, goblins, their spouse or god) then they are an atheist. There is no room for skepticism other than some quack ideas about something they know little to nothing about, that nothing being god – if god exists, because atheist don’t know and don’t care to know and tend to follow the same old false dichotomy like many theist. This is a black and white way of thinking (example): “It’s either my way or the highway!�

Agnosticism is like a wacky conundrum that people sometimes mistake for atheism, which it is not. It is a position of neutrality between atheism and theism. A neutral position would also reject both atheism and theism and make no claims about either or, besides disagreeing with both positions, because neither one is plausible. That does not mean an agnostic does not or does believe in any god or excludes the possibility that any god exists.

Discuss!

I also posted this somewhere else (another forums) but wanted to know what people think about terms and such. You can post a definition for theism since I didn't and disagree with my definitions of agnosticism and atheism.

Your definitions of both Atheism and Agnosticism are wrong as McCulloch pointed out. Theism/Atheism are positions taken with respect to belief in a deity. Gnosticism/Agnosticism are positions taken with respect to knowledge. These positions aren't mutually exclusive. And also knowledge is a subset of belief (i.e. there are things I believe that I don't *know*, but there's nothing I *know* that I don't also believe).

So in summary:
Gnostic Theist - I *know* there's a deity, no faith required.
Agnostic Theist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, but I believe there is
Agnostic Atheist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, and I don't believe there is one
Gnostic Atheist - I *know* there is no deity.

Some folks would also go so far as to say that you hold one of these position with respect to any given god claim. So you may be an agnostic theist with respect to Jehovah, while at the same time be an agnostic atheist with respect to Zeus.

You can read quite a bit more at http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... ._agnostic

[Talishi]

Gnostic Theist - I *know* there's a deity, no faith required.
Agnostic Theist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, but I believe there is
Agnostic Atheist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, and I don't believe there is one
Gnostic Atheist - I *know* there is no deity.

I don't fall into any one of those four groups. I say the very concept of an almighty god is currently incoherent, and so knowing or not knowing whether it exists is moot. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for theists to lay out a formal definition of their god so it can be evaluated for self-contradictions.

[wiploc]

Gnostic Theist - I *know* there's a deity, no faith required.
Agnostic Theist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, but I believe there is
Agnostic Atheist - I don't *know* if there's a deity, and I don't believe there is one
Gnostic Atheist - I *know* there is no deity.

I don't fall into any one of those four groups. I say the very concept of an almighty god is currently incoherent, and so knowing or not knowing whether it exists is moot. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for theists to lay out a formal definition of their god so it can be evaluated for self-contradictions.

If you believe that one or more gods exist, then you are a theist.
Otherwise, you are an atheist.

If you know (or think you know) whether gods exist, then you are gnostic.
Otherwise you are agnostic.

So the categories are exhaustive; it isn't possible to not fit in one.

Admittedly, the "I don't believe" language of Prophet's post is ambiguous, but if you read it as literal rather than as figurative (specifically as litotes) then you do fit into exactly one of the categories.

[Divine Insight]

I don't fall into any one of those four groups. I say the very concept of an almighty god is currently incoherent, and so knowing or not knowing whether it exists is moot. Meanwhile, I'm waiting for theists to lay out a formal definition of their god so it can be evaluated for self-contradictions.

I'm pretty sure the Abrahamic theists did lay out a formal definition of their Gods with plenty of material to evaluate for self-contradictions. (i.e. The Torah, the Bible, the Gospels, and the Qur'an).

I have evaluated all of those formal definitions and found them all to be extremely self-contradictory to the point where I have concluded they cannot possibly be true (as written).

On the other hand, I have found Eastern Mystical pictures of Gods that I cannot find any self-contradictions in. Of course, this doesn't mean that those pictures are true, it simply means that I can't dismiss them on the grounds that they are self-contradictory.

[Divine Insight]

If you believe that one or more gods exist, then you are a theist.
Otherwise, you are an atheist.

What if you believe that a particular picture of a God might be true, or even if you believe that there is a very good possibility that it could be true? What if emotionally you are even compelled to emotionally believe that it is very likely to be true?

Are you still an "atheist" at that point just because you don't claim to KNOW that it's true with absolute certainty?

I would prefer to call myself "agnostic" at that point which means that I can't know for sure one way or the other.

If you know (or think you know) whether gods exist, then you are gnostic.
Otherwise you are agnostic.

So the categories are exhaustive; it isn't possible to not fit in one.

But does this need to be absolute?

I claim to be gnostic in terms of the Abrahamic religions. I know they can't be true as written. So in with respect to the Abrahamic religions I am a "Gnostic Atheist". I know that description of God cannot be true (as written).

But that certainly doesn't make me a gnostic atheist with respect to all possible concepts of a mystical reality.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 5 by Talishi]

The view you describe can be called theological non-cognitivism or ignosticism. Ignosticism, like atheism and agnosticism, come in strong and weak varieties. Weak ignosticism says essentially that we cannot meaningfully discuss the existence of God or gods, until we first have a coherent definition of what we mean when we use the word God. And that the definition has to come from someone who is making a positive claim about God.
Strong ignosticism takes it a step further and claims that all definitions of God currently in use are either simplistic and easily refuted or incoherent beyond comprehension.

Some argue that ignostics, particularly strong ones, are atheists as well. After all, how can we be said to believe in something we consider incoherent?

[McCulloch]

If you believe that one or more gods exist, then you are a theist.
Otherwise, you are an atheist.

If you know (or think you know) whether gods exist, then you are gnostic.
Otherwise you are agnostic.

So the categories are exhaustive; it isn't possible to not fit in one.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? To an ignostic, the question itself is to be challenged. If we honestly don't know what is meant by the term God, then we don't fit into any of these categories, regardless of your claim that they are exhaustive.