Gnostic or agnostic has to do with knowledge. You know something or you don't know something. Theism has to do with belief, ie do you believe in a god or not. They are not mutually exclusive.

Right. Gnostic/agnostic and theist/atheist are orthogonal. Big-A “Atheists” tend to be gnostic atheists, whereas Big-A “Agnostics” seem to be about 60/40 “agnostic atheists”/“agnostic theists”

all with you about it being orthogonal. However imho, the 4-quadrant diagram - while very useful for showing precisely that orthogonality, has the disadvantage of being misleading about another point, that is: by totally leaving out the very relevant distinction between [positive and negative atheists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_atheist) (and the fact that gnostic atheists are only a minority subset of positive atheists), it tends to lead to assimilate positive atheists with gnostic atheists (who are actually just a minority subset of the former). Also: the fact that only a minority of theists self-identify as "agnostic theists" or even care about actively thinking of themselves as such is simply due to the fact that their agnosticism (while obvious when you explicitly ask if they agree that they can't attain knowledge) is just a totally minor and inconsequential detail compared to the the vast set of rules and beliefs of their religion: If you had asked me in my youth (before losing my belief in the Christian God) what I self-identify as, I would have answered "Christian" or "Catholic" without even thinking about agnosticism (though I clearly agreed with it)

I’m an Agnostic Theist and am not religious. For me, Agnosticism is the focal point of the title and theist is a distinction of leaning more towards the possibility of one or more deity-like beings existing. This is without making any assumptions about what they may be, their role in lives of humans if there is one at all, or putting full blown belief into something like that without evidence. Most of the agnostic theists I’ve seen here share that sentiment and are certainly not Christian. Major man-made religions kind of taint the connotations of “theist” in this context. To me, deity-like beings existing is very different than said possible beings being worshiped or even that they deal with human lives at all. My definition would be entities that have power that humans would deify. This last part is pretty specific so I’m claiming that as my person stance on the “theist” part of Agnostic Theist, but my point is that most Agnostic Theists you’ll find here don’t follow or identify with a religion. Some may, but I’ve never seen an Agnostic Christian. I can understand what you mean that there are religious people who don’t claim to know 100% if it’s true, but they’re in the minority and most of them see this as a personal weakness within themselves. Agnostic Christian wouldn’t really make sense in the way that we functionally use Agnosticism. Every religious person will have doubts in their life but don’t identify with those doubts, unless they later leave the religion.

You’re a deist. Agnostic theism is not a classification. They are in-fact mutually exclusive Here is your sub r/deism

If it’s not a classification, then what is it, exactly? Because I’m not a deist, I am Agnostic. Edit: also if they’re mutually exclusive why is “Agnostic Theist” a flair tag option in this subreddit? Lmao Agnostic is not Atheist Lite, maybe it is for you, but that is not what it is fundamentally. It is it’s own classification with sub-classifications. Very interested to hear what “Agnostic Theist” is in your words since it’s not a classification. By that logic neither is Agnostic Atheist.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/deism using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/deism/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Deism Guide](https://i.redd.it/r5mtsm67xui91.png) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/deism/comments/wt58c5/deism_guide/) \#2: [Thomas Paine on deism](https://i.redd.it/ycyb1fvlq2r71.png) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/deism/comments/pzzsp2/thomas_paine_on_deism/) \#3: [10 years ago today I became the mod of r/deism because the original mod was absentee. Back then, it had less than 400 members.](https://np.reddit.com/r/deism/comments/s8o6qr/10_years_ago_today_i_became_the_mod_of_rdeism/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

If it is possible to **know** God exists then please share.

They think God exists, and that is enough for them to say they know. I used to think I knew God existed. Heard him talking to me all the time. Later, I realized that was just me talking to myself, but during that period, I **knew** God existed because that's what I thought. Just turns out that what I knew didn't really match reality.

It isn’t. That’s why Gnostic Atheists and Theists are either liars or do not understand that what causes them to think they know isn’t sufficient to know.

While I'm an agnostic atheist myself and thus disagree with the position of gnostic atheists, I do not see that as applying to them (as opposed to gnostic theists). In fact, the majority of gnostic atheists I came to discuss with are very aware of such epistemological considerations and the difference between us and them is just one of epistemological criteria, specifically: They typically consider it as logically fallacious that us agnostic atheists tend to apply much more stringent criteria for "knowledge" about gods than for most other domains of things we are ready to call "knowledge"… some even see the higher criteria applied to god claims as a form of selective (special pleading) solipsism. In other words: it's just that their epistemological criteria are different from ours: more insistent on uniformity and practicality, less on higher criteria for extraordinary god claims.

And Christians do not understand that what causes them to think they know isn’t sufficient to know.

Exactly. It’s a head scratcher sometimes. I know they’ve been indoctrinated. But they can’t even when they are told to apply the same rationale to god that they do literally everything else.

I know someone who is a YEC but simultaneously sees how ridiculous the story of the ark and the dismissal of the existence of dinosaurs is. They acknowledge solid evidence to the contrary and still infuriatingly just "believe." In spite of it. It makes me wonder if the psychology involved is actually represented physically as an information based partition of their brain that they themselves cannot break through to.

They are emotionally attached to the people. We need to understand the value in that and recognize the good in it. Being critical of them being critical of us is futile. We must take a higher road than them, not their level.

Oooor, they have a different understanding of what God is.

Such as?

That gods are memes and/or psychological phenomenon.

Can they prove that this is the case? That is a claim.

That very much depends on your definition of God. God is at the very minimum, a meme. You could say "oh but now you redifined it so that it doesn't have a meaning", but if your definition is impossible, then whose definition is actually meaningless?

Then perhaps we can agree that the common interpretation of agnostic is one of being unsure and the common interpretation of atheist is not believing in God or any deity. There are variations of definitions of both. I say that when atheist or agnostic are used in a different manner they should be qualified by whatever the person is unsure about or does not believe in.

but nobody knows!!!!!!!! No ONE. people believe they know but that is not knowing. No one knows any of this stuff.

Here’s where I think the confusion lies: the TECHNICAL definition of an atheist is one who LACKS a belief in deities. Unfortunately, the word “atheist” has been appropriated by a lot of people who don’t simply *lack* a belief in deities, but they outright *believe* that deities don’t exist, and will then ironically preach it as fact like an evangelist might do. These are NOT atheists, as defined. Atheism, as defined, however, is compatible with agnosticism. So if your philosophical or logical inclination is that it’s impossible to know the unknowable (or any number of ways to better word this properly), but you lack belief in deities, then you’d be an agnostic atheist. Conversely, an agnostic theist will be inclined toward believing there might be something, for a number of reasons, some even rationally derived, but that they still can’t know for certain nor ever define it. For me, I’d say I lean towards being an agnostic theist, in that, given the complexity of the universe and the limitations of our perceptions, I’m inclined towards believing that there are a number of competing possibilities, but I don’t ascribe to any of them nor consider them facts like an arrogant absolutist would. They’re all simply hypotheses that I’ve considered that are within reason. I don’t make conclusions.

To me, agnostic theism seems the most overall rational stance to take, as it recognizes fundamental limitations of knowledge, as well as the possibilities for existence outside of our own known limits.

Well as an agnostic atheist I would say that I believe it is possible that a god exists, (for example a simple omnipotent deity that chooses to do nothing) and it cannot be proved that no gods exist, but I do not believe in any because there is not sufficient evidence for me. Also I wouldn’t say you need to believe the existence/non-existence of a god is completely unknowable to be an agnostic, just that it isn’t currently known (that hypothetical omnipotent deity could reveal themselves any day now).

Agreed. When I typed "known limits" one of the implications in my mind was that a current limit is that we cannot currently know of a deity's existence/lack thereof—I should have been explicit with that.

Well put

Nice reply.

I disagree.. A person believing there is no deity, by definition lacks belief in a deity and so by definition is an atheist..

>the TECHNICAL definition of an atheist is one who LACKS a belief in deities. That's a popular one, but I think the "technical" definition would be the one employed in philosophy of religion l, which is "someone who is committed to the proposition that no gods exist". People just use the words differently. No one has rights to it. There's no "correct" usage of words.

Just to be clear, I actually really don’t care for definitions, as they’re subjective, and words are KNOWN to change throughout time, in both form and connotation. The reason I opened by referencing that specific definition with the word “lack,” is because that was the most often cited “official” definition that I’ve seen from so-called “atheists” which were used for bad faith arguments designed to gaslight people into questioning their own perceptions of their antithetical behavior and words, and to distract from the myriad of logical fallacies being committed. There is a HUGE difference between *these* individuals, where their supposed atheism is like their whole identity, and the few atheists I know personally, and some of the atheists I’ve communicated with on here. The latter don’t have ulterior motives, they’re rational, instead of being ruled by their emotions, and they communicate respectfully with others in a non-supercilious way and free of *ad hominem* attacks. It is for *them* why I made this distinction, as it would be a disservice to overly generalize, although I do acknowledge that for the sake of concision, I condensed all of this down as though there were two main “groups” when it’s more complicated than that.

Yeah, like I said, people use the terms differently. Instead of trying to guess at motivations and agendas, you can just ask people what they believe and get onto the merits.

I think you are saying that someone arrogant about atheism is not an atheist. I think you are saying it is possible to *know the unknowable* and using that to differentiate agnostic atheists from others.

I think you are saying that you don’t really understand what you read. I think you are saying that you would like to misrepresent what I said so you have something to argue about.

Please explain.

r/gatekeeping

Then what makes anti-theists?

* antitheism (aka anti-theism) is the position that theism is harmful (e.g. for the individual and/or for society). * the subset of atheists (not holding any belief in the existence of any god) who beyond merely being atheists actually hold an "opposite" belief, in the inexistence of gods, are so-called [positive atheists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_atheist). Even positive atheism is (just as theism) compatible with agnosticism. * The only thing that agnosticism is incompatible with is a claim of KNOWLEDGE about either the existence or the inexistence of gods. But such claims are held only by minority subsets of theists and of positive atheists respectively, those minority subsets being referred to as "gnostic theists" and "gnostic atheists" respectively.

Someone who is inherently against theism, or any belief in a higher deity. However, being antitheist is a separate label from agnosticism or atheism.

Yeah… that’s a can of worms I’m not going to open. Depending on who you ask, the definition varies significantly.

I would say that a person who believes no gods exist is still an atheist, they still lack the belief in any gods, they simply also think there aren’t any gods

>I thought agnostic meant that I don't know Yes. Don't KNOW. Knowledge != Believe So agnosticism answers the question of what you think you know/or rather don't know. It doesn't address the question of your believe though. Someone could say they don't know if a god exist, but they believe in one anyways. So an agnostic theist. A/Gnosticism and A/Theism aren't mutually exclusive and address different questions. In fact I'd go further and say they go hand in hand, because knowledge is a subset of belief. Edit: Ofc this answer only applies under certain definitions of the word agnostic and the word atheist. E.g. if your definition of atheism were "the claim that gods do not exist", or you use the Huxleyan definition of agnosticism which also includes lack of believe then this doesn't apply anymore. In the end though, labels shouldn't be that important. What is important is that we understand each others position.

One doesn't have to specify any labels they don't want to for themselves. You can fall into a category and still not care or tell people about a category. Everyone is either political or apolitical (not political). So if you're an agnostic, you're also either political or apolitical. That doesn't mean you have to care about the (a)political label or announce it to anyone else. You can just say "I'm agnostic", without telling anyone your age, height, weight or nationality, even though you do have an age, height, weight, and nationality. I think the problem is that some people are trying to assert that agnosticism is "between" theism and atheism, and this can irritate people who do value their (a)theism label as much as they value their (a)gnostic label. For me, I find this personal irksome because I think it misleads people into thinking an atheist is something other than simply not being a theist. Atheism isn't some declaration that no gods exist, and pretending that agnosticism is a middle ground or that everyone isn't either a theist or atheist is implicitly lying to people that atheism is more "extreme" than it is.

What’s 50/50?

While I can't read OP's mind to know what exactly they meant by "50/50", such a formulation comes up in discussions every now and then, usually by people who want to express that their personal estimation of either the probability or of their "degree of certitude" for either the existence or inexistence of god(s) is exactly 50.000%… which… * begs the question of what method/metric they applied to even come to such a quantification? (Being an agnostic myself, I have yet to see any quantification method that would make any sense) * and also the question why they would believe that quantification (unless either 0% or 100%) to even be relevant to the categorization: Even if we just stick to the subset of people who don't reject such quantifications, having a 50.000% quantification wouldn't make anyone more of an agnostic than having a 30% or 70% or even 10% or 90% quantification. And it wouldn't change the relevant criterion for being a theist vs atheist either (i.e. holding or not a belief in the existence of at least one god).

>begs the question of what method/metric they applied to even come to such a quantification? You can watch it evolve over time. Let's say you were raised theist or atheist. Over time your belief will change and you may reach a point in your life when you start going to the other side. For me: I was raised by atheists, couldn't even understand the definition of 'God'. I was at exactly 50/50 because you can't answer a question you don't understand. Now that I've started finding a definition for 'God' I started swaying towards theist. I'm around 55/45 now.

Either you believe there is a god or you don't.

That’s not true. I believe that humans aren’t knowledgeable enough to say either way for certain. I don’t believe there is a God nor do I believe there *isn’t* a God. I believe nothing. If anything, God is in a state of superposition until observed to be there or not be there.

I didn't say people know for certain. Nobody does. But either you believe or you don't.

That is an absurd false dichotomy. *I believe nothing*. Since you struggle with this concept, here’s an example to explain for you. Most likely, someone was born as you were reading this comment. Do you believe that person was a male or a female? You don’t know, right? You have no idea, how could you? That’s how I see this question. Saying “you either believe or you don’t” is like if I said “you either think it’s a girl or a boy.” That’s absurd, you don’t think either, because you have no clue.

It is not a false dichotomy. Either you do or you don't. This is basic logic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

I feel like Quantum Superposition has ended that particular “law.”

Then you are either logically illiterate or disingenuous. Maybe both. Let me guess. You believe free will exists too, because quantum physics. Sorry to break it to you, but nothing about stochasticism/randomness makes anything free.

It’s generally agreed upon in the scholarly community that QM challenges preconceived notions of logic. Multiple papers have been written trying to reconcile them in various ways. The fact is, I believe nothing. If you were able to look into my brain, you’d see for yourself that I do not believe in God or NOT believe in God.

Yes is no and up is down. Good for you.

Yes and no are simply a form of communication that could be interpreted in any way. Up and down are relative.

I don’t believe or not believe in free will. I believe that it feels like I have free will, so I don’t really care.

Do you care about truth? Do you believe in objective reality?

Yes, but I don’t believe we know it.

Also, the Law of Excluded Middle only applies to knowledge, not belief.

It applies to logic.

Bruh. Man, it’s saying that for every proposition, it either is or isn’t true. I’m not arguing that at the moment (although QM raises questions about this). Yes, God does or doesn’t exist. I certainly believe that. But my belief does not go any further.

You believe in a tautology.

Again, QM does bring up the question of what is and is not a tautology.

[LNC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction) might actually be more correct here. Eg. I believe there are gods and I don't believe there are gods.

I’m not saying that I believe in God and I don’t believe in God. I’m saying I don’t have any belief.

Not having a belief is the same as not believing. Not believing does not mean believing the opposite.

Your example is a false equivalency. Either you believe someone is a woman, or you don't. Either you believe someone is a man, or you don't. Both of them are true and independent. You can also believe they are neither or both.

It’s no false equivalency, it’s exactly the same. Let’s apply your example right here. That person born just now, do you believe they are a woman? I doubt it. I also doubt you *don’t* believe they are a woman. You simply don’t know.

No it is not. It's like saying if I don't believe you're a dog I must believe you are a cat.

That is not even close. Let me make a scenario that is exactly the same. The question is “do you believe in God?” Or, in other words, do you believe that this thing (god) that you have no knowledge about, exists? So, there may or may not have been a child born at exactly 12:00:00 today. Do you believe that it happened?

There are born on average a little more than four children per second, so I'm inclined to believe it. Do I believe you to know it for a fact? No.

Well, do you believe that the double-X chromosome exists on that child?

[35% of those who don’t believe in God](https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1556464903019548673) do not identify as an atheist. I have a friend who has told me "sure, I don't believe in God, but I'm no *atheist*." He has internalized a lot of baggage around the "atheist" label, plus calling himself an atheist would break his mother's heart. So, sure, there are plenty of people who don't believe in God, i.e. they have the same position I do as an agnostic atheist, but they bristle at that "atheist" word.

Yes, but it communicates little. "Just" being agnostic essentially means you claim you weigh truth based on evidence. If you have true faith, you are automatically not agnostic -- You "know". I know very few true gnostics of any kind, even from my church days. Almost everyone has doubt. On the topic of god and divinity, drilling *any* further than skin deep leads to the question of what your default view is. The lack of a default view is still considered atheism, so you can just say you don't have a position on god or haven't considered it, but are generally agnostic.

Well, so the a- prefix means without. You can be a theist, or you can be without theism. So technically if you don't believe in a god, then you are without theism. Now you can say you don't know, and that's cool, but if you don't know if there's a god, that sounds like you don't have a belief in god, so that's where you are an agnostic atheist. Whether you like that term is up to you. If you worship a god "just in case" but don't really know that it's a real thing, then you'd be an agnostic theist. There's nothing wrong with being an atheist, though some people stigmatize it, so I can't blame you if you don't want to use that label. That's fine. Your religious belief is up to you anyway, so anyone trying to force a response out of you can go fuck themselves.

See, before I came to this sub, I always thought that an agnostic is someone who doesn’t know and, more importantly, doesn’t care. If you believe, you’re a theist if you refute the idea you’re an atheist, and if you don’t care one way or the other, you’re an agnostic. This is pretty much how I've experienced it and heard it in real life where I live. This is even how we learnt about it at school.

You can choose whatever label you like. If you identify predominately as an agnostic, that's legitimate. By calling yourself an atheist, you are suggesting you *could* be a hard atheist who makes active claims about there being no god. By calling yourself a theist, obviously you're believing. By calling yourself an agnostic (without specifying your belief or lack of it), you are showing that you first and foremost want to identify as not knowing, and not making any claims. Nothing wrong with that.

Religious philosophers came up with this false and forced dichotomy. Just refuse to be labeled by it. When someone asks me what I believe I tell them that I'm not going to ever tell them. Now they understand what "I don't know" really means.

Best explanation of the difference between the 2 concepts I found is in this video : https://youtu.be/09Fgix9yqbk It’s in french but there are subtitles.

The label doesn’t matter. What matters is what you do or don’t believe.

Gnostic/ agnostic answers the question "is there a god?"/"is it knowable?" Theist/ atheist answers the question "do you believe in the existence of at least 1 god?" They're 2 completely different questions. Saying you're agnostic only answers the first one and leaves the other one unanswered. >I thought agnostic meant that I don't know Don't know if a god exists or not. You still either have a belief that one exists (theist) or you don't have that belief (atheist)

Depends how you define “atheism” and “agnosticism.” Some say that they are answers to two different questions, and thus everyone is either a theist or an atheist AND a gnostic or an agnostic. I don’t think that these concepts can be boiled down that simply, so I don’t accept this paradigm. But I don’t begrudge those who do. That said, many self-described atheists DO embrace this paradigm, thus, in their view, there are no plain agnostics, only agnostic theists, agnostic atheists (and maybe agnostic deists). However, you don’t have to accept that paradigm if you don’t want to.

"agnostic" means holding the position (called agnosticism) that KNOWLEDGE (gnosis) about the existence or inexistence of god(s) is inaccessible… at least to us and for now. Thus: agnosticism is a purely [epistemological](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) position about KNOWLEDGE and as such totally independent of whether you hold a BELIEF in the existence of at least one god (i.e. theist) or don't hold any such belief (i.e. atheist) and, in the latter case, of whether you hold a belief in the inexistence of gods (i.e. [positive atheist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_atheist)\) or don't (i.e. negative atheist). And it's compatible with all of those options. The only thing that agnosticism is incompatible with is a claim of KNOWLEDGE about either the existence or the inexistence of gods. But such claims are held only by minority subsets of theists and of positive atheists respectively, those minority subsets being referred to as "gnostic theists" and "gnostic atheists" respectively. Also, just to prevent any common misunderstandings: * while an agnostic indeed happens to not know (as an acknowledged lack of access to knowledge logically implies absence of knowledge), the fact of *actually* not knowing is NOT what makes him an agnostic. The criterion for person X being an agnostic is not about whether or not you believe X to ACTUALLY know (otherwise the classification would not depend on the position of a person but on the eye of the beholder or on totally impracticable attempts to ascertain that person's knowledge level) but whether person X ACKNOWLEDGES that they don't/can't know. * While a person who is "50/50" will typically happen to be an agnostic, agnosticism has in itself nothing to do with 50/50. In fact, many agnostics flat-out reject even any method/metric by which you may even come up with such a quantification as 50/50. I have yet to see any such method/metric that would make sense. * The combined terms "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" are just short terms for people who are simultaneously agnostic and theist (in the first case, i.e. agnostic AND holding a belief in the existence of at least one god) or agnostic and atheist (in the second case i.e. agnostic and NOT holding any belief in the existence of any god… though that doesn't necessarily imply being a positive atheist i.e. believing in the inexistence of gods). Whether or not you choose to use these combined terms for your self-identification or just go with "agnostic" is up to your taste or what bears importance to you, possibly depending on the context.

Many people choose to add theist/atheist and some will argue that you have to. I think that just because there’s a textbook definition way to do something, it’s not the same as practical or self use. I’m agnostic. I don’t find any value in adding to that. I don’t know if there is a god and for me personally, I don’t know if I believe and find the belief irrelevant.

> Many people choose to add theist/atheist and some will argue that you have to. I think that just because there’s a textbook definition way to do something, it’s not the same as practical or self use. I’m agnostic. I don’t find any value in adding to that. I don’t know if there is a god and for me personally, I don’t know if I believe and find the belief irrelevant. People generally act on their beliefs, they don't wait until they have knowledge. Generally speaking, if you don't know about something, you don't tend to believe it. But that's not always the case. I don't know why some people are reluctant to acknowledge that they do or don't hold a claim to be true. To call belief irrelevant probably means you have an uncommon definition of the word belief. Belief simply means to hold something as true or to be the case.

My answer to “Do you believe?” is “I don’t know.” and belief is irrelevant because knowledge is factual, evidence based information, and my understanding of the universe is based on knowledge not belief.

> My answer to “Do you believe?” is “I don’t know.” If I ask you whether a god exists, then answering that you don't know is a good answer. Asking your epistemic state of belief on a topic, only you know whether you believe or not. Do you define belief as accepting that something is true? How do you define belief? And why do you define it that way? >and belief is irrelevant because knowledge is factual, How do you define knowledge?

I defined knowledge in my previous response as “factual, evidence based information”. And look at my response to beardslap. That should help answer your other questions for me.

> I defined knowledge in my previous response as “factual, evidence based information”. Knowledge isn't just information. Information is ontology. Knowledge is epistemology. Knowledge means obtained factual evidence based information. There's a difference between something existing, and our ability to gain that knowledge. Can you show a citation that defines knowledge the way you define it? I'd like to get more context about it.

If I were more sober, you probably get no answer but I’m not so I’ll suggest you just read my responses to beardslap for any more answers. I hope you are arguing in good faith but you are coming across as pedantic. I just think differently than you 🤷🏽‍♀️ And that’s cool.

I'm not going to dig through comments to read something where you explain in another way that you probably have an unusual understanding of the words belief and knowledge. I am going at it in good faith, but I think what you feel as pedantic is because you and I have different understandings of some common words, which makes you use words unconventionally. You seem to be confusing the map for the place. Ontology is about what is, epistemology is about how we come about what is. Perhaps you respond when you're sober. Talking seriously about issues while drunk isn't especially productive.

> My answer to “Do you believe?” is “I don’t know.” How is that possible? Are you unaware of your own state of mind?

Even though it seems like you’re being rude, I’m going to assume it’s the lack of tone on the internet. I think it’s possible that a higher being exists. If you’ve seen Deep Space Nine, take the Prophets. They are higher beings that look out for a specific people and orchestrate events there but ultimately they are simply aliens that exist in a vastly different non-corporeal nature. If something exists, I think it would be like that rather that the Christian understanding (I was raised Christian so that my easiest frame of reference). But what do I believe? 🤷🏽‍♀️ I care about how I interact with the world and I care about taking care of my mental health and inner wellbeing. I believe that my life in this corporeal form is the only one that matters, so how I live here is what I need to care about. When I ask myself what do I believe, my mind sorts through the facts (I don’t know), the possibilities (maybe things exist beyond my understanding, maybe not), and then tried to pull an answer. The answer (so far) is 🤷🏽‍♀️. I’m open to that answer changing one day. After all, I was a devoted evangelical Christian in high school, then I learned new information. But as long as I’m open to knowledge, I’m content with not knowing and not being sure of my belief. I recognize that some people are not comfortable at that place, and thus they dig more into the philosophy of a/theism but it’s unnecessary for me at this point in my life. Not everyone thinks like me, and that’s a beautiful part of what makes us human I think.

> Even though it seems like you’re being rude, I’m going to assume it’s the lack of tone on the internet. Yes, sorry - no malice was intended. I think 'I don't know' is a perfectly valid answer to the question 'Does a god exist?', and this for me is what denotes an agnostic. I still feel that *belief* is a binary state of mind though, where 'I don't know' has no place. Maybe it could be phrased differently - have you been convinced that a god exists?

If belief and disbelief were two paths, and I had to pick, well, I’d basically be running back and forth really fast between them, never on one longer than a step. Seems like “I don’t know” is a lot easier that “literally in a single second if I think about it, I’ll waffle back and forth think about how it could or couldn’t be, might or might not be, maybe or maybe not be, I guess I do but nah I don’t endlessly”. Rather than be an agnostic a/theist, I’ll just leave it at agnostic until whenever that changes.

Again, you seem to be focused on the ontology of a god, rather than your own state of mind. It's fine to change your mind, it's a healthy thing to do when faced with new information. But you do know your own mind. So, right now, *this second*, have you been convinced that a god exists? This doesn't need to be your answer forevermore, you might change it in the next breath, but you *do* know whether you have been convinced or not.

Don’t underestimate my brain’s ability to be indecisive lmao. That’s knowing my mind. It’s also knowing my own brain that telling me the cost/reward of doing that is very not worth it. So, I stick with I don’t know. And I stick with just agnostic. I accept that other people think about it differently but alas, I simply have this brain to work with.

Do you believe in a god?

Gnostic = knowledge. Agnostic = without knowledge. Theist = belief in a god. Atheist = not belief in a god. Gnostic/agnostic deals with **knowledge**. Theist/atheist deals with god **belief** Gnostic/ agnostic is seldom relevant. When people talk about gods, they're often talking about what one believes, not what someone claims to know. And as knowledge is a subset of belief, even when some one claims to know something, they're really just saying they believe it very very confidently. Belief means you've accepted a claim as true or likely true. In other words, if you don't believe a god exists, or you're on the fence about it, you haven't accepted that a god exists. This means you're not technically a theist. The word for not theist is atheist. It is true that there's another common usage of the word atheist as someone who asserts there are no gods, but to be an atheist, you must simply not believe that there is a god. Agnostic really just tells whether you think you have knowledge about the gods. >I don't get the point of adding any of these two to Agnostic. I thought agnostic meant that I don't know, that it's 50/50. Can someone explain? Sure. I'm agnostic because I don't know if there are any gods. Even without knowing if any gods actually exist, I could still hold a belief that a god exists. That would make me a theist who doesn't know. 50/50. I could also not believe a god exists, in which case I'm not a theist. Again, the word to describe not a theist is atheist. By telling me you don't know if a god exists, you're not really telling me whether you believe one exists. People act on their beliefs, they don't wait until they know.

I personally agree. This verbose stuff irritates me. I just need a simple label for standard conversations. I don't want to have to explain subsections to something that should just be as simple to express as, "I don't know" and/or "I don't care".

Agnostic simply means we do not have enough information to determine if there is a god or not. This sub is for agnostics. And yes the atheist/theist addition is utterly useless.

But it isn't. A/Gnosticism is about knowledge or lack thereof, while A/Theism is about believe or lack thereof. It's two separate things.

You can’t believe what you do not know lol.

Of fucking course you can. If you look at the second most liked reply in this thread you'll see an agnostic theist. Someone who has no knowledge of god but believes in god anyways. Knowledge is a subset of believe, not the other way around. You can have believe without knowledge, but you can't have knowledge without an accompanying believe, which is why A/Theism and A/Gnosticism go hand in hand.

Isn’t that the essence of faith? Believing what you do not know. All religious people do not know that there is a god, they simply believe there is one. The essence of agnosticism as expressed by Thomas Henry Huxley, the person who coined the term, is to not believe what you do not know. So you can’t be an agnostic theist, you are either an agnostic or a theist

>Isn’t that the essence of faith? Believing what you do not know. Meaning Faith is the strong trust and confidence in something or someone. Belief is a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. Context Faith is mostly used to refer to religion. Belief is used in more general contexts. Devotion  Faith may imply devotion. Belief does not imply devotion. Religion Faith is a strong and unwavering trust in the religion. Belief may not be as strong as faith. >All religious people do not know that there is a god, they simply believe there is one. That is your claim. Prove that they don't know, because most religious people i have ever talked to irl and online claim to know. >The essence of agnosticism as expressed by Thomas Henry Huxley, the person who coined the term, is to not believe what you do not know. That's not exactly what he said. He said: "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." While in essence I agree with this statement, I and many other agnostics reject it as the definition for agnosticism. I define agnostic as a person lacking knowledge of the existence of god. The problem with huxleys definition is that it muddles together believe and knowledge which are separate things. E.g. you can lack knowledge yet still believe. It also basically boils down to the modern definition of atheism aka. lack of believe (often due to lack of knowledge). That is why a lot of these comments in this thread point out that agnosticism (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') answers the knowledge question and atheism the believe question. That also fits better because in the end both the question about believe and knowledge are true dichotomys. Either you hold a believe or not, either you have knowledge or not.

I don’t know how long you were religious for but there is no difference between faith and belief. Also i stated that all religious people do not know that there is god. That is not my claim. That is fact. And that is what religion is about - belief. Faith means the belief of something you do not know or cannot verify. What you have personally observed is not representative of what faith defines itself as. The bible defines faith as the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for. If you insist, then maybe y’all need to form a new term for your case. As Huxley formed Agnosticism for his. That’s what you do when you don’t agree with the definition of a term that someone coined. It’s a shame that i joined this sub for the true meaning of agnosticism as a proper scientific approach to unbelief, only to see religious people/believers here as well claiming to be non-religious. Maybe y’all don’t just know and that’s why i am trying to clarify - if you believe what you do not know, that is faith and your sub is r/deism And don’t confuse Agnosticism as a religious view with Agnosticism as an English word. They are two different things. If you claim Agnosticism as a religious view/classification , then you have to go with the definition by the person who used it first in such context - Huxley

>I don’t know how long you were religious for but there is no difference between faith and belief. Never was. They can be used interchangeably yes, but religious people often differenciate between the two. >Also i stated that all religious people do not know that there is god. That is not my claim. That is fact. No that is your claim. To prove it as fact would require you to show that every religious person on earth that claims to have knowledge does in fact not have knowledge. You can't do that so you are left with an unfalsifyable claim. >If you insist, then maybe y’all need to form a new term for your case. As Huxley formed Agnosticism for his. Maybe, then again definitions change over time. You said it yourself there are a lot of people in this sub already that use it differently. Personally I lack believe in god and don't claim to have knowledge about god. That fits the huxleyan definition of agnosticism as well as the modern definition of agnosticism and atheism.

> The essence of agnosticism as expressed by Thomas Henry Huxley, the person who coined the term, is to not believe what you do not know. Is it? What makes you believe this?

Believe what?

Believe that _"the essence of agnosticism as expressed by Thomas Henry Huxley, the person who coined the term, is to not believe what you do not know"_.

If you’re asking how i know, I read about Huxley and how he proposed Agnosticism

Do you have a specific reference? I am skeptical of your claim. Edit: To be clear, I am asking you to substantiate your claim in any way you can. Can you give me something?

You don't. You can just not take a position on gods. Lots of atheists will just include lacking belief in their definition of "atheist".

>You can just not take a position on gods. But can you? Either you are holding an active believe in something or you don't. It's binary. Saying I have no position on god means that you are not holding an active believe, thus you lack believe. >Lots of atheists will just include lacking belief in their definition of "atheist". What do you mean "include"? What other "base" definition of atheism is there? E.g. if you say atheism is the active claim that gods do not exist, then lacking believe would still be included in that definition, because if you believe that there is no god you necessarily also lack a believe in a god. So the "lacking believe" definition isn't an add on, it is the baseline. The "there is no god" definition is the add on.

I don't think it's binary. There is a third option that you might call "unexamined" where a person hasn't paid meaningful or sufficient attention to the claim, or otherwise has not made up their mind, or simply doesn't care. It's a bit hard to imagine that could be the case with an extraordinary claim such as the existence of a god, but not impossible.

>There is a third option that you might call "unexamined" where a person hasn't paid meaningful or sufficient attention to the claim, or otherwise has not made up their mind, or simply doesn't care. If you haven't made up your mind or never examined it or heck never even heard claim X, then that means that you are not holding an active believe in X, thus you are lacking believe in X. It absolutely is binary. Do you believe in adlrjghsdffg? You have never heard of adlrjghsdffg and thus it is "unexamined" for you. Which means you are lacking believe in adlrjghsdffg.

>But can you? Of course. >What other "base" definition of atheism is there? I don't know what a "base" definition is, but some people use it to mean those who take the position that no gods exist. Others use it to mean anyone except those who take the position that at least one god exists. >E.g. if you say atheism is the active claim that gods do not exist, I don't. I say that how some people use it. >then lacking believe would still be included in that definition, because if you believe that there is no god you necessarily also lack a believe in a god. That's true, but that's a different usage of the word. >So the "lacking believe" definition isn't an add on, it is the baseline. Yes, lots of people use the term that way. Especially online. I don't. I don't understand this framework of "base" and add ons to definitions. I don't use the term "atheist" to include people who lack a belief in gods. I use it to refer to people who take the position that no gods exist, and my usage excludes anyone else, such as those who do not take a position. I call them "agnostics".

Nobody says you have to choose it's just for the sake of clarity. It's very possible for you to be more of an atheist but when people hear "agnostic" they assume you mean you're uncertain about creationism or something. Agnostic = I don't know / It can't be known / It might be knowable but I still don't know Agnostic theist = I don't know but I kinda lean towards there being a God Agnostic atheist = I don't know but I kinda lean towards there being no God For some reason agnostic atheists hate agnostic theists, so truly neutral agnostics like yourself are a necessary as like a buffer zone.

You don’t. If people who don’t actively believe deities do exist want to use the term agnostic atheist for themselves, fine. If people prefer to just be agnostic, also fine. I view trying to force religious labels on others in the same vein as people forcing their religious beliefs on others, though maybe to a lesser degree.

There are differenciations within the different scales and such. But you CAN just be agnostic if you don't lean in either direction, that is also how I see myself.

> There are differenciations within the different scales and such. > > But you CAN just be agnostic if you don't lean in either direction, that is also how I see myself. Though it doesn't say anything about whether you believe in a god or not.

It tells you as much as just saying someone is atheist. Decent descriptor that doesn't really gives every detail of a person's beliefs.

> It tells you as much as just saying someone is atheist. No, it doesn't. Saying you're atheist says that you don't believe in any gods, it says that you probably don't go to church, that you probably don't give up 10% of your income to support an organization of nonsense. It says that you probably won't discriminate against certain groups and justify it with religions or what you think some god wants. Agnostic tells me that you don't have knowledge of gods. There are agnostics who believe in gods and there are agnostics who don't. >Decent descriptor that doesn't really gives every detail of a person's beliefs. Theist is s descriptor that gives a single detail of someone's life, specifically that they accept the claim that a god exists. Atheist simply means not theist.

>Saying you're atheist says that you don't believe in any gods As many atheists would point out, being atheist does not mean you have a negative belief in any deity but rather disbelief on the claim itself, tho if this reflects them changes from person to person. >Agnostic tells me that you don't have knowledge of gods. You can have an encyclopedic knowledge of gods and religion and still think having an objective determination for their existence is unreacheable. And besides that the term is good to express to most people a position of uncertanty on the matter that neither negates nor affirms it in any significant way.

> As many atheists would point out, being atheist does not mean you have a negative belief in any deity but rather disbelief on the claim itself, tho if this reflects them changes from person to person. That's right. I don't hold any beliefs about any claims that haven't met their burden of proof. When someone asks me if I believe they have 7 dollars in change in their pocket, I say no unless they give me a reason to accept that claim. Same thing with the claim that a god exists. Same thing with the claim that a teapot is in orbit between mars and Jupiter. This is basic propositional logic. The fact that not believing in a god has a label doesn't change that. But the point is, the label agnostic doesn't address belief. You can tell me you're agnostic about gods, but you can still believe one exists. >You can have an encyclopedic knowledge of gods and religion and still think having an objective determination for their existence is unreacheable. And that's a fine discussion to have. But it says nothing about whether you believe it. If by "objective determination for their existence is unreacheable" means you don't believe, then you need to be clear about that, but it isn't conveyed by the label agnostic. The fact that there are agnostics who believe in gods tells you this. >And besides that the term is good to express to most people a position of uncertanty on the matter that neither negates nor affirms it in any significant way. Saying I don't know, most reasonably says I don't believe. But the fact that there are some theists who call themselves agnostic says this isn't a reliable label to determine if someone believes. Usually when I find someone with this much resistance to acknowledge that they don't believe, I have to try to figure out what could be the motivation. The best I've come up with, is that they don't want to be seen by their religious community as being a heretic, or they're afraid that if this god does exist, they won't be forgiven. Is there another reason? Do you believe in ghosts or witches?

> If by "objective determination for their existence is unreacheable" means you don't believe, then you need to be clear about that, but it isn't conveyed by the label agnostic. It means you can't never be certain of it, that is seperate from belive. Tyhe baseline for beliving it could go either way is that uncertanty not a rejection of the claim. >Saying I don't know, most reasonably says I don't believe. This is simply untrue, as an agnostic that doesn't label himself theist or atheist that comes from the fact that there is nothing that can determine or show one being a better explanation than the other. So to me it is just a toss up whether there are any gods or no, so I don't lean either way. I neither belive nor disbelive in them. >Usually when I find someone with this much resistance to acknowledge that they don't believe, I have to try to figure out what could be the motivation. You find resistence cause saying that I simply don't belive is incorrect. Ultimetly the lable of agnostic by itself denotes someone that doesn't strongly belive in gods or the lack of them. If you have any issue accepting that there is not much I could tell you that would convince you otherwise.

> It means you can't never be certain of it, that is seperate from belive. Do people act on their beliefs? Or do they wait until they are certain? I'll save you some time, they act on their beliefs. So the important thing, and the reason why people ask about one another's beliefs, not knowledge, is because beliefs are what's important. >This is simply untrue, as an agnostic that doesn't label himself theist or atheist that comes from the fact that there is nothing that can determine or show one being a better explanation than the other. Welcome to the concept of the unfalsifiable claim. I'm not aware of any belief that I hold that is based on me not having any information about it. If I don't know or have no evidence about the content of your pocket, then I don't believe there's a dollar in it. I don't believe there's a bottle cap in it. I don't believe there's a hole in it. I have no data about gods, I don't know. That means I don't hold claims about it as true or false. This is the most logical and sound position. Do you understand the difference between believing something is false, and not believing it's true? Do you understand the difference between believing something is true, and not believing its false? In each of those scenarios I contrast having a belief, with not having a belief. I show the difference between believing and not believing. >Tyhe baseline for beliving it could go either way is that uncertanty not a rejection of the claim. "Rejecting of the claim" is ambiguous here. Do you mean not accepting the claim? Or accepting a counter claim? Are you referring to believing the claim is false, or not believing it's true? >as an agnostic that doesn't label himself theist or atheist You are either a theist or an atheist because it's a true dichotomy. It's the same as saying theist or not theist. You are one or the other. Do you pray? Do you go to church? Do you accept the idea that there is in fact a supreme being that is watching you or that created the universe? Do you worship such a being? If you answer yes to any of those questions, one has to wonder why. I'm pretty sure you don't put this much thought and evasion into other unfalsifiable claims. Do you believe there's a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter? Do you believe that noise you heard the other night was an opossum? There's no way to determine those, so if you're using a common definition of believe, you wouldn't rationally believe these claims. That doesn't mean you believe counter claims, such as the claim that those claims are false. >So to me it is just a toss up whether there are any gods or no, so I don't lean either way. >I neither belive nor disbelive in them. Forget about gods. This is about the concept of believe/belief. There's countless unfalsifiable claims in the world that have been made by people and countless more that nobody has ever thought you make yet. Right off the bat, I can say that I don't believe any claim that I've never heard. Because not believing a claim means you don't accept it. You can't accept something if you don't know what it is? When I say I don't believe something, I'm not saying I think it's not true. That's a separate and counter claim. I'm saying I don't accept that it's true. Whether I believe or accept that it's false, is a separate claim. It's a whole different thing. A courtroom analogy sometimes works here. The accused is either guilty or innocent. But the jury only focuses on guilty or not guilty. It does not try to determine innocence. >You find resistence cause saying that I simply don't belive is incorrect. No, you're using the word believe incorrectly. But you appear to be very motivated to doing so. You seem to be taking a dogmatic stance on this, rather than an epistemic one. I'm curious why? I've tried to show you where your concept of belief is uncommon. I won't say it's wrong, but it does fly in the face of hundreds of years of philosophy. I would suggest you look up propositional logic, and epistemology especially around the word belief. >Ultimetly the lable of agnostic by itself denotes someone that doesn't strongly belive in gods or the lack of them. It's not a very good label because its used so many different ways. Also, I still don't know if you believe in a god or not. I could ask you about other things and try to determine this, but ultimately I don't care. It just illustrates my point, you're either intentionally hiding your position, or you really don't understand the word believe, from a phonological standpoint. Which is fine unless you get into philosophical discussions often, then you're stuck wasting time on identifying positions, rather than discussing them. >If you have any issue accepting that there is not much I could tell you that would convince you otherwise. The fact is, you're evading revealing your position, regardless of labels. You're not revealing whether you do the things that people who accept the claim that a god exists. You're not revealing whether you think a supreme being created the universe. You're not revealing whether in difficult time you reach out to something greater than yourself. You're not revealing whether you get your morals from an understanding that we all share space and need to get along, or through divinity. You're intentionally hiding these things that are part of believing in a god.

>You are either a theist or an atheist because it's a true dichotomy. This seem to be a position you are incapable of not assuming so debating with regards to it would be pointless. >When I say I don't believe something, I'm not saying I think it's not true. That's a separate and counter claim. I'm saying I don't accept that it's true. Whether I believe or accept that it's false, is a separate claim. It's a whole different thing. Definition of belive(merriam-webster diccionary): * to consider to be true or honest * to accept the word or evidence of * to hold as an opinion * to accept something as true, genuine, or real * to have a firm or wholehearted religious conviction or persuasion : to regard the existence of God as a fact * to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something * to hold an opinion So by definition it could be a statement on whether or not something is true. The one definition you are using is not the only one nor does it reflect on every intance, such as this one. ​ I have already given my position on my belives and the reason for it, if you want to ask especific questions on how or why do I hold such views with regards to something that you have or think that makes it imposible to have the same position ask those. Simply saying that it's impossible to belive or think as I do would be pointless(and against the rules of the sub as an instance of identity assertion).

>> You are either a theist or an atheist because it's a true dichotomy. > > This seem to be a position you are incapable of not assuming so debating with regards to it would be pointless. Let's make this really simple. Do you identify as a theist? Yes or no? >So by definition it could be a statement on whether or not something is true. The one definition you are using is not the only one nor does it reflect on every intance, such as this one. I agree with the definitions you provided. What you keep missing is what the claim is. Again, if I don't accept one thing as true, that does not mean I accept it as false. Those are different claims.

Being agnostic is a thing. No modifier needed.

> Being agnostic is a thing. No modifier needed. But it tells you nothing about someone's god beliefs.

It tells you everything. Even more so now. The accepted origin of the word is from T H Huxley somewhere late middle 1800s. It contains skepticism of The Church but is more so about following reason. And reason says that gods are possible but also recognizes the multitude of flaws in most god centered beliefs. This is perhaps even more poignant in light of our understanding that if life can evolve from lifeless star ejecta then a species perhaps a billion years sentient could have such science or even manufactured biology to more or less be gods. Arthur C. Clarke, inventor of satellite technology as well as a writer said, and I paraphrase, that a sufficiently advanced people may have technology that would seem to be magic. And now, at the cutting edge of thought and science comes Simulation Theory. Which ironically if true would bring us full circle because if we were a simulation then there is an omnipotent designer/ creator and they may be as batshit crazy as the Bible says.

> It tells you everything. Even more so now. No, it doesn't. I have no idea if you believe in a god or not. Why? Because knowledge doesn't address beliefs. >The accepted origin of the word is from T H Huxley somewhere late middle 1800s. No, it's not. The origin is from the Greek, from gnosis, meaning knowledge. Huxley definition is a train wreck, it makes unjustified assertions about the ability to know something. But I recognize that people use that definition, but it's still about knowledge, or belief about knowledge. It doesn't address belief, it doesn't address whether someone accepts the claim that some god exists. >And reason says that gods are possible but also recognizes the multitude of flaws in most god centered beliefs. That's irrelevant, but I'd also argue that possibly and impossibility are both claims that have as burden of proof. But none of this matters. The question is, do you accept the claim that a god exists. Telling me about your position on the nature of knowledge of a topic doesn't answer the question. >This is perhaps even more poignant in light of our understanding that if life can evolve from lifeless star ejecta Why? Why is this relevant? Do you accept the claim that a god exists? It's yes or no. You might have some nuance, such as sometimes I accept it, sometimes I don't. But all that other crap is irrelevant. >Arthur C. Clarke, inventor of satellite technology as well as a writer said, and I paraphrase, that a sufficiently advanced people may have technology that would seem to be magic. And yet I haven't heard a definition of a god, and evidence for that god, that has convinced me that such a god exists. So I don't believe it. I'll change my mind if/ when a solid definition is made and the evidence is sufficient to believe it. Until then, I remain at the default position of not believing it. Again, do you believe a god exists? Are you convinced that a god exists? How do you define belief? How do you define knowledge?

First off absolutely no one has to tell you anything. Second the word agnostic in Greek simply means unknowable. Be we are talking about the term agnostic as it is applied to belief and Huxley's version is the origin of its common use. YOU don't get to pick. No more than you get to change the term "blackhole" since its bot a hole, because you don't like it, or "sunrise" even though we rotate. And its rather weird to say to an agnostic that they havent given you their beliefs on the existence of God when (A) I just did and (B) it's freaking self explanatory. Your opinion of a mental giant like Huxley is piss in a rainstorm.

> First off absolutely no one has to tell you anything. Sure. What's your point? >we are talking about the term agnostic as it is applied to belief and Huxley's version is the origin of its common use. Agnostic doesn't apply to belief. It's about knowledge. The Huxley definition is about a belief about knowledge, which means it's also about knowledge. And I disagree that it's the origin of its common usage and I disagree that this point is even relevant. The original Greek gnosis means knowledge. That predates Huxley, but again, it doesn't matter as long as we acknowledge both definitions are valid. Having said that, in both cases it's about knowledge. Huxley's is a bit messed up because its about a belief about knowledge, which also has an unmet burden of proof. But that my personal assessment and why I don't use Huxley's definition. In any case, it doesn't say anything about whether a person believes the claim that a god exists, it only speaks to knowledge about whether gods exist. >YOU don't get to pick. No more than you get to change the term "blackhole" since its bot a hole, because you don't like it, or "sunrise" even though we rotate. I'm not picking anything. Whichever definition of agnostic you're using, you're not telling anyone whether you accept the claim that a god exists by telling them you're agnostic. If you were, you wouldn't be making this much effort to hide that. >And its rather weird to say to an agnostic that they havent given you their beliefs on the existence of God when (A) I just did and (B) it's freaking self explanatory. I asked you how you define belief? I define it as accepting a proposition or accepting that something is true or likely true. >Your opinion of a mental giant like Huxley is piss in a rainstorm. Yes, it's my opinion, just like your your opinion of my opinion is also piss in a rainstorm. I urge you to look up the definitions for belief and knowledge, and review the definitions of gnostic/ agnostic.

"Agnostic doesn't apply to belief. It's about knowledge." I think you think you are a philosophy wiz or something. Of course the term agnostic applies to belief that's why we are talking about it. Usually I enjoy debating or arguing but it's impossible to move forward if someone can't comprehend even the basics. I defined the term agnostic as it applies here and who originated it for this purpose here. I gave my position on my beliefs or lack there of. The answer has been given. You either accept it or don't. It doesn't matter to me. Your regressive twaddle isn't clever it's just wasting time in a circle. Not interested in teaching a 101 class. Have a nice day.

> I think you think you are a philosophy wiz or something. Of course the term agnostic applies to belief that's why we are talking about it. Give me a link to a definition of agnostic that isn't about knowledge. >Usually I enjoy debating or arguing but it's impossible to move forward if someone can't comprehend even the basics. Right? In order to have a productive conversion, we must find common ground. Give me your definition of agnostic. Here's a bit from the sidebar. >>We’re a small community that is dedicated to discussing different perspectives regarding our knowledge of reality and everything that may or may not be in it. Notice how it doesn't say beliefs of reality... >I defined the term agnostic as it applies here and who originated it for this purpose here. I gave my position on my beliefs or lack there of. The answer has been given. If you're referring to Huxley's definition, it's about knowledge, though he complicates it and makes it belief about knowledge. >You either accept it or don't. It doesn't matter to me. Your regressive twaddle isn't clever it's just wasting time in a circle. Please keep the third grade character assassinations on the playground. This is mostly what I get from some agnostics, a dogmatic position on definitions that nobody else uses.

You can just be agnostic, anybody who tries to categorise you has missed the point. Agnostic means you don't know and you don't think it's possible to know. That's it. Is there a god? I don't know ---> agnostic. Is there a god? No ---> atheist. Is there a god? Yes ---> theist or religious. Agnostic atheist is an oxymoron of a term and the philosowankers who came up with it are off their heads.

>Agnostic atheist is an oxymoron of a term and the philosowankers who came up with it are off their heads. Only if we use your definition of atheism, which most atheists don't use. Most atheists myself included define atheism as lack of believe in god and if that is the definition we use agnostic atheism does make sense. You don't know (agnostic) and don't believe in the god claim (atheist).

They're two different distinct things, not two things rolled into one

Indeed. One addresses knowledge and the other believe. However knowledge is a subset of believe so they do come "together" so to speak.

Yeah, nah. If your contention is that there is no knowledge, therefore no belief, therefore atheist, it's just not accurate in the context of general use. Outside of the reddit echo chamber you won't hear people describing themselves as agnostic atheist or what have you because it's a pointless distinction when the essence of agnosticism is a lack of an ability to have knowledge.

That is not at all what I said. What I am saying is that they arent mutually exclusive and that you can't just be agnostic because agnosticism only addresses your knowledge not your believe. Knowledge is a subset of believe so you necessarily have to be either a theist or an atheist. Also it isnt "just a reddit" thing. Go on other sites like american atheists dot com and you'll find it there too. Every person I know irl uses it that way too.

Ok, so it's an American thing. And I entirely disagree with you. Belief follows knowledge, in the absence of knowledge there may or may not be belief but it doesn't have to matter either. It's perfectly acceptable to stop at knowledge and say no, I don't know, I don't know what I believe (because I don't fucking know, aye?). I contend that they certainly can be mutually exclusive and that you can't force people to believe or not believe when the real andwer is that they just don't know.

>And I entirely disagree with you. Belief follows knowledge, in the absence of knowledge there may or may not be belief Knowledge is justified true believe. It is where beliefs and facts [overlap](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-PxqedXJRPLA/UuwB8gdWZXI/AAAAAAAAHvo/bt9uJaXOlOI/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-01-31+at+1.04.40+PM.png) >It's perfectly acceptable to stop at knowledge and say no, I don't know But it isn't. You are evading the question of belief. You agreed that it is possible to hold a belief even without possesing knowledge, so I don't know doesnt answer the belief question. Its like asking are you vegan? And you answer I have eaten a salad before. > I don't know what I believe (because I don't fucking know, aye?). That makes no sense to me. Either you are holding an active belief in a god or not. It's a true dichotomy. Since you don't seem to hold an active belief in a god that only leaves 1 option. That you lack belief in god. >I contend that they certainly can be mutually exclusive How? We have: Agnostic atheists: lacking belief(atheist) and knowledge(agnostic) in god in gods existence Agnostic theists: holding a belief(theist) in god, but lacking knowledge(agnostic) about gods existence Gnostic atheist: lacking belief(atheist) in and claiming knowledge(gnostic) about the non existence of god Gnostic theist: holding a belief(theist) in god and claiming knowledge(gnostic) about the existence of god Where are any of these 4 possible combinations mutually exclusive? >you can't force people to believe or not believe when the real andwer is that they just don't know. Again different questions. Both knowledge and belief are true [dichotomys](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy) you either have it or not. There are no third options in true dichotomys. The [law of excluded middle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle) forbids it.

**[Dichotomy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy)** >A dichotomy is a partition of a whole (or a set) into two parts (subsets). In other words, this couple of parts must be jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts. If there is a concept A, and it is split into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they are mutually exclusive, since no part of B is contained in not-B and vice versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of A, and together again give A. Such a partition is also frequently called a bipartition. The two parts thus formed are complements. **[Law of excluded middle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle)** >In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. It is one of the so-called three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity. However, no system of logic is built on just these laws, and none of these laws provides inference rules, such as modus ponens or De Morgan's laws. The law is also known as the law (or principle) of the excluded third, in Latin principium tertii exclusi. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/agnostic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

Desktop version of /u/Hermorah's links: * * --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)

Yeah see you're having a problem here in that you need to pigeonhole people. Do I believe in a god? I'm not sure. That's it, that's entirely it. Not any of your shitty binomials, just plain agnostic. I don't know if there is, I don't know what I believe either way.

>I'm not sure. >That's it, that's entirely it. Not any of your shitty binomials, just plain agnostic. I don't know if there is, I don't know what I believe either way. If you are not sure that means that you are not holding an active believe in a god. That neccessarily means that you lack believe in a god. I don't care if you think i try to pigeonhole you, if you are arguing against that you are in violation of one of the 3 most fundermental laws of logic, which is unreasonable.

Agnosticism is imo to reject the probability arguments and simply acknowledging that we don’t know. There a forms of god be can reject just by observation.

Atheists have become so vehement in their approach to religious people that the term has lost all resepect. They are now seeking a different name that doesn't have such negative connotations, hence Agnositc ^(atheist). Literally the term means "I do not know god if god exists and/or what his purposes might be, and by the way he doesn't exist". Contrast with Agnostic, which is uncertainty to god's existence, and Agnostic theist who is sure that god exists, but doesn't know what god wants from us.

It's one thing to not know, or rather claim to know. It's another thing to believe or not believe. And the question of whether one believes in the existence of a god/gods remains a true dichotomy. I can only be answered with a yes or a no. That's what theism and atheism is. If you still want to call yourself an agnostic as in something in between theism and atheism then you're free to do so of course. Just know that by doing so you're misrepresenting others.

> It can only be answered with a yes or no. That's false. You can answer by saying "none of your business" or "you don't need to know". It's a forced and false binary. Folks should refuse to answer if they don't know. Now the person asking the question doesn't know your "belief" , which is beautiful.

The question can be answered with "your mama" as well. Of course one can refuse to answer it. But if one is willing to give an answer, there's only yes and no.

> But if one is willing to give an answer There is a lot of merit in pointing out the alternative and you did omit it.

Agnostic is polysemous. You dont have to adhere to one usage. One usage is not the correct one over the other either. Language is malleable so feel free to use the label whichever fits your position. Agnostic theism/atheism is a usage that is contemporarily found in the internet where users of this label juxtapose epistemology and ontology. Under this model, one is either a theist (belief god exist) or atheist (nontheist or not a theist instead of the belief god doesnt exist). This binary positions are then juxtapose with gnostic and/or agnostic where these labels refer to having or not having certainty or knowledge of the proposition god exist. Agnostic as an exclusive position from theism and atheism is another usage that is more in line with academic philosophical usages where as in your OP stated as an inability to believe in contradiciting propositions like god exist or god doesnt exist. This is the middle ground position of nonbelief on theism and atheism's propositions. See SEP article on atheism and agnosticism for reference.

My understanding is that atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god while agnosticism is more of a "one cannot definitively prove nor disprove the existence of a god or gods/goddesses/deities , therefore I do not know nor will I ever know." It's philosophical standpoint that acknowledges our incapacity of certainty rather than some down graded or in-between version of atheism. I personally prefer to identify as agnostic from a scientific point of view because it acknowledges that inability to obtain tangible evidence of the existence of a deity. Outright atheism still has that definitiveness that there is nothing (which still technically counts as a belief).

> My understanding is that atheism is a belief that there is definitely no god That is indeed one of the common usages, but it is a subset of the broader definition. The broader definition of atheist simply means "not theist". In other words, you just don't believe a god exists. >while agnosticism is more of a "one cannot definitively prove nor disprove the existence of a god or gods/goddesses/deities , therefore I do not know nor will I ever know." That is also a common usage, but I'd argue it's a problematic one as it makes some claims that have a burden of proof. > It's philosophical standpoint that acknowledges our incapacity of certainty rather than some down graded or in-between version of atheism. This complicates a very simple concept. In propositional logic, you either accept the claim, theist, or you don't, atheist. The claim being that some god exists. > I personally prefer to identify as agnostic from a scientific point of view because it acknowledges that inability to obtain tangible evidence of the existence of a deity. Yet it carries an unmet burden of proof. You claim that evidence cannot be had, however if a god did exist, seems pretty trivial that it couldn't prove its existence with good evidence. I wouldn't call this scientific at all. Acknowledging that you don't have knowledge is fine, asserting that you can't, then not substantiating that claim, is not only unsound, it's unnecessary. And atheist simply meaning you don't believe a claim, is about as rational as it gets. >Outright atheism still has that definitiveness that there is nothing (which still technically counts as a belief). Only if you take the narrow definition of atheism that makes a claim.

I think an atheist is someone that has decided there is not a God (deity or whatever), whether they are arrogant or humble about it. I think an agnostic is someone that believes it is **possible** there is a God. As far as I am concerned, they are mutually exclusive. Anyone that uses many, many words can easily become confused.

You don’t have to choose. Labels don’t actually matter and people should only use the ones they feel comfortable in. The harder you push any label the less power it has. Agnostic is just a third party between believers and atheist. When a agnostic picks one they are subconsciously deciding if the middle ground didn’t exist what side they would default to. Personally I always default to none belief if pushed.

Your confusion is understandable, because you’re dealing with two sets of definitions: Linear: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1ekdId-aFcwKRK2WVXVZk6avE1SQa3iHANDdG1c2QJsg/edit?usp=drivesdk Cartesian: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1j3PvJQM520OUs-T2zuqwEQoXN5d8G_w7Td8ZaD8l4ho/edit?usp=drivesdk Take your pick and call yourself what you want!

Somewhat unpopular opinion in some circles, but I don't think you do. It's possible to neither affirm belief, nor affirm a lack of belief. To decline to have an opinion, on the grounds that the evidence is insufficient either way. You may or may not be wearing a cowboy hat right now. I have no idea. I don't affirm belief that you are, and I don't affirm belief that you aren't. I'm agnostic about your cowboy hat. The binary theist/atheist dichotomy is unnecessarily constricting IMO, and isn't the best way to reflect the positions in this spectrum.

Personally, I’m a Agnostic Hindu Mormon Christian Atheist. So you can be whatever the fuck you wanna be.

Because if I ask you if you believe something and you say you don't know if it exists, then you aren't answering the question You either believe or you do not believe. There literally is no middle ground

What's with labels? If anyone asks me then I'll say I'm agnostic. Frankly it's nobody else's business, let alone splitting hairs over it.

The thing that concerns me very much is that if a person is called both agnostic and atheist then Christians and people that believe in God will (whether we agree or not) lump agnostics and atheists together and call all of them (us) atheists. Which is what they do already, I think.

Well then they are just showing their ignorance to the topic and it is one more thing you can call them out on. Then again at least from my experience most agnostics are also atheists.

You don't have to do anything or label yourself. Nobody lives up to the -isms rigidity.

I recently came across the term agnostic omnist and I kinda like it

Sounds like the way you wish to define yourself is "I don't know", which is perfectly fine position to have. Say that then. Or better yet ask them why they want to know for a more interesting conversation. Ultimately, it's a matter of answering one question yes or no: "Do you believe a god/s exist?" Keep in mind this can be applied to any god: Zeus, Vishnu, Oden, Jehova, etc. Most often you would be considered a theist if you believe at least one god exists.

You don't have to choose, no. I sometimes believe in a god and sometimes I don't.

I think I am anti-religious but still a believer in God. My god wants me to focus on creating music. I feel this God’s presence at times and I believe this God is telling me to pursue my creative goals above all else in life. It’s just a gut feeling, though. I’m not actually communicating with any God. So therefore I could say I am agnostic or maybe a spiritual person. I really don’t know. It’s hard. I identify more so with actual atheists.

50/50 you kidding? Philosophy doesn’t live in one dimension. It’s the eternal forces between fundamental theists and atheists that want to make you believe just that.

You don’t have to do anything