Atheists vs Theists vs Agnostics

[Tmoo]

I'd like to sort the groups out and lay some clarity to the whole fiasco of what exactly atheists, theists, and agnostics define themselves as. This thread's purpose is to define each group so that in the future people might have a better idea of what each stands for before labelling themselves or other people.

Let's start with my definitions.

Gnostic Atheism: Disbelief in a god or any god with claim to knowledge of such.

Gnostic Theism: Belief in a god with claim to knowledge of such.

Agnosticism: Disbelief in any claims of evidence for or against the existence of a god.

Agnostic Atheism: Disbelief in a god without claim to knowledge of such.

Agnostic Theism: Belief in a god without claim to knowledge of such.

Apatheism: Disinterest in the existence of god(s) or that they have little to do with humanity.

Ignosticism: Belief that 'God' must be defined before any position can be taken.

These are the most basic of definitions i can lay down. Concerning agnostics, many would argue it isn't a true third option and that belief or disbelief in a god is absolute, that you are either for or against, yes or no. I disagree with that argument. An agnostic's point of view is akin to not answering a true/false statement on the SAT. Theists would argue true, atheists would argue false, and agnostics would not answer the question, or would scribble their own answer in the margin. Whether this is a good or a bad thing, or whether it is weak or intelligent, whether it is valid or invalid, is up for discussion.

I would also like to point out that Weak Atheism is really Agnostic Atheism in that they both do not believe in a god but don't claim to know that it doesn't exist. Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists can be classified as subdivisions of the Atheist and Theist groups.

If you reply, be sure to list your definitions of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism, so that the rest of us can understand your position.

EDIT: Added Apatheism and Ignosticism, two subtypes of Agnosticism that are often overlooked.

EDIT2: Corrected the definition for Agnosticism to include 'of evidence'.

 

[der Astronom]

I generally agree with your definitions of atheism, agnosticism and theism, except that agnosticism might also be considered the case that it is impossible to know if god exists or not. How do you distinguish between the agnosticism where a man finds it impossible to know if god exists and the agnosticism where a man has no opinion on whether or not god exists?

 

[Ewan]

I disagree with your definition of agnosticism.

Agnosticism: Disbelief in any claim for or against the existence of a god.

Agnostic Theism: Belief in a god without claim to knowledge of such.

How do these two work out? If agnosticism is as you've defined it then you can't be an agnostic theist because a theist does believe god claims.

Agnosticism and gnosticism are to do with knowledge or the basis for your beliefs i.e. whether or not you think god can be known etc. So I agree with agnostic theism when the agnosticism is defined as "the belief that God can't be known" or something to that effect. (i.e. I agree with the second quote)
That's why I don't consider agnosticism to be a middle ground.

EDIT: My definitions...
Atheism: Lack/without belief in a god.
Theism: With a belief in a god.
Agnosticism: The belief that god cannot be known.

EDIT2: I'm unsure how someone could believe in a god if it can't be known. You don't just randomly get faith, there must be something to trigger that surely?
Maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way of course.

 

[GBJoker]

I don't fit into any of those definitions.

Atheism: Not accepting the theory (really, idea) of a god, gods, or god like beings.

Agnostic: Belief that "god" cannot be known? Isn't that just saying "god" exists outside the universe? Need more clarification or definition here.

Theism: Easy, belief in singular god.

Deism: I think I misspelled that, but still easy, belief in multiple gods (2+).

Hard, weak, strong, etc. versions of above: Useless. Admittedly, some "atheists" make us look bad by saying there are strong and weak atheists, and some Christians hit the church nearly every day, while some Christians are C&E Christians, and all the other great stuff; but the common aspects are all there. Atheists don't accept the idea of god no matter what, that's what makes an atheist an atheist. A Christian accepts the Judeo-Jesus god, no matter what, and that's what makes them a Christian. Expand that for making a Muslim a Muslin, etc.

EDIT: Spelling, etc...

 

[Ewan]

Belief in multiple gods is polytheism.

Deism is the belief in a non-personal god, one that doesn't interfere in the universe. It made us and now just watches I suppose.

 

[Tmoo]

How do you distinguish between the agnosticism where a man finds it impossible to know if god exists and the agnosticism where a man has no opinion on whether or not god exists?

I'd need to split agnostics into two groups to accommodate both of them, although i'm not sure what labels to use for each.

How do these two work out? If agnosticism is as you've defined it then you can't be an agnostic theist because a theist does believe god claims.

Agnosticism and gnosticism are to do with knowledge or the basis for your beliefs i.e. whether or not you think god can be known etc. So I agree with agnostic theism when the agnosticism is defined as "the belief that God can't be known" or something to that effect. (i.e. I agree with the second quote)
That's why I don't consider agnosticism to be a middle ground.

(...)

EDIT2: I'm unsure how someone could believe in a god if it can't be known. You don't just randomly get faith, there must be something to trigger that surely?

Agnostic Theists believe that a higher being exists, but acknowledge that they have no way of knowing. It's the same to a lesser extent with occultists (people who believe in aliens but don't believe any evidence put up for them, etc). Pure Agnostics on the other hand, deny any evidence that god exists or doesn't exist and take no stance on the matter. Or they believe that it is impossible to know, as J pointed out.

Whether Agnosticism is a viable middle ground or not is up for debate, though I consider it an option in the same way that one can choose not to answer a question.

 

[Ewan]

But you have defined agnosticism as the disbelief in any god claims, for or against. I quoted the two definitions one after the other to clearly show that you said the disbelief in any claims, and then right after that you said the belief in a god without claim to knowledge.
You can't be agnostic (disbelief in any claim for the existence for god) and then be agnostic theist. That would mean you have a disbelief in any claim for the existence for god AND have the belief in a god (theism).

Can't you see the contradiction you're making? I agree with your other definitions but you seem to be using agnosticism in the way that I agree with and the defining it incorrectly in the OP.

Like I said, agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with knowledge and have no take on whether or not you actually believe a god exists. Theism and atheism cover those.

EDIT: But isn't there something that triggers someone's belief in aliens? I can't wrap me head around something believing it if it can't be known. If it can't then how did they start believing in something as specific as aliens?
Again, I could be looking at it the wrong way.

 

[Tmoo]

But you have defined agnosticism as the disbelief in any god claims, for or against. I quoted the two definitions one after the other to clearly show that you said the disbelief in any claims, and then right after that you said the belief in a god without claim to knowledge.
You can't be agnostic (disbelief in any claim for the existence for god) and then be agnostic theist. That would mean you have a disbelief in any claim for the existence for god AND have the belief in a god (theism).

Can't you see the contradiction you're making? I agree with your other definitions but you seem to be using agnosticism in the way that I agree with and the defining it incorrectly in the OP.

I see, I used 'claim' where I should have used 'evidence'. Will amend that.

Like I said, agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with knowledge and have no take on whether or not you actually believe a god exists. Theism and atheism cover those.

It is not a third option in the sense of a third answer. It is an option in that a person can choose not to answer the question at all, or with some agnostics, choose both answers (agnostic atheist/theist). Think of a half-glass of water. One person would say it's half full, another would say it's half empty, but the third would say that both options are correct. Or consider a true/false question left blank by the test taker.

EDIT: But isn't there something that triggers someone's belief in aliens? I can't wrap me head around something believing it if it can't be known. If it can't then how did they start believing in something as specific as aliens?
Again, I could be looking at it the wrong way.

In the case of aliens, logically thinking, in the expanse of the universe the probability of there being life-forms not of the planet Earth are high. Aliens are defined as any life form not of the planet Earth, which is a very broad spectrum if you think about it, and holds many possibilities so long as it is alive by scientific standards and didn't originate from this planet.

As for the trigger, it could be media that features aliens, word-of-mouth, etc. However, an occultist that doesn't believe evidence put forth by others is (i'm 99.999% certain) one that has been jaded by such evidence and refuses to acknowledge their validity, while still believing that aliens exist. This means that at some point they definitely believed the evidence put forth.

Going back to the topic of God, an agnostic is almost always (IMHO) a former believer in God or a former atheist who began to doubt the arguments made against God's existence. So it isn't a matter of a trigger causing them to suddenly believe in a god/alien while denying all evidence (or saying it can't be known), rather it's the result of being jaded by experiences concerning other people preaching the arguments to them or from having considered all of the arguments and given up on trying to make sense of it, or concluding that they are invalid and deciding it is impossible to know without definite proof.

 

[Ewan]

I disagree with your analogy. Your True/False analogy really nails the problem I have with these sorts of definitions.

It's a false dichotomy. If you don't tick True, then you don't necessarily have to tick False (a difficult example because true and false are traditionally seen as a dichotomy, when it's actually 'true' and 'not true' but you get what I mean ). You can still believe something isn't true and still be open to it being true and therefore you don't think it's false. Like how you can disbelieve in god but be open to evidence for it's existence.

Atheism and theism cover ONE claim. "God exists." If you believe this then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. You can't be in between, you can't be neither.

Think about someone who does not tick the 'I believe' box. There are by my definition of atheism (without the belief in a god), an atheist. Someone who makes no choice is actively not believing in the positive and therefore an atheist in my eyes.
It doesn't mean they believe that there is no god, which is another claim completely. Not choosing an answer is not another position because it already falls into a definition. That's how I see it anyway.
I have yet to be shown an inconsistency in that.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Agnosticism

I thought I would post a source of a definition that I personally agree with... if you're interested.

 

[Shu]

I honestly only know of three.

Deists - Those who believe in a god without a doubt whether it be Allah, the Jesuit God, or any other.

Agnostics - These folks don't exactly know for sure if God exists.

Atheists - These think without a shadow of a doubt that god does not exist. They try to constantly disprove the source and try to back it up with logic.

All the others I've never heard and I took two years of theology and philosophy in college. So not to sure where you got them.

I've heard of gnostic but they were described as a separate thing from the three. They were used to describe the merchants back in B.C. who tried to instill Gnosticism which was a belief in god. They were frowned upon though. My cross on my back is actually a gnostic symbol of the 8th esper. A very different style cross.

 

[Tmoo]

Atheism and theism cover ONE claim. "God exists." If you believe this then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. You can't be in between, you can't be neither.

So your position is that the difference between atheism and theism is over one option - whether or not god exists, like a binary switch. I can understand that. Still, I stand by my POV that there is a space between two points rather than a singular switch, so to speak. At least I know where you're coming from now.

Think about someone who does not tick the 'I believe' box. There are by my definition of atheism (without the belief in a god), an atheist. Someone who makes no choice is actively not believing in the positive and therefore an atheist in my eyes.
It doesn't mean they believe that there is no god, which is another claim completely. Not choosing an answer is not another position because it already falls into a definition. That's how I see it anyway.
I have yet to be shown an inconsistency in that.

That would mean your definition of an atheist is one who simply does not believe in god, while allowed to have doubts and be open to the idea of a god existing. The definition that I follow not only disbelieves in any god but firmly denies the concept of a god with claims to evidence (science, etc). So under your definitions, what I consider agnostic would fall into regions of atheism, while under my definitions some of what you would call atheist would be defined as agnostic.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Agnosticism

I thought I would post a source of a definition that I personally agree with... if you're interested.

I actually have that site favorited. Anyway...I believe this is the root of where we disagree. I view the causal questions of these labels (do you believe in a god? does a god exist?) exacty the same. To me, both imply knowledge about a given deity and so I treat them the same. To deny a god's existence is to imply that you know it doesn't exist. To affirm a god's existence is to imply that you know it does exist. To deny all assertions that a god can or cannot exist is to imply that you do not know or cannot know whether a god exists.

EDIT: Ah. the main issue is with the word 'belief' compared to 'knowledge'. to say 'it is impossible to know whether i believe in god' is different from saying 'it is impossible to know if god exists'. However, i base belief off of knowledge; I.E. an atheist does not believe in god because they know god does not exist. An agnostic will say 'i don't know' because they do not know if god exists.

All the others I've never heard and I took two years of theology and philosophy in college. So not to sure where you got them.

They could be labeled just about anything so long as they can be used to distinguish the subtypes. While i'm not sure labels like Apatheism and Ignosticism are universally recognized, they fit all the same.

 

[Shu]

Oh and wasn't meaning to come off rude, I'm saying they could be out there, lol, it's just theology and philosophy are all terms made up by people anyway. So its very possible that these exist, I just wasn't aware of them.

 

[Ewan]

That would mean your definition of an atheist is one who simply does not believe in god, while allowed to have doubts and be open to the idea of a god existing.

Exactly right! And I'm glad you understand my position.

I still disagree with you though.

The definition that I follow not only disbelieves in any god but firmly denies the concept of a god with claims to evidence (science, etc).

You can't be an agnostic atheist if you disbelieve and have claims to evidence when you have defined agnosticism as the disbelief of any claims to evidence, for or against. That's why my atheism definition doesn't include the claim to knowledge as such.

There are 2 beliefs, what you believe exists and what you believe you can know. If you believe in something, it isn't necessarily the case the you know it does. Why? Because people have faith in things. Beliefs that they don't know are necessarily true.

And just think about it, I don't anyone can say that all the things that they believe, they know are true as well. Gut instinct, predictions etc, would fall into that category.


Basically what I'm trying to say is that knowledge is not necessarily tied to what you believe. This is because there are 2 beliefs, belief in existence and belief in what knowledge you can acquire.

 

[Tmoo]

I still disagree with you though.

As do I

You can't be an agnostic atheist if you disbelieve and have claims to evidence when you have defined agnosticism as the disbelief of any claims to evidence, for or against. That's why my atheism definition doesn't include the claim to knowledge as such.

Agnostic atheists are a subtype of atheism but are also agnostics since the two are not mutually exclusive. The only commonality they share is that they do not believe in god's existence. I see them as two similar but distinct groups, which is why I define atheism as 'with claim to knowledge' and agnostic atheism 'with no claim to knowledge'.

There are 2 beliefs, what you believe exists and what you believe you can know. If you believe in something, it isn't necessarily the case the you know it does. Why? Because people have faith in things. Beliefs that they don't know are necessarily true.

That is a good point. I'll admit my definitions don't cover all the bases of faith, such as this.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that knowledge is not necessarily tied to what you believe. This is because there are 2 beliefs, belief in existence and belief in what knowledge you can acquire.

I can acknowledge that. The main problem I see with the theory you present is that it defines anyone who doesn't click the 'yes' button on God to be atheist. I disagree with this because if we were to put up a single tick box with the phrase 'God does not exist', those who are unsure would also not tick the box...they don't fit into either group. This is the reason I choose to link beliefs to knowledge - it might not cover for those who have devout faith for or against (one can argue that in their faith they know that god exists/does not exist, though this debate would go in circles if we went down that path), but it does allow for a middle ground where people who are unsure or have no opinion can reside without an implicit label attached to them that isn't necessarily true.

My main argument, then, is that 'I don't know' is a valid position. Yours is that 'I don't know' is not valid.

Oh and wasn't meaning to come off rude, I'm saying they could be out there, lol, it's just theology and philosophy are all terms made up by people anyway. So its very possible that these exist, I just wasn't aware of them.

Don't worry about it, I don't take anything personally unless it's a direct insult. My 'debate' posts come off as stiff and cold more often than not, even though in real life I might be eating ice cream, relaxing in a chair.

 

[Ewan]

Agnostic atheists are a subtype of atheism but are also agnostics since the two are not mutually exclusive. The only commonality they share is that they do not believe in god's existence. I see them as two similar but distinct groups, which is why I define atheism as 'with claim to knowledge' and agnostic atheism 'with no claim to knowledge'.

That doesn't make sense. If you believe that an atheist has claim to knowledge how can they also be agnostic when you have said agnostics don't have claim to knowledge? If they hold both positions you are essentially saying that they have claim to knowledge and believe that god can't be known at the same time.

I can acknowledge that. The main problem I see with the theory you present is that it defines anyone who doesn't click the 'yes' button on God to be atheist. I disagree with this because if we were to put up a single tick box with the phrase 'God does not exist', those who are unsure would also not tick the box...they don't fit into either group.

What has that got to do with anything? That is a completely different claim. We are talking about what people believe exists (and lack of that belief) rather than the belief that something does not exist.

have no opinion can reside without an implicit label attached to them that isn't necessarily true.

Atheism comes from the word atheos which mean without god. Atheism as I have defined it is without god belief. Someone who has no opinion is still without a belief in god. That is why there is no middle ground. Even if you don't know or don't have an opinion you still qualify.

I think people want a middle ground just to avoid the label and to avoid the debate. I can understand, some people don't give a damn about it and just want to live their lives. You can still do that by realising that atheism is still a position where you can say I don't know, have no opinion now leave me alone.

Also, it isn't helped by the fact that atheist has become a bit of a dirty word. There's a lot of anger towards atheists anyway and you probably know what I'm getting at. People want to avoid the anger.
I can't speak for Shu nor do I know the tone that was intended, but I even sense irritation in his definition of atheism (which I disagree with obviously). That is just my impression so sorry if I got that wrong Shu.

Don't worry about it, I don't take anything personally unless it's a direct insult. My 'debate' posts come off as stiff and cold more often than not, even though in real life I might be eating ice cream, relaxing in a chair.

This.
I just post and don't really think about the tone. I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything like that, I just see this a calm discussion.

 

[Tmoo]

That doesn't make sense. If you believe that an atheist has claim to knowledge how can they also be agnostic when you have said agnostics don't have claim to knowledge? If they hold both positions you are essentially saying that they have claim to knowledge and believe that god can't be known at the same time.

The mistake you make here is assuming I define Atheism by itself as 'with claim to knowledge' - in fact that is gnostic atheism and not simply atheism. I split atheism and theism into subgroups, respectively. There is gnostic and agnostic atheism, and ditto for theism.

What has that got to do with anything? That is a completely different claim. We are talking about what people believe exists (and lack of that belief) rather than the belief that something does not exist.

You state that by leaving the box unchecked that a person would then have to be atheist. I don't believe this to be true. There is a difference between not believing god exists and choosing not to answer. And the catch: a person doesn't -have- to answer.

Atheism comes from the word atheos which mean without god. Atheism as I have defined it is without god belief. Someone who has no opinion is still without a belief in god. That is why there is no middle ground. Even if you don't know or don't have an opinion you still qualify.

Not so. Having no opinion means exactly that - they don't have an opinion. This neither implies belief or disbelief. It is what it is - the topic of belief is not an either-or situation.

I think people want a middle ground just to avoid the label and to avoid the debate. I can understand, some people don't give a damn about it and just want to live their lives. You can still do that by realising that atheism is still a position where you can say I don't know, have no opinion now leave me alone.

Also, it isn't helped by the fact that atheist has become a bit of a dirty word. There's a lot of anger towards atheists anyway and you probably know what I'm getting at. People want to avoid the anger.

It does not apply to everyone, and that is the issue. It's incorrect to assume all agnostics take their position because of social fear. The bolded part epitomizes what I want to contest - an agnostic is an agnostic precisely because they say 'i don't know, have no opinion, leave me alone', and they don't have to choose a side to say it.

This.
I just post and don't really think about the tone. I'm not trying to be aggressive or anything like that, I just see this a calm discussion.

It's a pleasure to debate with you

 

[Ewan]

The mistake you make here is assuming I define Atheism by itself as 'with claim to knowledge'

But you said this.

I define atheism as 'with claim to knowledge'

You state that by leaving the box unchecked that a person would then have to be atheist. I don't believe this to be true. There is a difference between not believing god exists and choosing not to answer. And the catch: a person doesn't -have- to answer.

Do you disagree that someone who does not answer, is without a belief in a god?

Not so. Having no opinion means exactly that - they don't have an opinion. This neither implies belief or disbelief. It is what it is - the topic of belief is not an either-or situation.

Having no opinion means you are still without the belief. Think about it. You have no opinion on X. Do you believe in X? No, you don't have an opinion therefore, you are without the positive belief and therefore without the belief. You fall into my definition of atheism (so to speak).

It does not apply to everyone, and that is the issue. It's incorrect to assume all agnostics take their position because of social fear. The bolded part epitomizes what I want to contest - an agnostic is an agnostic precisely because they say 'i don't know, have no opinion, leave me alone', and they don't have to choose a side to say it.

That was just an off the cuff opinion. And I didn't say all either.
Like I said though, my definition of atheism, if explained to someone still allows the no opinion position.

It's a pleasure to debate with you

Same here. It's a mix of a semantics argument and an argument of logic so it's developing us both (well me at least). Much more engaging than debating the people on Youtube.

 

[Tmoo]

But you said this.

I should have tagged those with gnostic. Lol. Mistake on my part.

Do you disagree that someone who does not answer, is without a belief in a god?

Yes, I disagree with that.

Having no opinion means you are still without the belief. Think about it. You have no opinion on X. Do you believe in X? No, you don't have an opinion therefore, you are without the positive belief and therefore without the belief. You fall into my definition of atheism (so to speak).

That I would but to have no opinion is also not to have no belief, so by the definitions I use I would be 'undecided'.

That was just an off the cuff opinion. And I didn't say all either.
Like I said though, my definition of atheism, if explained to someone still allows the no opinion position.

I see. I don't have anything against using atheism to cover agnostics, but I wanted to show that an agnostic doesn't have to choose a side if they don't want to.

Same here. It's a mix of a semantics argument and an argument of logic so it's developing us both (well me at least). Much more engaging than debating the people on Youtube.

I've also learned a lot from this debate I don't think our terms will compromise, but at least we can reach a point of understanding, which is what I wanted to accomplish with this thread.

 

[Ewan]

Yes, I disagree with that.

Ok, but can you explain why? If we just ignore definitions and just look at the logic behind it all, you're basically putting someone in an 'undecided' position and to do so, your are arbitrarily tying knowledge with belief when I think be both know isn't necessarily the case. The justification for a belief is separate from a belief, and agnosticism is a completely different belief and is not related to belief in the actual god.

Basically, can you explain to me why someone who is undecided not without a belief in a god. I just don't get it.

 

[Tmoo]

Ok, but can you explain why? If we just ignore definitions and just look at the logic behind it all, you're basically putting someone in an 'undecided' position and to do so, your are arbitrarily tying knowledge with belief when I think be both know isn't necessarily the case. The justification for a belief is separate from a belief, and agnosticism is a completely different belief and is not related to belief in the actual god.

Basically, can you explain to me why someone who is undecided not without a belief in a god. I just don't get it.

Here:
Do you believe in God? Y/N/Maybe

Agnostics choose maybe. That is neither yes or no. Replace Y with Theism, N with Atheism, and Maybe with agnosticism, and there you have it.

You seem to be confused because to you, the question has only two answers. But it has 3. The third being 'maybe', 'i dunno', or 'who cares'. Many people find this answer unacceptable. But to me it's valid and indicates that the person in question either doesn't care or doesn't want to be grouped with one side or the other for whatever reasons. And that's fine. There IS a middle ground.

EDIT: finally, being undecided =/= without belief. it is neither with belief or without. why is this so? because their definitions are completely different.