Beat me to it. This clown starts a thread when he can't properly define the terms within it. FAIL Although the picture in the OP was pretty funny.
What sucks is the tendency of humans to ostracize others because they believe or think something different. We become a this or a that because it gives us space to be part of the group that is this or that...to belong to something. And then we point outside the walls at those who aren't this or that so so we can feel more secure inside the group. You guys know where I shake out on the question of God. But there is zero reason to run someone down for their thoughts or their beliefs on this, much of which is colored by their own experience.
I'm not sure how you came up with that. Atheism is about belief and Agnosticism is about knowledge. An agnostic theist would be someone who doesn't claim to know that gods exist, but they still believe that they exist.
You're right. I went back and forth with this when editing. But like I said, I don't really see the point in believing something without feeling that you *know* it to be true. To believe something, I would need some pretty firm conviction in it, even if I had little or no evidence. I wouldn't just believe it for the hell of it. But hey, if you wanna do that, go for it I guess.
The problem is this girl is relying on technical definitions instead of common usage. My post is correct in terms of common usage. The entire concept of applying knowledge to spirituality is stupid. Under the technical definitions, everyone is agnostic, because despite what someone may think they know, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural (because science is natural, it doesn't deal in the supernatural). To be technically a gnostic theist would mean you could prove the existence of a god, which can't be done. To be technically a gnostic atheist would mean you could prove that there are no gods, which also cannot be done (for example, there could be gods who use their omnipotence to prevent their own detection). Therefor, use of the technical terms is meaningless to get across the information that is being discussed when the terms are commonly used. Her three category belief system which she decries is the common usage of the terms. I outlined what they mean in common usage my post above.
Seems it's a fine line, and a grey one at that, whiteboard be damned. What about those who fit the (one) definition of agnostic, namely, one who claims neither a faith nor a disbelief in a God? Someone who claims they don't or can't have knowledge of it, and also has no set faith or belief one way or another as to God's or a god's existence? e.g. He doesn't believe or disbelieve, that agnostic isn't bi-theistic, he's bi-WINNING! Why must one pick a side in the realm of belief? To fit into the neat container?
That would make you an agnostic atheist under the technical definitions (no belief no knowledge) or an agnostic in common usage.
People who use the terms incorrectly and treat them as though all 3 are on the same scale are the ones who are incorrect. Nice try, though.
Nice container. But, does not an atheist believe that there is no God? Maybe popular theory projects this way, but it rather seems like an atheist's stance to try and reel the agnostics in on their side. It's like Gnostic theists trying to say "Well, the agnostics say you can't know, and we say it's all about faith, not knowledge, so you don't need to "know" to have faith. Welcome to team Theist. Or am I just enabling the vague?
It's not a container. It's a definition. Literal fact. An atheist does not have a theory of existence or non-existence. Especially since you can't prove the non-existence of something. An agnostic thinks that the answer to this question cannot be known. Therefore, you are an agnostic atheist. It isn't my container I just made up. It's just the fact of the definitions.
People who believe there are no gods ARE atheists, but not all atheists believe there is no god. At its base level, atheism is nothing more than the rejection of a faith-based position.
Language is misused, which is the case here. To fault someone for using the correct terms is asinine and you know it.
