Atheist or Agnostic?
One issue I constantly face when talking to a theist about religion is their misconceptions about the terms atheist and agnostic.
The common misconception is that there are three belief systems:
Atheist = There is no God.
Theist = There is a God.
Agnostic = I don’t know.
At the face of it, I can understand how people can see this as the three options to the question “Is there a God?” The problem occurs when they think the question “Is there a God?” is the same as “Do you believe in God”. Those are two totally separate questions to which one could provide two totally different answers.
One could easily say, “I don’t know if there is a God, but I believe in one.” or “I don’t know if there is a God, but I don’t believe there is one”. These are two totally different answers to two totally different questions. So the question becomes, what would you call someone who says, “I don’t know if there is a God, but I don’t believe there is one.”?
Atheist? Well, not exactly because they didn’t say “there is no God” in fact, they said they DON’T know.
Agnostic? Well, they did say they don’t know, which according to the definitions above does make them an agnostic. But they also said they don’t believe. What if they said they did? Would that still make them an agnostic?
In case you haven’t noticed, we’re having trouble determining what these people are because we have two different systems (knowledge and belief) with four possible positions, and only three definitions to choose from. Hence why we’re coming up short.
The solution: You combine these terms. Here’s how it breaks down.
Gnosticism refers to “knowledge”
Theism refers to “belief”
A(gnosticism) means without knowledge
A(theist) means without belief.
so…
Agnostic Atheist = “I don’t know if there is a God, but I don’t believe there is one”
Gnostic Atheist = “I know there is no God, and I don’t believe in him/her/it.”
Agnostic Theist = “I don’t know if there is a God, But I believe there is one”
Gnostic Theist = “I know there is a God, and I believe in him/her/it.”
Before some of you jump to the dictionary to try and contradict the above, allow me to beat you to the punch 
From Dictionary.com
Agnostic:
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
—–
***Note that the above says nothing about belief 
Atheist:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
—–
Hey… look at that “denies or disbelieves”. “Denies” = “gnostic atheist”, “disbelieves” = “agnostic atheist.” It would appear as though the dictionary has confirmed what I stated above.
Now that we’ve established the meanings of the words and how to use them, let’s talk about why we should use them.
When I presented this to a friend (you know who you are) he said, “Two guys are having a beer and someone comes up to them and asks if there is a god. One says “no” the other says “I don’t believe so.” Practically, they are the same answer.”
Well… yes and no. They are “practically” the same answer. But if they were the same you wouldn’t need to put the qualifier of “practically” on there. You’d just say they are the same answer. Regardless, the problem isn’t with the answers, it’s with the answers to the question asked. His scenario said someone asked the question “is there a God”. They’re asking for knowledge. The first guy answered the question that was asked (by saying, “no”). The other answered a different question. He answered, do you “believe” there is a god. That wasn’t the question that was asked.
Now I can just hear some of you looking at the screen and saying, “So what?! It all boils down to the same thing. Either way, you’re not PRO God.”
Here’s why it’s important to know the difference in the terms. I’m going to use our legal system for an analogy.
When someone is accused of a crime they’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. The reason our society has a presumption of innocence is to ensure that as few people are wrongly convicted of a crime. You have to PROVE they did it. It’s not up to the accused to PROVE they didn’t.
Suppose I make the claim, “Joe killed Bob.” In our court of law I would have to PROVE that happened. So suppose I can’t prove he did, but Joe can’t prove he didn’t… what’s the verdict?
Not Guilty.
Is saying that he’s not guilty the same as saying he’s innocent? No. It’s just saying that the evidence for his guilt is not convincing enough. This is much like the theistic debate. If I make the claim, “There is a God”. I’ve made a positive assertion of knowledge. It’s up to ME to prove that there is. If someone is not convinced by my arguments, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically making the counter claim that there is no God (they’re not automatically assuming that he’s innocent). They’re just saying, they’re not convinced by the evidence I’ve provided for my claim. In other words, not guilty.
Someone might say… “It’s the same thing! He gets off either way.” Well, perhaps… but it’s important that we know the difference. It’s important because of this.
Anyone who makes a positive assertion of knowledge must back that claim up.
In our society Christians immediately assume that all atheists are making the positive assertion of knowledge that “there is no God”. This is NOT the case. Many atheists (such as myself) are agnostic atheists. In fact, unless an atheist specifically makes the claim “there is no god” you should assume that they are an agnostic atheist. Otherwise you run the risk of accusing them of making a claim that they have not made.
Same for theists. Just because someone says that they believe in God, Doesn’t automatically make them a gnostic theist who KNOWS there is a God and x,y,z.
We need to start listening to what people are saying and using the proper terms to avoid misunderstanding and misconceptions of people and ideas. If you take the time to ask the questions before you immediately label you may find that you have more in common with that person than you think.
Comments (18)
Gnostic Atheist = “I know there is no God, and I don’t believe in him/her/it.”
How can you deny knowledge?
Doesn't matter if they can back up the claim. That's a separate argument. I agree with you though, I don't think one can "KNOW there is no God". Hence why I'm an agnostic atheist. There are those who do make that claim though. A lot of people automatically assume that all atheists are gnostic atheists. This is why I feel it's important to make the distinction. I don't believe in God, but I can't KNOW there is no God.
Agnostic can be put in front of any group or thought. Philosophically we cannot know anything 100%. So agnosticism is a given for any human being. Yes, we cannot prove anything 100%. We can prove theories or pieces of information by repeated scientific testing up to almost certainty. It is the best we can do. The truth, facts or information can often be known up to 99.99999999999999999%. Agnosticism is easily taken out of the premise. We are left with the proof of the supernatural/metaphysical. By definition we cannot prove them using the scientific method, they are faith-based nonsense. The question is: Do you have faith or not?
Yes – Theist, Deist, Gnosticism, etc.
No – Atheist
The rest of the definition
Given – Agnostic
As it comes to religion, faith or any other supernatural/metaphysical nonsense I am:
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% Agnostic (just for philosophical concerns)
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% Atheist
"As it comes to religion, faith or any other supernatural/metaphysical nonsense I am:
.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% Agnostic (just for philosophical concerns)
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% Atheist "
—
… Then you are an agnostic atheist. Again, whether you think you can or cannot "know" something is a totally different discussion.
The point I'm making is that not all atheist are making the positive assertion of knowledge that there is no God.
(A)gnosticism, refers to knowledge. As such when presented with the question, "do you believe in God" any thing other than "Yes" makes you an atheist. Not an agnostic, but an atheist. (A)gnosticism only comes into play when asked the question, "is there a God" and is independent of your beliefs.
btw, thanks for commenting. I look forward to hearing from you again.
To Rick, what I meant was… logically, how can you know something but deny it?
I know the sky is blue, but I don't believe it is blue.
Basically, I am challenging the existence of a Gnostic Atheist.
Gnostic Atheist = “I know there is no God, and I don’t believe in him/her/it.”
Your sky blue analogy is a positive/negative statement and therefore contradicts itself. Gnostic atheists make a negative/negative claim and is therefore not contradictory.
If I know something does not exist, it's pretty apparent that I also don't believe in it. No contradiction there that I can see.
Unless you're thinking of it like, "If you KNOW something to be true or not true, there's no more need for belief."
I suppose that's right, but that could be equally applied to theists. If they KNOW there is a God, then they don't need to BELIEVE in God, but they don't NOT believe as well.
I have a little story to share , Last week i took my family to one of the lakes in texas, while we were there i looked at the other side of the lake & i saw alot of trees & nice villas , a place where i really needed to be , anyways while i was thinking how to go there i saw a woody stick on the water moving toward the lake bank & started rotating around itself & after 3 minutes around 40 woody sticks came beside it to the lake bank , they stuck together creating a platform !! hmmm… what was that ? I was amazed , anyways i steped on that platform & started to move toward the other side of the lack , it took me 5 minutes to get there , i spent around 15 minutes & i came back on the same platform ……..CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS ?.
BY MIDO
My believe that there is a GOD… He is the only one ,, he is the one who created us & the whole universe .
And No one but him…that made the universe that accurate without mistakes …without mistakes
Because there should be a highest power that controls everything … the only one who sent all 4 religious books . ourselves , our planet , the moon , the sun ( and their cycles between day & night ) they never missed it , what we eat , what we drink ( when the clouds run to an area & the rain ) its amazing how he controls everything in a very simple way . Imagine a company without a manager, without a policy how will it run ? who rewards us when we do good ? , who punishes when we do bad ? who will we ask for help? ….We ask the only one GOD / ALLAH
That is not a valid argument. That's nothing but assertion. If you want to preach, please find another site to do it on. Your words fall on deaf ears.
I'm guessing Mido's never heard of Russell's teapot
) What he said really reminded me of that.
Up next… Carlin's frisbeetarians come and preach. But that won't drive us up walls… only on roofs.
Don't you think that one needs to define what God is before deciding whether someone can believe in it/he/she or not? George H. Smith in "Atheism – The case against god" makes a very good point about it.
Yes. Of course you have to define what you mean by "God" before I can tell you if I believe in it or not. That being said though, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Thus far, no "proof" for any god concept has been compelling enough for me.
I'm open to any proof you want to provide. I would consider myself broadly an agnostic atheist. I don't KNOW that there is no god of any kind, but I don't believe in one.
However, I can consider myself a gnostic atheist as it pertains to certain god claims because they are logical contradictions.
(Tells self: “don’t respond to Jesus-trolls!”) It is great to define terms if you’re writing a paper, or in a formal debate, but trying to proscribe the use of common words in day-to-day life is both arrogant and absurd. The human mind is a remarkable thing, capable of holding a vast amount of stupid and contradictory ideas at the same time (and never assume that yours isn’t.) It’s views on nature, religion, and metaphysics are far to complicated to pin down with (two) words. Everyone has beliefs that fall outside of easy labels, and trying to make the labels more complicated only makes them less meaningful.
I am an atheist. If you want to know the rest of my epistemic beliefs, go ahead and ask! (But warning: I do bite!)
I'm pointing out the difference due to the large number of people who think that agnosticism is a sort of "half-way house" between atheist and theist. This is wrong. It's important to point out this basic misunderstanding because it leads to further misunderstandings. I'm not the first to point this out (far from it). Dan Barker talks about it in his book Godless, as does Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.
You'd be surprise (or maybe not) how many theists assume that all atheists are out to convince everyone that there is no God or that they hold the belief that there is no God (strong atheism or gnostic atheist).
There is a difference when talking to theists. One appears to attack them, whereas the other appears to be unconvinced of their claim.
Agnostics exist, and they don't give a fuck what you call them. They don't fit neatly into your categories either. They continue not to give a fuck weather they're called theistic or agnostic. What I want you to understand is this: Agnostics are real people! Some of them give shit, others don't. but all of them are on our side. As long as we don't piss them off.
I understand they're real people, I never suggested otherwise.
I didn't say anyone had to fit neatly into the above definitions. You can call yourself a turtle, but that doesn't make it so.
I'm talking about the definitions of the words. Words have meanings and I was clarifying a misconception (a common one at that).
So sure, you can believe in God and call yourself an agnostic, just know that your understanding of that word is different than others.