Agnosticism is NOT a system of belief.

[Shirosaki]

OP doesn't understand where the terms "gnostic" and "agnostic" came from.

Way back in the day, there were those who claimed to have this intimate spiritual knowledge of the world beyond our own. They claimed to have a connection with divinity, and therefore they were certain of God. The gnostics.

The term "agnosticism" came from this. Agnosticism was the belief against this possibility. Agnostics said that any divine beings, be it gods or anything else, was unknowable.

You can't simply take the term "gnostic" and apply the opposite of it, because that's not how the word came into be. The term "agnostic" wasn't even coined until 1869, by Thomas Henry Huxley. He coined the term, and defined it as the view that the truth of any sort of religious or metaphysical claims is unknowable.

Thus, someone who is agnostic acknowledges the possibility that there may or may not be a god, but that it is not possible for humans to know which is the case.

There is no "agnostic atheism" or "agnostic theism". There is agnosticism, AS DEFINED by the person who came up with the term.

OP, please do your research. Telling a philosophy and religious studies major that his clearly documented belief system is not a system of beliefs is rather insulting, especially when the claims are made on ignorance of the subject.

[RabbitPrime]

@RabbitPrime
Your problem is that you're trying to define the world in two divisions, with people who don't care in the "middle," as a third. What the OP is saying is that there are four, agnostics belong to both categories, and so calling yourself agnostic without further defining whether you believe in God or not is incomplete.

What he's trying to do is label sub divisions of theism and atheism and agnostic beliefs. Which is ridiculous because agnostics don't draw absolute conclusions and can not be labeled as theistic or atheistic.

There are two major sects of beliefs:

Theism

Atheism

Everything else becomes a sub category of either of these two (like deism and the various types of atheism). To use deism as an example again, if one is a deist one must also be a theist. It's a category. If one is a practical atheist one must also be an atheist. They're incredibly broad categories.

To be an agnostic you can not fall under either category. Agnosticism exists to draw no conclusions and so exists without accepting or rejecting theistic or atheistic ideas. It is the middle man.

The confusion with agnosticism comes from human nature to seek conclusions and answers. Once there is exposure to a theistic or atheistic idea to an agnostic, their brain begins to analyze it for answers and the idea is influencing their beliefs. If they are so influenced as to believe a theistic or atheistic idea then they can no longer call themselves agnostic. There is no such thing as agnostic theism, to believe that a God exists is to place faith in an idea which cannot be objectively proven; faith is not a characteristic of agnosticism, it's a characteristic of theism. Agnostic atheism cannot exist because atheism rejects the idea of God because it is the literal opposite of theism; rejection of ideas is not a characteristic of agnosticism, it's a characteristic of both atheism and theism.

What we see commonly is people mistakenly labeling themselves as agnostics when they are not agnostic but rather just lukewarm to theistic and atheistic ideas. From here they explain their agnosticism incorrectly and misinformation is spread. A good example of this misinformation and warped definitions of agnosticism is the OP's title post.

[Sarcasm]

I think such distinctions are lost the general public. Seems silly to me to debate semantics when most people know someone's stance on God if the words believer, agnostic, or atheist are used. Sure, people might not grasp exactly what they are saying in a technical, but it is silly to wish everyone to be grammar-smiths and definition aficionados. That frame of thinking is akin to saying you must be a mechanic or engineer to drive a car, because if are to drive a car you must do it in a method that is optimal to operation and function.

Just want to make it clear that I started this topic not because I don't know what people mean when they say "agnostic", but because I can't identify as an atheist without copping a whole lot of shit about being closed-minded from self-proclaimed agnostic, who are really atheists themselves.

[AmosMoses]

Why this "really pisses you off" is a mystery to me. Doesn't seem to me any worse than any of the basic other grammer, and splelling errors rampant on the internet.

Would have been a nice informative post if it didn't come across so ranty and preachy.

[CookieEater]

It is NOT the opposite of being theistic. Atheism draws NO CONCLUSIONS. It REJECTS conclusions. How is it so hard for some people to understand this?

Atheism does not reject conclusions. Atheism is the rejection (or lack of) belief in (a) God and that is in and of itself a conclusion.

And agnosticism is a belief, by the way, namely the belief that the truth is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable; ergo, unattainable.

[Tigercat]

i dont know where u guys are all from, but from the information i get about america (tv etc) there is a huge diffrence between an american christian and a dutch christian. the majority of christians in america seems to be real agressive in spreading there religion and holding it to be the only thruth in the world.

here in holland the majority of christians dont really care about what other people believe, they wont push their relligion onto others. the pushing your relligion onto others is about the only thing i cant stand about those people.

edit: perfect example of this is that part of my familly are hardcore christians (heavily reformed is the litteral translation from dutch) when i visit them for dinner they will start dinner with reading a part of the bible. when i am there they will always read a part that talks about non believers burning in hell for eternity. thats the kind of thing i cant stand

That's a function of the media, not of actual christians.

[Shuyin]

I know that I know nothing

i consider myself an agnostic for a simple reason: i don't belive something just by faith, i want a proof of something before to say "ok, that's it". but there are a lot of things that, with our current knowledge, can be explained only beliving in a God (we all know the science position about the beginning of the universe we know, but no one can explain where everything came from).

so i can't belive religion because of the behaviour they had in the last 1500 years, i can't belive science because they can't explain everything. what am i supposed to do? i stay in the middle.

[Lysah]

blah blah

You fall under a category whether you want to or not. Do you believe in any set religion? Yes? You are a theist. No? You are an atheist. Sarcasm has laid this out at least a dozen times.

If you do not strictly follow a given code that is a religion, you are an atheist. Period. Regardless of how much you can prove it, or how much you care.

[Kavoo]

I dont believe in god(s) and I dont care if you believe or not. Just dont try to shove your god down my throat and we can be friends.

So I guess Im an Agnostic Atheist ?

[Cephyid]

You're either for us or against us! Yeah this is a great thread.

Atheist - Does not believe in God(s).
Theist - Does believe in God(s).
Agnostic - Doesn't know either way.

/thread

[Ägallar]

Want to know what really pisses me off? Self-proclaimed "agnostics". Want to know why? Because you've got no idea what it means.

Being gnostic/agnostic describes how much a person knows, generally with regards to theistic claims.
Gnostic: Claims to possess knowledge relating to theistic matters.
Agnostic: Does not claim to possess knowledge relating to theistic matters. In other words, is not a gnostic.

These two words, while useful, give no indication or description of your stance on religious beliefs.

Being theist/atheist describes your position with regards to religious beliefs and concepts.
Thiest: Believes in the existance of a God or Gods.
Atheist: Does not accept theistic claims. In other words, is not a theist.

The common misconception is that "atheist" means "gnostic atheist", which isn't always the case. Being atheist doesn't mean "I know that God doesn't exist and you're stupid if you believe it does". Being atheist means you don't accept theistic claims as fact. So everyone who claims to be "agnostic", is in fact an agnostic atheist. You either believe in a God or you don't, there is no in-between. If you can't say, with 100% confidence, that you believe in a God, you're an atheist. Sure, you can be agnostic all you want, I don't care, but you're still an atheist.

Given two binary choices, this produces four possible outcomes:
- Gnostic theist: Believes in the existance of God(s), and claims to be able to prove their beliefs are fact. These are the "Bible is fact and are proof of God's existance" theists.
- Agnostic thiest: Believes in the existance of God(s), but does not claim to be able to prove their beliefs are fact. These are the "I know I can't prove my beliefs are true, but I have a feeling that they are" theists.
- Gnostic atheist: Rejects the claims made by theists, and claims to be able to show that theistic claims are impossible. These are the "God isn't real and I can prove it" atheists.
- Agnostic atheist: Rejects the claims made by theists, typically due to lack of evidence to support theistic claims, but does not claim to be able to show that theistic claims are impossible. These are the "I don't think God(s) are real, because there is no evidence to suggest that they are" atheists.

When it comes to your stance on religion, you're one of these four. So "agnostics", which one will it be?

And the angry atheist comes to the party to make everyone uncomfortable with his juvenile "logic" concerning religion. Finding dicitonary definitions does not make you correct in any but the most narrow-minded and technical ways. To make this clear and concise: language changes meaning within cultures, regions and genders. What a word MEANS to someone may not be representative of its denotative meaning at all. It's called context. And in the United States, it is commonly accepted that an atheist is one that is directly opposed to religion, and an agnostic is one that is not sure of their stance and so takes no action. Keep raging brah, it's pretty cute.

[Cryostasis]

Moderate democrat that supports capitalism and abortion, checking in.

Your view is highly ignorant, as you assume everybody should be held to your standards of morality. You're suffering the same character flaw as these extremist religious freaks you seem to abhor.

You weren't trolling? Serious?
Do you realize what you said? You're a "pro-theist" atheist?

Seriously?

I am supposed take a guy/girl seriously that claims to be an atheist and yet support religion?
Ok - you're entitled to your viewpoint, but I personally regard it as mentally unbalanced as well as hypocrytical.

[dawilord]

Semantics... Not sure what you wanna accomplish with this, considering where you are posting it.

[Lysah]

You weren't trolling? Serious?
Do you realize what you said? You're a "pro-theist" atheist?

Seriously?

I am supposed take a guy/girl seriously that claims to be an atheist and yet support religion?
Ok - you're entitled to your viewpient, but I personally regard it as mentally unbalanced as well as hypocrytical.

He says he doesn't believe in God, but he supports people who do, as he understands how beneficial it is to their lives. How is this hard to understand?

[CookieEater]

If you do not strictly follow a given code that is a religion, you are an atheist. Period. Regardless of how much you can prove it, or how much you care.

There are people who believe in God without following a code. They are very much theists, even if they have a different view of God (or theism) than you.

[Lysah]

There are people who believe in God without following a code. They are very much theists, even if they have a different view of God (or theism) than you.

I had to define it that strictly because people refuse to understand that you either believe in God (religion) or you don't, there is no middle ground. I myself don't follow any practical religious teaching, but I am still theistic, and I understand what you mean.

[kwahip]

I used to say I was agnostic, but then as I thought about it I found that atheism makes a litle more sense to me, because if you cant prove something exists, then you have to beleive it doesn't exist until it is proven to exist. Therefor god doesn't exist. Heh hopefully that made sense lol. I haven't really thought about it much beyond that, mainly because I don't care much about it. If anything if my logic is full of holes (probably is) then I'm probably an agnostic.

I don't need a god to be a good person and I don't need a god to have hope. I can get all of this from my own mind. The idea of god is pointless for me and I have no use in wasting my time worshiping something that may or may not exist. The way I see it all I can do is be a good person by my standards, and if god does exist it will see and understand My point of view, and send me to heaven.

/end random thoughts

[Curoch]

Copy pasta from Wikipedia.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Thomas Henry Huxley, an English biologist, coined the word agnostic in 1869. However, earlier thinkers and written works have promoted agnostic points of view. They include Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher,[4] and the Nasadiya Sukta creation myth in the Rig Veda, an ancient Hindu religious text.[5] Since Huxley coined the term, many other thinkers have written extensively about agnosticism.

[Cryostasis]

And the angry atheist comes to the party to make everyone uncomfortable with his juvenile "logic" concerning religion. Keep raging brah, it's pretty cute.

You expect people to not regard you as juvenile with a comment like that? ay?
I've raged before, and seen people rage. That was hardly a rage - and it appears he did put some research in.
Instead of attacking him personally, right off the bat, attack his points - unless, of course, he actually deserves a personal attack.

[MathAddict]

Just want to make it clear that I started this topic not because I don't know what people mean when they say "agnostic", but because I can't identify as an atheist without copping a whole lot of shit about being closed-minded from self-proclaimed agnostic, who are really atheists themselves.

Ah, Well I can understand that. That is why I just don't care if someone thinks I am going to hell or if I am too close minded. No one person in the world can produce irrefutable evidence of the existence of a higher power and that's all the reassurance I need.