^What sort of atheist I am depends on the god-concept being proposed. Judeo-Christian God Yahweh, demonstrably false and therefore gnostic atheist. A God that is beyond our comprehension, observation, or detection using what methods we have to evaluate data and establish truth, agnostic atheist because the being proposed is unknowable by its very definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
These split titles amuse me. I am atheist pure and simple, I have absolutely no belief in a God or Gods.
A theist on the other hand is one who believes in a God or Gods and an Agnostic is a fence sitter who either cannot make up their mind about a religion or is too lazy to do the work to determine which side of the fence they would like to sit on.
If an atheist believes that after death there is nothing and a theist believes there is some form of heaven or hell, what does an agnostic believe there is? Bullhorns? Hockey songs?
One of the definitions of an agnostic is "unwilling to commit to an opinion about something".
At least a theist is taking a side and is willing to commit to it.
|
No, gnosis refers to knowledge, what is knowable. Agnostic is not a middle-ground position, it addresses a completely different part of the discussion.
It would be making a positive claim on the part of an atheist to say "there is no god". It's the same differentiation we make between the use of "guilty, not guilty, or innocent" in our justice system. We declare someone guilty or not guilty, but a 'not guilty' verdict does not mean 'innocent'.
Guilty - We have evidence to establish guilt.
Not guilty - We do not have evidence to establish guilt.
Innocent - We have evidence to establish innocence.