Agnostic Theist and Agnostic Atheist are logically impossible.

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Edison Tan's picture
Agnostic Theist and Agnostic Atheist are logically impossible.

It is illogical to say that you are Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist.

agnostic
noun ag·nos·tic \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

atheist
noun athe·ist \ˈā-thē-ist\

: a person who believes that God does not exist

Agnostic Atheist by definition of those who claimed that they are, is a person who does not have a define belief about whether God exist or not but also believes that God does not exist.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The definition of those 3

The definition of those 3 words vary from source to source. It should be no surprise that by using certain combinations of those definitions you can create a contradiction that does not exist with other combinations.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
ow man

ow man

So first of all get a good dictionary.

Agnostic is related to what you KNOW, not what you BELIEVE.

Agnostic atheist:

Lacks BELIEF in a theistic god but he does NOT KNOW for sure if his lack of belief is the truth.

Agnostic theist:

BELIEVES in god but does NOT KNOW for sure that his belief is the truth.

Agnostic:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

"but also believes that God does not exist."
As you can see an atheist lacks belief, he has no belief whatsoever.

Edison Tan's picture
You are incorrect. Agnostic

You are incorrect. Agnostic means a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of God's existence, therefore concluded that neither God exist nor not exist.

Agnostic is the equilibrium of Atheism and Theism. You can't have -0 or +0. You can only have 0.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Hmm, i will have patience

Hmm, I will have patience with you and kindly ask you to re-read my post since I gave you the definition of 3 things, yet you seem so confused that you wish they are 1 thing.

1)Agnostic Atheist
2)Agnostic Theist.
3)Agnostic

Read it again please.

Edit:

NO there is no such thing as loose term regarding Agnostic, there are only theists making huge confusions and confusing everybody with them including atheists alike.

When agnostic is being used as an adjective it means "having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

1)Agnostic Atheist - adjective
2)Agnostic Theist. - adjective

Edison Tan's picture
You didn't get the point.

You didn't get the point.

A belief is something you hold with the basis of knowledge. As an atheist, you are already holding a knowledge that the existence of a deity is impossible same as Theism.

That is why Agnosticism defines that such existence is unknowable therefore neither believe nor disbelieve.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I am truly trying hard to see

I am truly trying hard to see your point of view here.

"A belief is something you hold with the basis of knowledge."
Everything has some sort of basis of knowledge, you know how to walk because when you were a baby you gained the knowledge of how to move your legs properly.

so this statement really is generalizing and getting you nowhere.

"As an atheist, you are already holding a knowledge that the existence of a deity is impossible same as Theism."
Please explain to me how does the first sentence even relate to the second?

Apart from that, how do you know that atheism holds the "knowledge that the existence of a deity is impossible"?

And how does that make it the same as Theism?

Ignoring everything I said in my reply does not make your point reasonable, it only proves that you lost the debate regardless if you were right or wrong.

I proved to you that a respectable dictionary makes no contradictions and does not claim what you claimed.
I am still waiting for a reply to that.

JAlexG's picture
Generally whenever I hear of

Generally whenever I hear of an agnostic atheist it means they don't believe in God but can't disprove of one either. But I feel like every term is flexible when it comes to religion

Edison Tan's picture
Nope. There is no such

Nope. There is no such terminology. If you believe in God you are a Theist whether you don't know how to prove that God exist. Same as Atheist. You can't be Theist or Atheist without basis. No matter how strong your basis is or how weak it is, you are not Agnostic.

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
hermitdoc's picture
All definitions are debatable

All definitions are debatable, but in my opinion, the accurate definition of atheism is lacking belief in any deities. To use the definition of "believing there are no deities" gives credence to the potential existence of said deities. I also agree with JVL who notes that agnosticism is a statement of degree of certainty about the presence or absence of deities, so I disagree with your assertion that one cannot be an agnostic theist or atheist.

Edison Tan's picture
Agnostics are claiming that

Agnostics are claiming that the existence of a deity is impossible to prove and that knowledge is different from belief where belief is something you will hold with basis and basis is knowledge whether it is rational or empirical.

Again, agnostics believes that nothing or as of now can prove the existence of a deity therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in such existence. You can't be an agnostic theist or atheist because that will jus contradict the term agnosticism.

solidzaku's picture
On the very top of it, yes,

On the very top of it, yes, there is only such a thing as theism or atheism as it regards the nature of the existence of the supernatural. There is, however, an acceptable gnostic range when it comes to the nature of that supernatural element. One has to be careful, though. I consider myself a Six on the Dawkin's Scale (which isn't perfect, just convenient). That does not make me a theist. I am willing to accept evidence of the supernatural if it is presented verifiably.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Dawkins scale is Dawkins

Dawkins scale is Dawkins scale, it has nothing to do with what is accepted about terminology.

Agnostic is a claim to knowledge.(well accepted terminology)

Whoever tries to mix up knowledge with belief is just wrong, it is not debatable.

It is mixing a cat with a dog, totally different.

Edison Tan's picture
Again. You can't have a

Again. You can't have a belief without a basis and basis is knowledge.

Agnosticism - neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity because such existence can't be known or nothing is known.

Atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods because such existence is improbable or impossible.

Theism - Belief in the existence of a god because such existence is probable and possible to prove (in terms of empirical data, bible, etc.).

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Agnosticism - neither

"Agnosticism - neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a deity because such existence can't be known or nothing is known."
My reply to that was a proper definition. It was number 3)

Agnosticism/Agnostic- "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God."
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

That is what an agnostic is today, it is separate from an atheist and a theist.

I pointed out that the word is also used as an adjective and has a different meaning.
You either are too stubborn to accept this fact or are tolling.

Just by saying "You can't have a belief without a basis and basis is knowledge." does not make a difference to the current subject.
I never said there was no basis in knowledge when having a belief.
Why are you bringing it up?
Knowledge is not belief, that does not mean that belief has no basis in some knowledge.

It does not support your argument at all, only makes it look more dumb, to be honest.

WHAT YOU KNOW, IS NOT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. period.

EG:
I might believe that I am the most sexy person on this forum but I do not know for sure.

I do not know how to put it more clear than that.

ThePragmatic's picture
Of course, you are free to

@ EdisonTan

Of course, you are free to redefine words as you please. But that makes effective communication almost impossible. Some dictionaries have questionable definitions and one has to dig deeper to find the real meaning.

My take on the subject is this:

Gnostic / Gnosticism - The word "gnostic" comes from Ancient Greek, meaning "having knowledge". I means to possess knowledge, often regarding spiritual matters. The word has become connected with a specific sect in early Christianity, who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters.

Agnostic / Agnosticism - A-gnostic, as in the opposite of gnostic. It means, to hold the opinion that the truth regarding a concept, is not known or even unknowable. This word is mainly used regarding metaphysical and religious claims, e.g. "Does God exist?".

Theist / Theism - The word comes from the Greek word "theos" meaning "god". In short, it means to believe in the existence of a god (or gods). It is usually implied that the referred god (or gods) is the creator and ruler of the Universe.

Atheist / Atheism - A-theist, as in the opposite of theist. The word comes from the Greek "atheos" which means "without god" or "godless". It is a much misunderstood and misinterpreted word, and therefore also an often misused word.
In a broad sense, the word means: The lack of belief in god or gods. Some define the word as "a belief that there is no god" and they too are right, in the sense that this refers to a subset within atheism.

Antitheist / Antitheism - In short this word means, to be opposed to theism.

Combinating the terms: I am not only an agnostic atheist, but also an anti-theist.

Edison Tan's picture
You didn't get the point. I

You didn't get the point. I am not redefining the words. I am basing my arguments in logic.

Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known in the existence of a deity (belief) therefore put oneself in position where neither believe nor disbelieve in such existence (known).

Atheist is a person who lacks belief or disbelieve the existence of a deity (belief) because such existence is improbable or impossible (known). Same as theist vice versa.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Knowledge and belief are NOT

Knowledge and belief are NOT the same thing.

ThePragmatic's picture
I think I do get the point.

I think I do get the point. But I still think you are floating on the definitions.

"Agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known in the existence of a deity (known)"
"Atheist is a person who lacks belief or disbelieve the existence of a deity (belief)"

It seems like you are saying: Knowledge = Belief, Belief = Knowledge

There is a difference between saying:
"I know" and "I believe"
"I don't know" and "I don't believe"
"I lack knowledge about that" and "I lack belief in that"

hermitdoc's picture
I would add that one can be

I would add that one can be agnostic and gnostic at the same time. I am a gnostic atheist in regard to the god of the bible.....I am certain that that entity does not exist. However, I am an agnostic atheist in regard to a deistic god...i.e. an entity that started the universe and then simply walked away.....I am reasonably certain that that entity doesn't exist, but I can't know to a certainty.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
This video once linked by

This video once linked by "The Pragmatic" would be well suited here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

Nyarlathotep's picture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism:

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact."

mykcob4's picture
I completely and utterly

I completely and utterly disagree with Edisontan. "Atheism" is a LABEL given to people that simply don't believe what theist profess. Atheism isn't in any way shape or form a belief system. It just means that atheist require REAL proof before they can accept the belief of an omnipresent being (god).
If I stated that there is a purple monkey that we can't see but controls everything, you Mr. Tan and almost everybody would think I am nuts and demand me to prove it. If I countered by just labeling you some inane label like "anti-monkiest", doesn't mean that YOU have a belief system whose core is that you don't believe in the almighty purple monkey.
That is exactly what YOU are doing. You are using a label and calling it a belief system.
Theism is a belief system plain and simple.
Atheism is a label. A label created AFTER people made up their god. A label that describes people that require REAL proof to prove that there is a god. It isn't a belief system at all. It is condescending and arrogant to declare that it is a belief system. It belies the truth and the facts. It's nonsensical, childish, ignorant and highly inaccurate.
It is so misleading and wrong headed that it defies logic.

chimp3's picture
I state there is no god. I do

I state there is no god. I do not demand proof in a god before I will believe. I am just not convinced. Believe me , people have tried to convince me. Not being convinced is not the same as being a theist. To say my doubts about Abrahams god is the same as belief in such god is illogical.

EdisonTan :Theism - Belief in the existence of a god because such existence is probable and possible to prove (in terms of empirical data, bible, etc.).

By this logic theism must default from a belief in a single god to a belief in all gods and any other silly claim ever made. All gods are possible to prove through bibles and other "empirical" data.

Anyone know where Russell 's Teapot has moved to these days? I think scientific data has ruled out it being on the dark side of the moon.

Pitar's picture
TLDR: The docetic Gnostics

TLDR: The docetic Gnostics believed the Jesus character to be a spirit only. It was a hotly debated issue in the formation of early christianity to support a spiritual or flesh and blood Jesus. The latter was decidedly the way the story would unfold and it was necessary to create the cast and stage the occurrences at a period far enough in the past that no living person could contest it. And, so it went down that way...with problems. I consider this last point to be crucial. The modern intellectual discussion of timeline occurrences are one of the problems of the biblical story. To me, that's never going to be resolved as the writers of the story borrowed, made stuff up on the fly, and in many instances did not or could not correlate their own writing with existing material or other works concurrently being written. The timeline is therefor irrelevant to any discussion of support for the story. It does, however, serve to dismiss much of it as impossible or simply period journalism for self-promotion.

Gnosticism has taken on modern definition to stand for belief in a god.

Agnostic would be more like a suspended belief awaiting proof.

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

From Scott Bidstrup -.

"The ideas of Paul, with the contributions of Peter, James, and other early conversants and early bishops, including among others, Ignatius, Barnabas, the author of Hebrews, Clement of Rome and others, apparently communicated back to the local Jesus movements many of which had been converted to the members of the new Christ cult, either as Gnostics or as followers of Ignatius. These local Christ cult converts included the gospel writers, many of whom were inspired to write, at least following in the lead of Ignatias, to take up the cause against the "docetic" heresy of the Gnostics, claiming as it did, that Jesus was a purely spiritual being who never had a physical body, and only "seemed" to be in mortal flesh. Leading the charge against the Gnostics was the first-century bishop Ignatius of Antioch, highly regarded by the church membership and persecuted by the Romans, which of course, only increased the esteem with which he was held. It was his letters, seven of which are widely considered genuine and all of which were written before the canonic gospels, that contain the first references to "the Gospel," to Mary the Virgin, to the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, to Jesus being the seed of David, and God being his father. It is clear that the rapidly spreading popularity of the Isis cult, with it's virgin mother of God story, was the inspiration for including a virgin birth for Jesus. Ignatius is the first to mention the role of Pilate, giving us our first reference date for Ignatius' physical Jesus to have lived in the first century. It is apparent from a careful reading of Ignatius' letters, in comparison to the canonic gospels and the first-century texts that preceeded them, that the myth of a first-century historical Jesus is quite likely to have originated with Ignatius.

Building upon the myth created by Ignatius, and to make a flesh-and-blood, historical Jesus real to believers and thereby make the docetic heresy untenable, additional myths surrounding the life of Jesus had to be and were liberally borrowed by the gospel writers from the pagan religions that surrounded them, probably because of the appeal these myths clearly had had for the followers of the pagan religions. Everywhere were to be found religions that had as major features one or more of the myths that eventually came to be associated with Jesus. Virtually every story surrounding Jesus, whether it be the virgin birth (borrowed from the myth of the birth of Tammuz, a pagan god from northern Israel who was supposed to have been born of the virgin Myrrha), the miracle stories found in the Bacchus and Isis cults, the betrayal and crucifixion, were part of one or more of the pagan religions of the time. The liberal plagiarizing of these stories from the mystery religions was one of the many embarrassing facts pointed out by Celsus. "

David_Holloway's picture
EdisonTan, I have read this

EdisonTan, I have read this thread, and you are claiming that people are missing your point, I disagree. They get your point and are trying to tell you that your point is flawed. It is flawed because you have found a definition to "agnostic" and "theist" in an online dictionary that isn't very concise. These words have more nuances than the online dictionaries you have chosen to use, and when presented with better dictionaries with wider defintions, you dismiss them because they don't fit snugly into you view. So you are either pig headed stubborn, or you're trolling.

CyberLN's picture
This string is about a year

This string is about a year and a half old and the OP has not been around since he posted this.

MCDennis's picture
What an idiotic post. Buy a

What an idiotic post. Buy a better dictionary

xenoview's picture
Necromancy at work!

Necromancy at work!

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.