I have on more than one occasion come across the topic of being agnostic versus atheist. Many theists claim that you cannot be both agnostic and atheist. It seems to be hard for many theists to distinguish the difference between belief and knowledge. Below is one such conversation I have come across on twitter.
@janh2h @DeityFree Hi Jan…"theism" is what someone BELIEVES. "Gnosticism" is what someone "KNOWS" or claims to "know". There IS a diff.
— A Light in the Dark 🥋 (@CagedTigersRMad) November 3, 2015
In this instance the theist understood, but more often particularly with creationists, they deny it is possible to be both atheist and agnostic.
https://twitter.com/ASkepticAtheist/status/658721499881340928
Many atheists and agnostics are having to correct peoples assumptions when it comes to their knowledge and belief.
@clikchic @Littlest_Fox @REALTALKK2000 @AtheismChat Atheism: "I think God doesn't exist". Agnosticism: "I don't know whether He does."
— Tony Buck (@GrandelftheGrey) November 1, 2015
The word gnostic is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as follows.
Definition of gnostic in English:
adjective
1.Relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Clearly it is referring to knowledge. The definition of agnostic again refers to knowledge of god.
Definition of agnostic in English:
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
So now we have cleared up how the words gnostic and agnostic refer to knowledge, lets explore belief.
The word theism is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as follows.
Definition of theism in English:
noun
[MASS NOUN]
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe
Note that the definition refers to belief and does not refer to knowledge.
Following is the definition of atheism as defined by the Oxford Dictionary.
Definition of atheism in English:
noun
[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
As you can see, the atheism definition refers to lack of belief. It does not refer to knowledge.
There are of course more belief systems but these are the ones we most commonly see. Deism would be one such example but I will not go into for the purposes of defining the differences between the main belief systems. (or lack of)
So as you can see, when you take into account the fact that the first two definitions refer to knowledge and the second two refer to belief or lack thereof, you can have beliefs (or lack of) independent of or in addition to knowledge. This is why you can be both an agnostic and agnostic and an atheist, or an agnostic and a theist. You can also be gnostic and an atheist, or gnostic and a theist. I have created a handy graphic to make it easier to explain. Feel free to use the graphic (please don’t alter) to help your conversations and debates on twitter, facebook or other social media. If you need it altered for any reason, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the various definitions. Click on comments at the top of this article, to comment.
I certainly don’t believe in an anthropomorphic god, or a god with any attributes, which excludes the psychopathic god of the Old Testament. Having said that, science has accepted, if not proven, the beginning of the Universe with the Big Bang. After the Big Bang, time, space, matter, energy came into existence. For any “thing” to exist, there must be space & time within which to be. Therefore, “prior to” the Big Bang no thing a/k/a nothing existed or could exist by definition. Yet the Big Bang occurred. In a universe of time and space, causality exists. The Big Bang was an effect, requiring a cause. But the cause of existence itself is transcendent of existence within time and space. Therefore First Cause, Prime Mover, God, Yahweh, Allah- whatever noun you like, are all just symbols used to represent no-thing (nothing) which humans cannot explain or understand by definition. No-thing is transcendent of time and space, being precedent to them and brings their cause, which is all that can be said. Any attempt to define or explain no-thing is futile and false, whether theological, philosophical, or scientific.
I am no expert on the Big Bang but it was my understanding that matter did exist before the Big Bang and was part of the ‘nothing’. Perhaps that is simply an outdated understanding? Maybe a poor one. Physics is certainly not my forte. I certainly do not discount the possibility of some kind of God, but at this point I see no reason in believing in one. If there is one, I certainly don’t think it is an interventionist God as I think there would then be some kind of evidence. For now, I choose to live my life in such a way that contributes in a productive & empathetic way to humanity. 🙂
Before time and space there was nothing? The laws of physics (Thermodynamics) do not allow something from nothing, hence M theory. Science and reason should temper beliefs, i.e., 7 day creation. I am an agnostic theist and or panentheist. God at best is what Spinoza described as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.
Surely, if the terms are as described, an “Gnostic Atheist” could also be a person who possesses (or claims to possess) knowledge indicating the existence of a God; but who nonetheless does not believe in that God. If these two indices are separate, this permutation cannot be excluded solely based on its inherent irrationality, as humans can be readily demostrated to have engaged in irrational behavior throughout the course of human history.
Alternatively, there is also the possibility for a Gnostic Theist to believe in the existence of a God, despite being utterly convinced that God does not exist. While also irrational on its face, a person might engage in such behavior for perceived secondary benefits: being, for example, of the opinion that people of faith have a correlation with longer life, or lower incidence of heart attacks; or to willfully lend collaborative support to a social structure that they interpret to be beneficial to civilizing forces upon humanity as a whole, irrespective of whether those beliefs have any objectively discernable foundation.
It describes the meaning of words based on current definition. Since the definitions are widely used in reputable dictionaries I don’t have a problem with calling it a gnostic claim. I know those are the definitions because I have looked them up. So basically I fail to see your point. I am an agnostic atheist acknowledging the meaning of words.