Agnostic Atheists

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, that's how I've always interpreted the difference.
Agnostic basically means you don't believe in a God but you haven't completely dismissed the idea.
Atheist is someone who definitely does not believe in a God

I think that's where a lot of theists fall in after dismissal of their theistic religions , but still can't completely dismiss the notion of a god being out there for one reason or another.

I still remember the phase of agnosticism held for a long time until I couldn't even find a valid reason for even the possibility itself and that's when atheism finally settles in as it was prior to any of the introductions involving theism.

I called it returning home, finally at the place before any of this God stuff was ever even introduced before all the unessessary trouble over gods began.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

Yes, that's how I've always interpreted the difference.
Agnostic basically means you don't believe in a God but you haven't completely dismissed the idea.
Atheist is someone who definitely does not believe in a God

Exactly.

I think that's where a lot of theists fall in after dismissal of their theistic religions , but still can't completely dismiss the notion of a god being out there for one reason or another.

This is sort of where I'm at. It's pretty hard to let ago of something you've held most of your life,
so I'm at the point where I may believe in something to some capacity. Not in the Biblical sense of God,
but just a general sense of some kind of higher power or spiritual force, beyond our understanding.
Of course, for me, there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another that anything like this exists or doesn't.
This is why I guess I probably wouldn't really be called an atheist.
But to that degree, I guess that is a bit of a security blanket as to why I cannot dismiss the notion of any kind of god
100%. I do live my life non-religiously because of it however as I prefer to remain neutral.
I guess a more appropriate title for someone in my particular position would be a "Secular Agnostic,"
or spiritual, but not religious.

 

[Kfox]

That sounds pretty much like you could be (or become) an Agnostic.

Come to the dark side, we have cookies.

an agnostic is someone who claims nobody is capable of knowing whether God exists or not. That is not a position I hold; I am 100% certain what some people call God does actually exist.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Kfox]

It's already been described verbally but to those who haven't seen it, here's an instructional chart:

Interesting chart, but it only seems to represent certain God claims; not all.

 

[Heyo]

an agnostic is someone who claims nobody is capable of knowing whether God exists or not.

I don't. I think that the existence and nature of gods is unknown.
And that fit's the definition you have linked to.

That is not a position I hold; I am 100% certain what some people call God does actually exist.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

I am 100% certain that the entities some people call "God" won't be called "God" by the majority of the other people (or they disagree with their existence).

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Interesting chart, but it only seems to represent certain God claims; not all.

Which claims do you see as missing?

 

[LuisDantas]

If your an Agnostic. , your definitely not an Atheist.

I don't think that is quite right.

Most people don't see agnosticism as incompatible with atheism, nor vice-versa.

I don't know why some do.

Myself, I think that most atheists are also agnostic, but that agnosticism isn't always very discernible nor meaningful.

My own agnosticism at this point is essentially a bureaucratic requirement with little significance.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

It's already been described verbally but to those who haven't seen it, here's an instructional chart:

According to this I am an agnostic atheist; However, the use of the term atheist, which I use for myself, is now used to describe someone that does not believe god exists. That would include both the agnostic and gnostic atheist.

The term Agnostic theist makes no sense to me. How can you believe a god exists but not think it is true?

 

[LuisDantas]

The term Agnostic theist makes no sense to me. How can you believe a god exists but not think it is true?

To the best of my understanding, it is the situation of people who accept that there is no way to prove that existence but believe in it nonetheless.

They're agnostic because they can't show a convincing logical argument for the existence of god. And they are theists because they believe that there is at least one real god.

 

[osgart]

I've ruled out the Omni and ideal Gods. I've ruled out beings that have true power and authority over me. So I'm atheist. As for the totality of the nature of existence I consider it a profound mystery, and I have a hobby of seeking answers, so I consider myself agnostic on the matter. However I'm realizing the word agnostic no longer means searching for answers on ultimate existential questions of which are not known.

Damn words are always changing meanings on me.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, that's how I've always interpreted the difference.
Agnostic basically means you don't believe in a God but you haven't completely dismissed the idea.
Atheist is someone who definitely does not believe in God.

No. That would be "strong" atheism. Plain atheism; atheism per se, is simply a lack of belief.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

ttps://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheismAtheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly.

This is sort of where I'm at. It's pretty hard to let ago of something you've held most of your life,
so I'm at the point where I may believe in something to some capacity. Not in the Biblical sense of God,
but just a general sense of some kind of higher power or spiritual force, beyond our understanding.
Of course, for me, there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another that anything like this exists or doesn't.
This is why I guess I probably wouldn't really be called an atheist.
But to that degree, I guess that is a bit of a security blanket as to why I cannot dismiss the notion of any kind of god
100%. I do live my life non-religiously because of it however as I prefer to remain neutral.
I guess a more appropriate title for someone in my particular position would be a "Secular Agnostic,"
or spiritual, but not religious.

No. The technical definition of agnosticism is a belief that God's existence is unknowable.

AGNOSTIC definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

5 senses: 1. a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible → Compare atheist, theist.... Click for more definitions.

www.collinsdictionary.com

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Definition of AGNOSTIC

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Contrast with Atheist, which refers to one who simply has no belief in a God.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

No. The technical definition of agnosticism is a belief that God's existence is unknowable.

AGNOSTIC definition in American English | Collins English Dictionary

5 senses: 1. a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible → Compare atheist, theist.... Click for more definitions.

www.collinsdictionary.com

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Definition of AGNOSTIC

a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Contrast with Atheist, which refers to one who simply has no belief in a God.

This is why it can become problematic when relying on definitions.
There are often subtle nuances within definitions from different sources, with people gravitating to the definition that better serves their agenda.

I find it best to have them clarify what they mean when they use the term and work with that definition or clarify my use of the term to ascertain if they can adopt that meaning within the conversation.

If what they clarify to mean tends to be outside the customarily accepted definition (as often happens on this forum), I’ll then seek to agree on a mutually acceptable term which might be used to stand in for the disputed term.
If not it becomes necessary to stipulate the definition each time you use the term. (This can become tiresome)
At this point the discussion has generally deteriorated into semantics, which is an indication that the ideas behind the words are no longer the focal point of the conversation.

 

[Kfox]

Which claims do you see as missing?

A Rastafarian friend of mine claims Hallie Selassie is God the same way Christians proclaim Jesus as God. Only a fool would claim Hallie Selassie did not exist (he died in 1973) because some choose to call him God. Kumari of Nepal is alive today! How much of a fool would you have to be to stand next to Kumari and say don't exist because some call Kumari God? Christians Call Jesus God; where would people who know they exist, but do not call them God fit on that chart?

 

[Kfox]

I don't. I think that the existence and nature of gods is unknown.
And that fit's the definition you have linked to.

But there are some called God that I know does exist; I just don't call them God.

I am 100% certain that the entities some people call "God" won't be called "God" by the majority of the other people (or they disagree with their existence).

I am 100% certain no entity called God that is called God by the majority of other people. (or they disagree with their existence)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

A Rastafarian friend of mine claims Hallie Selassie is God the same way Christians proclaim Jesus as God. Only a fool would claim Hallie Selassie did not exist (he died in 1973) because some choose to call him God. Kumari of Nepal is alive today! How much of a fool would you have to be to stand next to Kumari and say don't exist because some call Kumari God? Christians Call Jesus God; where would people who know they exist, but do not call them God fit on that chart?

I’m sorry, but the situations you describe are in fact depicted on the chart.

Your Rastafarian friend falls under “theist” as depicted on the chart (the bottom half).
Assuming he was certain (claiming to “know”)
Halle Seassie was in fact a god, he would fall under “gnostic theist” as depicted on the chart
(the bottom right quarter)

The chart doesn’t stipulate which god; any god belief would qualify.

I do not doubt that Hallie Sellasie (the man) existed; (born Lij Tafari Makonnen).
There is plenty of evidence that he did.
I however, do not believe that he was a god.
So concerning the god of Rastafarianism, I am an “atheist” as depicted on the chart
(the top half).
Since I can not honestly be certain (therefore not claiming to “know”), I then fall under the
“agnostic atheist” as depicted on the chart
(the upper left quarter).

This situation is specific to the claim of
Hallie Sellasie and whether or not he was a god as opposed to merely being a man and Emperor of Ethiopia.

With respect to the other cases you offered, your Rastafarian friend would probably join me on the “atheist” (upper half) of the chart assuming he didn’t also believe that Kumari or Jesus were in fact gods.
As to which quarter of the upper half of the chart he were to fall under would depend on his certainty and whether he claimed to “know” whether or not Kumari or Jesus were gods.

It’s important to note that just because someone or something is called a god; doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a god.

Most theists that believe in a god or gods, don’t believe in other gods or god that people who don’t adhere to that same religion/faith do
believe in; and vice versa.

Even if the god in question is someone or something that they acknowledge exits/existed.
It’s not that they don’t believe it exists…..
It’s that they don’t accept it to be a god.

They are theistic towards the ones they believe in, and atheistic towards the ones they don’t.
Depending on how certain, and whether they claim to have knowledge of these beliefs is what determines if the are gnostic or agnostic about them.

Generally, those that identify as “agnostic atheist” simply have not accepted any of the claims of godhood that have of yet been presented to them.

 

[Kfox]

I’m sorry, but the situations you describe are in fact depicted on the chart.

Your Rastafarian friend falls under “theist” as depicted on the chart (the bottom half).
Assuming he was certain (claiming to “know”)
Halle Seassie was in fact a god, he would fall under “gnostic theist” as depicted on the chart
(the bottom right quarter)

The chart doesn’t stipulate which god; any god belief would qualify.

I do not doubt that Hallie Sellasie (the man) existed; (born Lij Tafari Makonnen).
There is plenty of evidence that he did.
I however, do not believe that he was a god.
So concerning the god of Rastafarianism, I am an “atheist” as depicted on the chart
(the top half).
Since I can not honestly be certain (therefore not claiming to “know”), I then fall under the
“agnostic atheist” as depicted on the chart
(the upper left quarter).

This situation is specific to the claim of
Hallie Sellasie and whether or not he was a god as opposed to merely being a man and Emperor of Ethiopia.

With respect to the other cases you offered, your Rastafarian friend would probably join me on the “atheist” (upper half) of the chart assuming he didn’t also believe that Kumari or Jesus were in fact gods.
As to which quarter of the upper half of the chart he were to fall under would depend on his certainty and whether he claimed to “know” whether or not Kumari or Jesus were gods.

It’s important to note that just because someone or something is called a god; doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a god.

Most theists that believe in a god or gods, don’t believe in other gods or god that people who don’t adhere to that same religion/faith do
believe in; and vice versa.

Even if the god in question is someone or something that they acknowledge exits/existed.
It’s not that they don’t believe it exists…..
It’s that they don’t accept it to be a god.

They are theistic towards the ones they believe in, and atheistic towards the ones they don’t.
Depending on how certain, and whether they claim to have knowledge of these beliefs is what determines if the are gnostic or agnostic about them.

Generally, those that identify as “agnostic atheist” simply have not accepted any of the claims of godhood that have of yet been presented to them.

You have completely missed my point. My point was not where does the Rastafarian who believes Hallie Sellassie, is God, or the Hindu who believes Kumari is God fall on the chart, my point was where do I who recognize what my friends call God does exist, but I don't call them God; I call them something else fit on that chart. You can't call me an agnostic or gnostic atheist because I am 100% certain things called God do exist, you can't call me any type of theist because there is nothing that exist that I call God; so where do I fit on that chart? IMO the solution is to quit trying to define theism/atheism as about whether God exist or not and define it about believing in God or not.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

IMO the solution is to quit trying to define theism/atheism as about whether God exist or not and define it about believing in God or not.

That is what the chart IS about.
Theism/atheism is about one’s belief in a god

my point was where do I who recognize what my friends call God does exist, but I don't call them God

In this case if by “I don’t call them God” means
“I don’t believe they are God” then you are an atheist concerning what they call God; you don’t accept what they call God is a god.

As I said:

It’s important to note that just because someone or something is called a god; doesn’t necessarily mean that they are a god.

When you say

You can't call me an agnostic or gnostic atheist because I am 100% certain things called God do exist

You are 100% certain that things called God exist. (as am I)
But are you 100% certain that those things that some call God, in fact are God?

It’s not about whether something that exists is called God, but rather whether you believe that those things that exist are in fact gods.

you can't call me any type of theist because there is nothing that exist that I call God; so where do I fit on that chart?

Again as per your solution

and define it about believing in God or not

If by “there is nothing that exist that I call God”; you mean “there is nothing that exist is what I believe to be a God”, then you are an atheist on the chart.

IMO the solution is to quit trying to define theism/atheism as about whether God exist or not

One needs to believe/accept that a god exists in order to believe in that god…..wouldn’t you agree?
Someone or something doesn’t in fact become a god just because somebody calls them a god.
It’s up to each individual to determine if they
believe/accept the claim.
If they believe the claim …..they are theistic
If they don’t believe the claim they are atheistic

So on the chart;
someone who accepts any of the multitudes of claims and believes in at least one god……..
is a theist. (the bottom half of the chart)

someone who doesn’t accept any of the multitudes of claims and doesn’t believe in any god/s…….
is an atheist. (the top half of the chart)


This is regardless of whether both the theist and atheist agree on the existence of a particular person …i.e.

Lij Tafari Makonnen ( the man that upon assenting to become the Emperor of Ethiopia took on the title "By the Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Elect of God", who some believe to be a god incarnate.

Or Trishna Shakya (the girl who some believe to be a manifestation of a goddess and given the title of the Royal Kumari of Kathmandu)
Or any of several other prepubescent girls throughout Nepal bestowed with the title of Kumari for a short period of time.

Or anyone else……
If someone believes that any existent person is a god (literally), then they are a theist.
If someone doesn’t believe that any existent person is a god, then they are an atheist.
Even though they both agree that the person in question is in fact existent; they simply have different beliefs about whether that existent person is in fact a god.
That belief or disbelief is what differentiates them as either theist or atheist.

The same holds true if it is something instead of someone.
Some people believe the sun is a god, or that the moon is a goddess, or that the earth itself is a god, or that the universe is god.

Two people can agree that the sun, the moon, earth, and the universe all exist.

If one of these two people believes that any (or all) of those things are a god…..
they are a theist.

If one of those two people doesn’t believe that any of those things are a god…….
they are an atheist.


Gnostic or agnostic describes how certain either of them claims to be:

If one of those two people claims to be certain and claims to know that their belief/disbelief is correct….they are gnostic about that belief/disbelief.
(the right side of the chart)

If one of those two people doesn’t claim certainty and doesn’t claim to know that their belief/disbelief is correct….they are agnostic about that belief/disbelief.
(the left side of the chart)

This isn’t really that difficult of a concept, is it?

 

[Kfox]

That is what the chart IS about.
Theism/atheism is about one’s belief in a god

I’ve always considered “to believe in God” means to believe the claims people make concerning whatever it is they choose to call God. Is this what you mean when you say “believe in”?

In this case if by “I don’t call them God” means
“I don’t believe they are God” then you are an atheist concerning what they call God; you don’t accept what they call God is a god.

To me God is just an idea believers have in their heads. So if a believer speaks concerning God, he needs to specify what God is, and I will accept that as his idea of God. So if God is an idea someone has in their heads, I accept what he calls God as God IOW an idea he has in his head.

You are 100% certain that things called God exist. (as am I)

SOME things called God exist; other things called God are just some figments of some very wild imaginations.

But are you 100% certain that those things that some call God, in fact are God?

What is God?

It’s not about whether something that exists is called God, but rather whether you believe that those things that exist are in fact gods.

I’ve explained what my idea of God is, in order for me to answer your question you have to explain what your idea of God is. I will respond to the rest later after you've explained what God is.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I’ve always considered “to believe in God” means to believe the claims people make concerning whatever it is they choose to call God. Is this what you mean when you say “believe in”?

Yes.
If you accept their claim and share their belief.

To me God is just an idea believers have in their heads. So if a believer speaks concerning God, he needs to specify what God is, and I will accept that as his idea of God. So if God is an idea someone has in their heads, I accept what he calls God as God IOW an idea he has in his head.

“just an idea in their head.”
In other words “is imagined and doesn’t comport with reality”……correct?

Yes;
They specify their interpretation of what God is…
now you understand their belief….
now you make a determination as to whether you accept it and share that belief.

I accept what he calls God as God IOW an idea he has in his head

This is a very sloppy sentence which lends itself to misinterpretation…..
I presume you mean;
“I understand what he calls God as an illusion he has in his head.”
And that that illusion doesn’t comport with reality, and is therefore unfounded, yes?

SOME things called God exist

Whether they are called God isn’t the point.

Do you accept/believe those things that are called God to actually comport in reality in the same way as the person that calls them God imagines them in there head?

Or do you instead see those things as what they actually exist as; without the extra imagined qualities that are believed by the person that calls them god?

What is God?

As you indicated……

the claims people make concerning whatever it is they choose to call God.

I’ve explained what my idea of God is, in order for me to answer your question you have to explain what your idea of God is.

You apparently haven’t been paying attention.

I am an agnostic atheist.
(Which I suspect you are as well, based on what I glean from what I think it is you are saying)
I don’t have a belief in any gods.

I consider what claims I’m presented with on the terms (the ideas) of the claim/s presented.
I evaluate them, to determine if there is any rational justifiable reason to believe them to be true.
To date, I haven’t come across any that qualify.

It is one of the reasons I don’t accept the concept of gods……
because there are so many incongruent, conflicting, contradictory and illogical assertions of what a god is, it seems to me that they all become extremely implausible.