Too many times I have informed someone that I am an atheist, only to have them reply, “Oh, but how could you know that God doesn’t exist? You’re taking a faith position!”
Many headaches later, we finally come to an agreement over the definitions of these words.
This arrangement is an attempt to clarify and classify these words, so that their rogue meanings no longer confuse and muddle religious debate.
To begin with, here are the four key terms arranged on a graph with their opposites across from them. This should allow a very rough placement of one’s theological position. It will be refined in greater detail later.
Now here are the terms defined. If the terms are new to you, refer up to the graph to get an idea of how they relate to one another.
The horizontal axis concerns WHAT YOU BELIEVE:
The vertical axis concerns WHAT YOU THINK WE CAN KNOW:
So, to restate:
These four labels can be very useful in describing the way we feel about gods. They can combine together to make more precise labels.
An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.
A theist gnostic is someone who believes in a god/gods and thinks that the existence of gods can be known. This position is usually referred to as just ‘theist‘, since people who believe in gods, usually also think that their existence can be known.
An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.
A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real.
So we have two common positions: atheist agnostic and theist
and two less common positions: atheist gnostic and theist agnostic
and we can change the graph to reflect that:
In terms of numbers, the main positions are represented here, and the fringe positions minimized. Though the corners are cut, these positions are by no means impossible. For example, absolute atheist gnostic would express: “I know with absolute certainty that no Gods exist.” And absolute agnostic theist would express: “There is absolutely no way to know God’s existence for certain, but I have no doubt whatsoever that there is one.”
The direction of the arrow represents the direction of skepticism on the graph. The upper-most left is the position of the most doubt, whilst the lower-right displays the position of the most certainty.
The absolute central position is one of apathy or indifference. An apatheist, perhaps. *
Someone who does not know what they think yet cannot be placed on the graph, and should make up their mind if they wish to find a theological label for their views.
A very important point is that claims to knowledge are only made in the bottom half of the graph. Only gnostics make claims to knowledge.
A quirk of the theist/gnostic box is that the concept of God changes from corner to corner. (Click images to enlarge)
So, to get an idea of what all this means, here’s some common positions located on the graph:
It’s important to remember that these terms can still be misleading.
When talking about different gods that people believe in, we could pick different positions on the graph depending on which god is under discussion. For example, Christians will be on the theist axis when it comes to Jesus, but on the atheist axis when it comes to Zeus.
People who refer to themselves in casual usage as atheists usually mean that they are atheists for all possible gods, whilst a Muslim would be an atheist for all gods except Allah.
Finally, here’s the graph in its final form. Where do you fit?
* Note: Such a person will act as if there are no gods, since they are utterly indifferent to the idea. For all intents and purposes, they are an atheist. This is a non-trivial point. Babies are born indifferent to the idea of gods – indeed – they cannot conceive it, and accordingly are atheists: they do not believe in gods because they can not.
By Peter Brietbart
Peter[A]freethinker.co.uk
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
September 25th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
It's just like Tangrams! Perhaps Barry could give a prize to the reader who can arrange the shapes into the most interesting design?
(Sorry about that: it's very good really. I like visual representations of concepts – probably because I'm a bit thick!!)
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Excellent graph =]
This helped refine my own understanding a bit more, as well as introduce me to the "gnostic" side of things. I'll be showing this to just about everyone I talk to about religion / beliefs.
Personally, I'm atheist-agnostic. I used to think those were completely separate, haha.
Thank you for taking the time to do this, Peter!
September 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Great Post. Anyone who follows the Atheist / Freethought blogosphere has encountered these arguments far too frequently. Greta Christina had a recent post about the same issue just yesterday: http://gretachristina.typepad......hristina...
It is one of the most common misconceptions I hear from people outside the debate who know I'm an Atheist and like to label my position as one based on certainty. It has nothing to do with certainty and everything to do with probability.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I’m not sure how I fit in.
I believe it is possible to demonstrate that no god can exist which is both good and omnipotent; but I accept that an omnipotent evil god could (potentially) exist.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
An interesting discussion and the illustrations certainly help. It’s always a good idea to get the semantic arguments out of the way to avoid them derailing a proper discussion, but I can’t help but think a certain end of the spectrum are often unwilling to learn what words actually mean when it is so much easier to react to them in an emotional manner. ‘Atheist’ is still a very charged word, no matter what it may actually mean in any given context.
Anyway, there is a position which I would consider myself to be that I am not quite sure where to plot it on the graph. I do not believe in any particular, personal god’s existence, but I also think it is very possible to know whether a god exists or not (if it were to tell us of its existence, that would be a good start). I would have gone with the term atheist agnostic since I don’t believe but I think we could know, but all examples of this position seem to point to knowing that there is definitely not a god. That’s not really reflective of what I feel. So any help here would be appreciated. Maybe I just missed something.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Why is the arrow in final51.jpg diagonal? Shouldn't be the kind of god be outside the diagram? As for the different gods, there should one diagram for a higher-power-god and one diagram for a personal god: I can be absolutely certain that a higher power exists or just half-way certain that a higher power exists. The certitude of belief (x-axis) has nothing to do with the kind of god believed in.
Don't confuse certainty of belief with level of activity. It is true that believer in a personal God tend to religiously more active than believers in a higher power. But that says nothing about the certitude of belief.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
To clarify, while I think we CAN know if a god exists, that doesn’t mean I think we DO know yet. So I am sort of a potentially-gnostic-atheist I suppose, but that doesn’t seem the right terminology.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Doesn't this all depend on how one defines 'god'? As an atheist I believe that the 3 letter word – 'g o d' exists just as much as any other word and if I choose to use it as a synonym for the mysteries of existence that science hasn't yet explained who is to say I'm wrong? God defined in that way does 'exist' and inasmuch as we do not know if there are any natural limits to the scope of scientific enquiry it is even possible that this 'god' may be eternal.
This is an entirely different thing from saying that there exists any supernatural being that has ever had any interest whatsoever in the human race, or ever will have, will ever make his existence known, or whose existence we shall ever prove or disprove.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I consider myself an ignostic atheist. Whether I'm agnostic or gnostic about the existence of god(s) depends on how you define "god".
The way I see it, gods as they are sometimes defined just can't logically exist and so I feel pretty confident saying they don't exist. However, there might be other beings out there that other people would definite as "gods". I don't know for certain they don't exist, and heck, some people have thought that mere mortals are "gods" — in which case, I can't argue against the existence so much as the definition.
In any case, I don't see much use in "gods" whose existence you can't prove or disprove, so in regards to them I'm an apathetic agnostic atheist. Or, to put it simple, "I don't know and I don't care."
September 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Hello The Mike.
I had a quick go at placing your position: http://imgur.com/1069n.jpg
Is that what you meant?
September 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!
I don't know how many times I've tried to explain this to theists and atheists alike. Theism and atheism respect belief, and Gnosticism and Agnoticism respect knowledge.
… it is my practical *belief* that are of us are agnostics (in that we don't presently have knowledge of God), and those who believe otherwise are deluded
September 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I think it would be a better idea to simply clarify gnostic and agnostic. Lets just limit the concept of "knowledge" to knowledge we currently have. With the knowledge we currently have, we can't know for sure whether or not any gods exist (due to lack of evidence).
If you want to throw "and all future knowledge" into it… well yeah. Then you're just getting into "what ifs". What if the sky turns green and god floats down on a cloud and cures all amputees while shooting unicorns out his ass? Then obviously people would say they'd believe in him.
That hasn't happened though. I think the whole idea here is to stick to what we do have knowledge of, and whether or not that knowledge allows for the existence of a god, or it doesn't.
September 25th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Then we'd have "the problem of good," wouldn't we?
September 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Atheist/Agnostic here.
I would argue against the Abrahamic theist position by saying that ancient, pre-scientific peoples who lived on a dust mote in a vast universe were probably, and in many cases demonstrably, wrong about most of what they believed to be true. So thinking they got something as nebulous as the god question right is a bit of an intellectual stretch.
To be both fair and humble, I've got to turn a similar argument on myself: what can this particular dust mote dweller, in this present age of relative ignorance, know about life, the universe, and everything? My answer is that there may yet be some sort of undiscovered god(s) lurking about in the cosmos, or that better evidence than old books and numinous feelings for some current religion may someday come to light, but so far I don't have any good evidence-based reasons to believe in these things, and faith is no substitute for knowledge; it's far too unreliable.
Put more succinctly: I don't know whether or not there are any gods, but I don't believe in them in spite of that fact. (expressed in a humble or supercilious tone, depending on the audience)
September 25th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
One slight problem with this is that "Gnostic" and "Gnosticism" also refer to certain rather specifc religious doctrines (see The Gnostic Gospels)
September 25th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
This is a pretty good graph for a quick stab at the issue.
However, I disagree with the idea that "Someone who does not know what they think yet cannot be placed on the graph." Someone who isn't sure is still without a belief in a god. Since I view the definition of atheist as "someone who is without a belief in god" then anyone without belief in god falls into the category. At least I feel that anyone who isn't sure cant believe, so must be in the other section. So, you could place them center left on the graph, right on the horizontal axis.
I also feel that the chart is a bit confusing because there are (at least?) 2 types of Agnosticism. Strict and Empirical. Strict Agnostics fall on the extremes of the top half of your chart (whether theists or atheists) whereas Empirical Agnostics fall on the Gnostic half, due to the fact that you've defined Gnostic as "can know" instead of "do know".
September 25th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Why do we sing “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” when we are already there?
September 25th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I don't beleive in a f***ing god will that do!
September 25th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
What an excellent post by Peter Brietbart, his chart illustrates the definitions quite well. As most of us atheists know when debating with theists, you have to debate semantics first as theists are rather fond of changing word definitions to suit their argument.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
This agnostic atheist commends your most excellent post.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I'm an atheist of the basest kind. I just barely believe all of you guys exist. Even my own image in the mirror doesn't look like me. Perhaps belief is tied closely to trust. The terminally religious probably never had an actual experience with angels or whatever. But they trusted their mother, father, pastor, whatever, who would never lie to them. Thus is dangerous gullibility passed through generations.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
An excellent diagram, the only problem is that "gnostic" has a whole raft of meanings of it's own beyond "we can know whether God exists or not"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
While "Agnostic" does mean "we can't know", I'm not sure that the opposite works… "Gnostic" can mean all sorts of things. I only mention it because if you wander around saying "you are gnostic" people will imagine you mean all sorts of things and you will get more headaches and more arguments about definitions…
September 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Pretty good post. You have correctly labeled deists as gnostic theists – I have seen a lot of debate where people try to describe deists as agnostics.
There is a complication though, because some definitions of god are impossible. A classic example is both an omnipotent and omniscient being. If he knows what he is going to do, that also means he does not have the power to change it (otherwise he is not all-knowing). So a person who is an atheist-agnostic may be atheist-gnostic on some definitions of god. Richard Dawkins makes an excellent point in his writings when he tells (for example Christians) that they are atheist-gnostic of Ganesh and Wotan, and that he merely adds Yahweh to his list.
in other words (surprise-surprise), it's not wise to generalize.
September 26th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Yeah but.
What if I were one of the gods, and due to an identity crisis or whatever, I doubted my own existence. Where would I fit into the…
Oh why do I even bot
September 26th, 2009 at 4:13 am
It seems to me that the missing lower left corner doesn't make sense. You're saying there are few strong atheists (far left) who believe strongly that we can know whether gods exist or not (far bottom)? I think people can't logically have a strong opinion about whether gods exist (positively or negatively) unless they also believe strongly we can know it.
The two upper corners should be the missing triangles, so the diagram looks like a house. I'm saying there are very few strong (non)believers who also feel strongly that we can't know for sure. These two opinions seem contradictory.
In fact, maybe the whole diagram should be a triangle. Lower left point is strong atheist/strong gnostic. Lower right point is strong theist/strong gnostic. Upper point is strong agnostic and 0 on the atheist/theist axis.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I refuse to be labelled!
I just don’t believe in divinity! How hard can it be?
How would you label a baby or a 2 year old ?
I have no label either for not collecting stamps or for not believing that the earth is flat.
September 26th, 2009 at 8:41 am
This is an interesting chart which has provoked much good discussion. But I think the problem you point out when you say "When talking about different gods that people believe in, we could pick different positions on the graph" is a bigger problem than it first appears.
Without a proper definition of "god", I do not know where I would fit on the graph.
Are we talking about obviously made-up, logically contradictory constructs such as Yahweh or Allah? I think it's possible to know that these gods don't exist, and I definitely don't believe in them. So that would put me somewhere near the bottom left (truncated) corner.
Are we talking about a deistic "prime mover" without human characteristics, which created the universe and is now, as Ali G put it, "just chilling"? We can't really know whether such a thing exists or not – it isn't self-contradictory like Yahweh – but I still don't believe in it. So that would put me near the top left.
Or are we using a pantheistic definition, where god is nature? If we accept such a definition, I think we can pretty much know that "god" exists, and I believe in it. So that would put me down at the bottom right.
Which brings us to the problem of the "quirk box", where two different types of god suddenly make an appearance. God-type cannot be determined by the sum of your atheism + agnosticism, because your atheism/agnosticism is determined by which type of god you are talking about!
Even on its own terms, the quirk box doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. It is perfectly possible to think you can know for sure that personified, interventionist god exists (I have met many people who think this), which would put you at the extreme bottom right. Equally, you might well think that you can't really know about a "mysterious higher power", but still believe very strongly in it, which would put you in the top right.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:24 am
In addition can I offer up the position of Harry's Wager, whereby to avoid angering whatever divinities may exist I avoid making claims as to what they want, what they are like or how they view me, since getting it wrong would be more dangerous than just not going there in the long term?
September 26th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
It should really be a line divided into three, or at most a spectrum: Rational – Deluded – Liar.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I have been Athiest for over 40 years and there is no question in my mind about it. There is no supernatural sky daddy to care of things for you. Religion is man made and the mythological book called the bible was written by men who had nothing better to do in between hearding their sheep.I am not worried about when I die, I realize that is the end of my existance.
September 26th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
wow, a while back I presented this same idea on a forum—denying god exists is meaningless without a definition of god. The consensus was; we don't need to do that; everybody "just knows" what we mean by god. And these guys were atheists. Go figure.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It is true that the nonexistence of "gods" as a class, undefined except for the assumption that if we encountered one we would might well consider it a god, cannot be proven without searching every cc of the universe. But anyone who parrots the big lie that no one has ever proven or can ever prove the nonexistence of "God", defined as a god possessing the oxymoronic qualities attributed to it by major religions, is plain ignorant, repeat, ignorant, and should consider a course in Logic 101. Victor Stenger in, God: The Failed Hypothesis, has proven exactly that. And as early as the third century BCE Epicurus proved that a god that is simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent cannot and therefore does not exist. The chief Christian god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and therefore does not exist. Ditto the Muslim Allah and Jewish Yahweh.
Agnosticism was defensible in the nineteenth century, before historians started applying their analytical skills to the J/C bible. Today it is analogous to claiming that we cannot know whether Mother Goose or Alice in Wonderland exists.
September 26th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
So there can still be
- omnipotent omniscient indifferent god
- omnipotent non-omniscient good/evil god
- omnipotent non-omniscient indifferent god
-any non-omnipotent god, where morality and omniscience play no part in whether or not it can exist
September 26th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I'm assured that there's another position: opportunistic. In particular, any vicar who benefits from a splendid new house with all mod cons (yes, such do exist while nearby draaughty Victorian vicarages are crumbling). Would that be "willfully deluded", I wonder?
September 27th, 2009 at 2:32 am
To me, this agnostic/gnostic argument within atheism is totally unnecessary and somewhat of an intellectual fraud, an unnecessary encumbrance to the whole position.
First off, WHICH god is it that you're atheistically agnostic about? Are you also atheistically agnostic/gnostic about the thousands of Hindu gods? Do you also reserve a place for them in your unsure knowledge?
What about the gods of the Australian Aboriginals; are you agnostic about them or is it just 'God' you're agnostic about? Or what of the gods of the American Indians? Do you reserve a position of 'we can't really know for sure that the giant serpent god exists'? or that Atlas just really might be holding the world on his shoulders, as we can't really know for sure? Are you atheist agnostic about Zeus? Thor the Thunder god? Odin?
Why does this 'God' get a special status of agnosticism?(Meaning… without knowledge. The 'a' before agnostic is a Greek prefix that means 'without'. The same as the 'a' before 'atheism'. The word was A-theos…without god. and having knowledge of something does not automatically then imply that the thing you have knowledge of is real).
'God', gods and goddesses are MYTHOLOGICAL beings, no different from centaurs, cyclopes, gorgons, harpies, furies, Fates, mermaids and vampires. Do you also reserve a place for agnosticism with them too? as they are all as equal in the case of being unable to be proven not to exist. 'God', is a mythological being, and so why do we reserve for 'him' this special place of agnosticism?
I am one of those rare atheists then, and I say positively there is no god, or gods, or goddesses, just as I say there are no unicorns, fairies at the bottom of my garden, mermaids, sirens, or Harry Potter and the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. When atheists finally realize that 'God' is a fictional character, invented by human beings, you will no longer feel the need to call yourself an atheist agnostic–the whole argument is an unnecessary blind to the position that very much needs to be asserted in this day and age of continuing religious superstition and interference in our lives; we need to stop fooling around with 'atheistic agnosticism' and say, There is no God.
September 27th, 2009 at 4:50 am
In contrast to the terms on offer here, I would probably describe myself as an "atheist realist", meaning that I reject belief in God as anything other than a product of the human imagination. When one accepts all gods and spirits as human cultural constructs, one has a basis for forming realistic models of the nature of religion and the roles it plays in the imaginitive human-centred cosmologies that different cultures have constructed for themselves. As for the cosmological "truth claims" of these religions, I would favour the logical positivist view that such claims are too devoid of real information to be empirically meaningful.
September 27th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I was trying to find some reference in the comments the Russell's orbiting teapot, but instead I found Callisto's comment which says it all.
September 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
One minor quibble with your otherwise logical and valid comment: The picture of Atlas holding a global world on his shoulder was a very late invention unrelated to the original Atlas myth. At a time when it was believed that the earth is flat and the sky a solid hemispherical dome, Atlas, a deification of the north African Mount Atlas, was assigned the task of holding up the sky so that it did not collapse under its own weight.
September 27th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Why do scientists call it research when looking for something new?
September 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
This graph reminds me of http://www.politicalcompass.org/ have any of you ever seen it?
I'd be in the bottom left hand corner, how about you?
is there much, if any correlation between ones political views and their theological position, do you think?
September 27th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
This graph reminds me of http://www.politicalcompass.org/ have any of you ever seen it?
I'd be in the bottom left hand corner, how about you?
is there much, if any, correlation between ones political views and their theological position, do you think?
September 27th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Not certain of the the semantics of the word research but my definition is: a systematic investigation to establish a fact.
I must agree that Callisto's well argued comment above has a valid point in that we atheists/freethinkers/non-believers are in danger of elevating the status of certain gods above others when we know that they all belong in mythology and therefore equally fictitious. I am convinced that there are no gods, logic, reason and scientific inquiry would have me say with 100% certainty as we have no evidence for, but plenty to suggest none; and we cannot prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. As always, the burden of proof of gods falls upon those who cling to this foolish proposition.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:05 am
WOW.. that made so much sense. I don't know why nobody was ever able to describe it like that before. I think I'm more of an agnostic than I realised.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Thanks! I wrote a post about this very topic and one of my commenters pointed me here. Nice job!
September 29th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
I'm always doubtful about these sorts of diagrams, they are typical of pseudoscience. They are only really valid if you can put numerical values along the axes, and identify all the points in the areas with some clear meaning. I have a problem from the start. You don't define what you mean by belief and knowledge. For me belief is dependent on knowledge, they are not independent variables. I base the strength of my belief on the evidence. Perhaps by belief you mean knowledge based on personal experience as opposed to our communal scientific knowledge?
October 1st, 2009 at 10:30 am
I am clear where I stand on this issue and I think you have a very good post here, the visual representation does a good job explaining the concepts without leaving much room for doubt.
I think the best way to respond to religious quips, how do you know that god does not exist, I believe he does?
“Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. The statistical standards of evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial…ideally 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not caused by chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real…Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not ,ake the claim false…[and] rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth.” – Michael Shermer
This means that the onus of proof for the null hypothesis lies on the person asserting a positive claim, not on the skeptic to disprove it.
Vis a vis “You say you believe in god and that god exists, substantiate it?”
“If he doesn’t exist why ar ewe here?” -answering with questions
“If you can’t show he doesn’t exist then he must.”
Typical responses.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I don't think this author understands the teapot argument. It's ridiculous that you're putting atheism under a belief title.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Who cares? "The Golden Rule" has worked for over a half of a century for me.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:42 am
What about someone who says that they don't know what the word "God" denotes? What about someone who suspects it doesn't actually denote anything (like "squircle", being defined as "a square circle")?
To such people, the answer to the belief question "Does God exist?" is not "Yes", or "No" or "Probably" or "Probably not", but rather:
"Eh?"
October 8th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Interesting. However, your initial premise of the majority viewpoints is incorrect. You state that Atheist Gnostic and Theist Agnostic are both the "fringe positions". This is completely backwards. By far, the prevalent belief of most Theists is Agnostic – "One cannot KNOW if god exists, but I have FAITH that my god is real." This is the failsafe position for most Theists, and one of their arguments in favor of a faith based lifestyle. Likewise most Atheists are in fact Gnostic, believing that there is ample 'evidence' supporting the position that "no god can exist", and since a god CANNOT exits, it is foolhardy to waste personal time and effort believing in one.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This don't cover all positions.
What do you call someone then who not only doesn't believe in god, but also believes that god does not exist. Note that this is not an atheist gnostic. Reason being: I (under your taxonomy) am an atheist, I do not believe in god, however I also believe it is possible to know whether god exists or not, furthermore I believe that I have not aquired this knowledge, I just think it's possible given the right circumstances. As such, I am counted as an atheist gnostic (something which I thought would be fairly common). But I plainly do not believe that god does not exist. I imagine by symmetry, there would be a similar deficiency in the theist camp.
This is interesting, because the use of "atheism" which you are objecting to in this post is exactly the position that fills this gap.
Maybe you need to redefine agnostic and gnostic. i.e. gnostic is someone who believes they do know whether god exists or not. Of course by doing this, you've thrown away the possibility of all the nice positions you have outlined. I'd suggest a third category. Doing this though would result in two rather large problems. 1) What word do you choose, seems to me the standard word used in at least some everyday language is "atheist" and "theist" (of course with meanings different from what you have defined here. As such, I think the response you have to make to people would to not show them such a chart, but point out that "atheist" is ambiguous, and needs to be distinguished between (at least) 2 different meanings.
and 2) your chart won't look so pretty.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Brilliant! This post very well explains what I was trying to get across in a similar post last year.
October 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I would disagree with regards to one small justification. You've written under gnostic atheist "I'm pretty sure". That wouldn't be gnostic atheism, gnostic would be "I know god doesn't exist."
October 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
that was great! i was always confused by these terms. i know now that i was/am atheist agnostic. i always thought atheist means one who says Gods don't exist and Agnostic means one who says i don't know whether they do, they might. i have read recently that the psychologist Dr Albert Ellis described himself as probabilistic atheist. What could that mean?
Thanks Peter. i will sure give you a thumbs up AND subscribe to the RSS.
October 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I posted some thoughts on this chart here http://camelswithhammers.com/2.....istingui... in case there is any interest.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
as and Ignostic I dont fall into any of these! woot! heh
October 13th, 2009 at 3:18 am
the one in the middle. could be a relativist person. someone who can believe in the 4 extremes at the time. ^^
October 18th, 2009 at 3:03 am
I find it amusing that the first post is completely distracted from the point of the article…
October 29th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I’m thinking that it quite rightly represents the situation today, which amounts to a kind of blackmail. Any truly free thought or act is rendered impossible by these coordinates. I see three options, not four (or the multiplicity of “options” within the four spaces of the graph): 1.) choose a place, and hold it; 2.) move around, explore; and 3.) draw a circle around the graph, then draw a diagonal line through it.
Actually, 1. & 2. could perhaps be thought of as only one. As for 1., is this not the definition of dogmatism? What about fundamentalism? If nothing else, your representation is useful for seeing how there can be atheist fundamentalism just as well as a theist one. As for 2.), is this not a kind of nomadic-anarchism? What are the implications and effects of that?
What interests me about the latter option is how radically opposed it is to the central point of the graph, that is, the point of indifference.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am
While I agree with most of what the author said, there is a bit of this that is very misleading.
The first mistake:
He attempts to explain what Atheists are by only one general label: “Atheists Don’t believe in God”. This is not an accurate portrayal of all Atheists. I’m an Atheist, or more appropriately titled an “Anti-Theist”… which is the rejection of all theism -which is man-made religion. I do not reject the idea of there being a God. I do not pray. I do not believe there is enough evidence to support the idea of a God but I am willing to understand that there is a possibility one could exist. I rule nothing out. [Wiki: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist."]
Second mistake:
Whether or not there is God, no one knows for sure which makes everyone an automatic agnostic because they do not know, nor could they ever. By the definition; Agnostic means “without knowledge”. This makes me an Agnostic Atheist. If you believe or have “faith” in God, then this makes you an Agnostic Theist.
Third mistake:
To say there is no God would require a leap of opposing irrational faith. However, most Atheists I’ve met are smart enough not to say this but instead say “It may not be said there is no God. It may, however, be said that there has never been any reason to believe there ever was one.” Or something to that effect.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:20 am
There is only one problem with what you have said that i can tell,that being your definition for gnostic.Which supports the knowledge for a god(god’s)existence,however the definition of gnostic says nothing of that knowledge knowing a god doesn’t exist.
January 1st, 2010 at 4:59 am
“theism -which is man-made religion.”
XXX wrong. Theism is belief in god(s). School’s out now, run along. Don’t forget to do your homework.
January 12th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
I’d have a straight line in this. I am definitely a “hard core” atheist. I sometimes call myself an “evangelical atheist”. That laways confuses theists. That’s amusing.
January 17th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Clarity of discussion is valuable. Bravo!
January 30th, 2010 at 3:32 am
Excellent article Peter. I’m going to add it as supplemental reading on the most popular page on my website:
http://www.rationalresponders......or_atheist
I agree with your dissection.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Would’ve been more impressive if you hadn’t butchered the term “gnostic”, which means someone who seeks “gnosis”, which is not mere knowledge of the existence of God, but like of the fundamental truth of everything.
Or at least disclaimed that you were so doing. Because this kind of undermines your ability to look learned and stuff.
Hint: it’s not the antonym of “agnostic”. Serves you right to play around with word roots without understanding how they’ve been appropriated into English.
March 24th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I would say that you can be 100% certain that there is no Christian god. There is no entity that fulfills the requirements therein, and it is easily testable.
I can’t say 100% certainly that there is no “higher power” or nebulous “force” that lives somewhere, nor can I explain the origins of the universe or matter itself.
March 25th, 2010 at 5:14 am
I do not believe in any gods. I think it is impossible to prove non-existence, but I think if a god or gods existed, then they could prove their existence if they wanted to. (For example, I am going to a memorial service for a friend’s father this weekend. We will be on a farm in the middle of nowhere, many people from many walks of life and levels and types of god-belief/disbelief. If while we are there suddenly Odin and friends floated down to us from the open sky and told us who they were and did some nifty god-stuff, most of us would become believers in Odin & Co and could/would say we know they exist.) For me it would take a god or gods physically appearing to me in a way that could not possibly be explained away. This would include others witnessing the same thing, so I could confirm that it was not in my head.
However, one thing that I think is not discussed enough is the worship of god(s). The god of the Bible sounds like a pretty big jerk. If there is an “all knowing, all powerful” god, then I cannot consider him/her a loving god. I might fear an “all knowing, all powerful” god; but if he/she allows innocent beings to suffer, I could not worship or love him/her.
So, if someday some god decides to prove his/her existence to me, then he/she might as well say to me, “Here I am, fear me. Do what I say or you will suffer badly, just because I like to watch people suffer.”
March 25th, 2010 at 8:34 am
This is nice, actually. So many times I refer to myself as an atheist agnostic and get called stupid, or other names.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
This model is elegant, but sadly untenable.
The model essentially plots belief in god (x axis) versus the person’s philosophical stance on certainty (y axis.) It then calls the latter “gnosticism/agnosticism,” which is a bit of a conflation in a few ways.
Where the model fails is that it does not leave any room for people who have no opinion or can’t decide on their stance on one axis or both.
The chart assumes that each person either has a belief in god or not. In practice, a large number of people, probably larger than atheists themselves, honestly can’t make up their mind. They see all religions as somewhat tenable, but also see atheism the same way. Traditionally, a person who has no idea about god one way or the other is called an agnostic. This person does not fit on the chart.
Additionally, there is a missing sector for the other axis. I, for example, don’t believe in god, but I don’t have an opinion one way or another about what it means to be certain of something. I am what I would call agnostic about what the chart calls agnosticism.
The traditional model is superior. A theist is someone who believes in god, and may or may not believe they can know with certainty. An atheist does not believe in god, and may or may not believe they can know with certainty. An agnostic cannot decide if there is a god or not, but may or may not believe that it is possible to be certain of it.
March 25th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Dead in the middle is– Apathetic Agnostic “We don’t know and we don’t care.”
March 26th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
doesn’t make sense a lot of condradictions, example you clearly state agnostic can’t predict if god is real then in your next summary chart state agnostics think we can predict if god is real or in heaven.
It looks like you put a lot of effort into this, but i would not recomend it to anyone, sure up some of your beliefs, you realize none of this is facts, this religon is made from free thinkers.
March 27th, 2010 at 12:33 am
For a rational person, the atheist-gnostic position is the only possibility.
An atheist agnostic does not believe in a ‘god’ but acknowledges the possibility of one. Where does such acknowledgment end? Logically, one would have to acknowledge the possibility of toothfairies, gnomes and flying spaghetti monsters.
The fundamental principle of rational thought is that in the absence of evidence or compelling logical argument, nothing can be assumed. This principle is called Occam’s Razor. Any deviation from this principle would represent a deviation from rationality, and therefore, a nod to superstition.
March 27th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Well as an atheist gnostic all I can add is that I know there can be no god in a way that can only be summed up as similar to the way I know I exist. The old “I think therefore I am”.
When I search my thoughts for god or even the possibility of god there is nothing. Reading the bible doesn’t help as for having read it, and thinking on it, still I find no god. Not in the same way I find that I exist. I know, with enough certainty to satisfy myself, that I exist.
For listening to theists and the many supporting points they offer, their guidance regarding faith, still nothing. Seems to me theist themselves don’t actually qualify as believing in god. Rather they are taking god’s existence on faith not belief. They may think they believe in god, but isn’t it more like a child believes in Santa Claus than an evolutionary biologist believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution and natural selection.
Relying on some wishful notion, that anything is possible, doesn’t really lend to me much confidence in suspending my thinking and taking on faith the existence of the supernatural.
I wouldn’t believe pigs could fly simply for having read it in the bible or any other book.
Lastly, for the fact that the bible is so old, out-dated, ancient in it’s authors understanding of even their own time, discounts it’s credibility significantly. It is absurd, like thinking it reasonable for your doctor to prescribe a potion and send you off to see an alchemist instead of medicine from a pharmacist.
March 28th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Lovely post, theres only one problem I have with it. What if you believe that gods exist, but that they arent divine, and are just personally powerful entities that, for whatever reason, like to manipulate the peoples of various worlds by convincing them they are divine? By divine i generally mean, can influence things that happen after death.
April 1st, 2010 at 5:53 am
Brilliant post. You have no idea how many people I talk to who don’t even understand what the term “atheist” means. It is *not* a positive belief, but a *lack* of belief, and therefore not a “faith position” (it is, however, rather amusing to be criticized for taking something on faith by people who base their lives on a faith-based belief system).
As for my position on the chart… well, that’s difficult. I’m certainly an atheist due to the sheer lack of evidence or logical necessity of a god or gods, but I am not sure about about my gnostic position. Even if there *were* a god, I’m not sure if he would be epistemologically accessible or not. If you forced me to choose, I suppose I’d go with atheist-agnostic.
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Why must we label everything? I am so sick of hearing it. Who cares? Really, in the grand sceme of things does it really matter “what” you are? Believe what you want to and let others believe what they want to. Respect eachothers views and accept that others are not exactly like you. I read this article trying to figure out exactly where I fit in to this whole thing. But then realized that you cannot put a lable on me or my beliefs. I really don’t want to be acssociated with any “group” or any one way of thinking. I find most people who label themselves as one thing or another tend to become a hypocrate at sometime in their lives. I, personally am open to any possibility. I will not make up my mind until I see proof one way or another. I have actually seen things happen that cannot be proven by science. Was it God? I have no idea. I did not see proof of God either. So tell me….what was it? Put a lable on something that I have seen with my own two eyes but there is no proof either way of what it was. I have seen no proof of God,(does he need to come down in human form and get a social security card to prove he exists?), but I have also not seen any proof that one does not exist. And really, how do you actually prove that something DOESN’T exist? Bigfoot has been seen by thousands of people, but there is no scientific proof that he exists. Tell the people who saw him that he isn’t real and see what they say. They do not need hair samples in plastic baggies and DNA samples to believe he exists. They have seen him with their own eyes. How do you disprove what someone saw? But how do you prove it as well? So who is right? To make along story short…there are too many possibilities in this world to believe in one thing or another. All of the “labels” on beliefs are flawed in one way or another. How can you lable someone’s mind or heart? It makes no sense. And once you have put a label on yourself and you see something with your own two eyes that contradicts everything you supposedly believe in, do you turn a blind eye and say you didn’t see it? I understand this article was supposed to help people understand the different terms associated with different kinds of beliefs. I just have to say, be careful what you label yourself as.
April 4th, 2010 at 12:46 am
you guys are turning atheism into a religion of it’s own… shame on you
Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner’s prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws and ethics and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:35 am
I’d like to see this great idea turned into a ‘religious compass’ the way there was a ‘political compass’ made along similar lines with authoritarian up top, libertarian down bottow, socialist or something on the left, and fascist or something on the right
April 6th, 2010 at 12:07 am
I know for certain there is no god. I don’t understand the rationale to clip the corners of this chart, it seems pointless. Or rather, it was designed by an agnostic who can’t comprehend actually being decisive.
April 8th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I am one of the rare cases of former atheist turning believer. I knew all the typical atheist arguments and was glad when I could use them against theologists. Then I moved on. If you consider yourself somewhat of an intellectual you will agree with me that your opinion now probably will not be your opinion tomorrow. With knowing all the atheist arguments I also knew all their weaknesses, but I will only give you a hint: When you walk across a museum doesn’t it bother you that so much of the classical arts (even the music) seems to be inspired by faith? Because you cannot deny the genius at one hand and what seems to be madness at the other. Know one thing: By labeling yourself atheist all you do is limit yourself. But you have to understand science to know what I am saying.
April 9th, 2010 at 12:52 am
I find this more helpful for the differentiation between atheists/theists/agnostics.
It offers a great, and very scientific, perspective of agnosticism. Especially important for those who believe that agnosticism is some wonderful middle ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQOxvTKKpOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yns5GfXVgfE
April 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I agree with qed completely. After only reading the very beginning of this article I decided I would fit under “atheist gnostic” because I KNOW there is no god or higher power or whatever else you wanna call it. The possibility of it’s existence has the same probability as Santa existing–none. Just like people MADE UP Santa Claus, people MADE UP god.
It is impossible to be “atheist agnostic” because of the inherent contradiction. Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist, whereas agnosticism holds that there is a possibility. If you are an “atheist agnostic” you are not an atheist. You’re agnostic!!!!!
oh and ‘Jack Johnson’, you can’t be an intellectual if you seriously went from atheist to theist….just sayin
April 13th, 2010 at 5:38 am
I think this is a noble attempt to make sense of the labels we confuse ourselves with. However, I don’t think faith in God or gods or lack thereof can be charted in this way. Faith is far deeper and more complex than we like to imagine, and it does injustice to everyone’s beliefs to try to box them into categories. Words can help us to communicate complex ideas to one another, and for them to be effective we have to clarify what they mean in the context we are talking about. This “beliefs compass” tries to do that, and I think it makes some important distinctions between agnosticism and
gnosticism, atheism and theism. But to say that everyone with any opinion on the subject would fall somewhere on this chart would be fnarrowminded. The fact that most of the people who have posted here have a different take on the subject indicates the complexity of the subject area.
Looking at this topic from scientific, philosophical, sociological,
political, and religious perspectives would produce vastly different
interpretations of the same question, let alone the answer to that question. I’m just saying that often, people don’t realize that they are stuck in their own worldview, and are thinking on a completely different level than the people they interact with.
I am a Christian, and a comparative religions major. I think this is a fascinating subject that exceeds the bounds of this particular debate. Religion itself goes waaaaaaay beyond “I think there is a god” vs “I think there isn’t a god.” It is a multidimensional and extremely relevant topic that often gets tossed aside as unimportant.
Thanks to everyone for posting. I enjoyed and benefited from reading about everyone’s thoughts/opinions/experiences.
April 14th, 2010 at 2:10 am
Those who argue about the existence/non-existence of god/gods are metaphorically impaired… argue instead about what it is a metaphor for – nature? power? ignorance? longing?… Sort it out.
April 15th, 2010 at 12:52 am
Well that was a waste of time…
April 15th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The logical fallacy is that the burden of proof is not with the person hearing the claim, but on the person who makes the claim. If a person claims, “There is a God”. There is a burden of proof that must be presented by this claim. Just like if I claimed, “Invisible Elvis is standing next to you.” It isn’t your job to disprove that. It is my job to prove it. You “not believing” in my claimed “Invisible Elvis” is completely rational.
Thus, saying, “There is no God.” is both true and meaningless by default because the burden of proof is on the person who making the claim (the theist). It is a classic Simulacrum. If I, as an atheist, must defend why a god does not exist, when it never did in the first place, I am attempting to defeat “a copy of an original that isn’t there”.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Hi,
I am new to the freethinker and my curiosity brought me to the
article by Peter Brietbart. I am afraid I do not fit anywhere in his
box because I have no beliefs at all. (Belief = taking a position or
holding an opinion without evidence or contrary to evidence –
my interpretation).
I do not hold political, philosophical, scientific, religious or
any other belief. I hold opinions based on the evidence presented but
am quite willing to change my mind. I would make a useless martyr.
To me the term “atheist belief”is a total
contradiction. Is there anyone else out there like me and are there
any sites that are dedicated to people like me, that is absolute
atheists?
April 17th, 2010 at 5:21 am
I’m with you 100% Ron. A very sensible comment. Peter did a great job but i was surprised that being a Free Thinker himself, he does not adequately place Free Thinkers in the middle of his many daigrams.
His “I don’t care” does not do us justice. We do care, but we neither believe nor disbelieve and are totally comfortable with those on all ends of the diagrams. For us, it’s very much a personal decision based on scientific fact, research and our own interpretations.
To “believe” something inherently means that you do NOT accept the contrary position. To “believe” there is no such thing as a unicorn, ignores the possibility that there MAY have been such a creature. Same with God, angels, heaven, hell, afterlife, or the categorical non-existance of the forementioned. Come on guys, prove it; convince us!!! That is what a Free Thinker is.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:09 am
Hi there! You’d better put a tiny pixel point in the bottom left corner for me, please! Rare I am, but exist I do: an absolute atheist gnostic. Also I would like to point out that there’s a difference between someone who “doesn’t believe in God” and someone who “believes there is no God.” I would be the latter.
April 20th, 2010 at 3:29 am
I am an agnostic theist. Thanks for helping me realize that I’m not a complete fucking wacko!
April 20th, 2010 at 5:27 am
I now know that I am an atheist agnostic. I don’t know if there is a god or not and I refuse to commit to one position or another until I have proof, one way or the next.
I have a friend who is an atheist. I tease him, all the time, telling him that I have a more scientific viewpoint than he does. He just calls his god, “Science.” (He gets really angry with me as I prove to him that his god is Science. He gets even more angry when I tell him that my approach is more scientific. “God is an interesting theory.”)
Blind faith in anything is dangerous. But, I am willing to accept other people’s ideas. I can always be wrong.
April 21st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Gosh, it looks a little complicated like this. Aren’t the concepts simpler than that?
…maybe not. D:
April 24th, 2010 at 1:43 am
Pete, I think this is an awesome post. I have and always will be a Christian that clings to the Roman Catholic Church. I think that faith/religion/philosophy/orthodoxy/whatever you want to call it is the most fascinating study, and when you consider the implications…. by far the most important. Kudos to you for displaying the beliefs of many in a single graphical representation. I think it is more accurate than people are willing to accept. Shoot me an email, I would love to chat about all issues involving god/gods existence or lack there of.
April 25th, 2010 at 2:15 am
I dont quite understand why the corners are cut on the graph..? It makes it somewhat inaccurate in my mind:
In its current form the graph makes it seem as though the positions of absolute atheist gnostic and absolute theist agnostic are impossible, which I completely disagree with (although I wouldn’t class myself as either).
I know you said that these positions are by no means impossible, but the way the graph is at the moment makes it appear this way.
I think you have cut the two edges to represent that these positions are unlikely or rare. This would be fine, I suppose, if the size of the boxes were somehow also supposed to represent the amount of people summed up in that section. If that’s what you have intended then again I think the graph is very misleading as it implies that there are an equal amount of theists and atheists in the world.
I also don’t think that being a gnostic atheist is as rare as you would think as there are many people who don’t beleive a god exists due to aspects of science. A lot of people who take this view, I believe, also trust that science can prove that a God does not exist. Although I do agree that there are many more atheist agnostics and theist gnostics than the others.
Just my thoughts.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:39 am
im pretty sure im in the i believe in creation, not so much as a huge guy looking down on us, but a tiny thing, so minute to really comprehend it with the mind you would probably want to meditate, exercise, grow a lot of plants and live with animals. but alas, the human race strives for money and recognition of their achievements that the government cling on to their populous. If we are all human, lol and for arguments sake you all thought like me.and we each thought that we need the earth and that oil has been abused, not saying it shouldnt have been discovered, but that the leaders of the world are abusing their power, aka, the media lol, its the way we get news and we give all of our focus to the monster lol ugh i know i sound crazy. back on track. you can see how easy it is for some single human to get caught up in their own thoughts that they eventually destroy the thought all together. and the human condition also shows that we are abusive cruel etc etc. how do we get control back when we have allowed even ourselves get out of control. we know what the only things we need to survive are, there is no reason to fear for together we can build for each other. ah great ideas drain me, but they never stop lol.
sorry if you dont agree,
KMD
April 30th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
I agreed with a few other replies that felt that the term “Gnostic” had a bit of a narrow definition in the chart. Gnosticism can refer to a group of people who believe that religious texts are highly metaphorical, and some of them see Gods as metaphors. For instance, one of the famous Gnostic myths is the Myth of Sophia, who represents wisdom. Because of the often vague and layered Gnostic definitions of what Gods actually are, I wouldn’t call them theists as much as philosophers. I’ve met a few Gnostic Christians who refer to God as more of a living concept than an existing being.
April 30th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
The chart’s author shows us its not a dichotomy because the people that don’t know their believes can’t be placed on the chart. If there are people that don’t fall into either side of a dichotomy, its not a dichotomy.
Also, the people right in the middle that “don’t care” don’t fit onto either side of the chart either (as he defines it). Again, showing that the chart is NOT a dichotomy.
It seems to think that Strong Atheists aren’t common; most Atheists when they first become Atheists start out as Strong Atheists, and then move when they get deeper into atheism. It seems to think that theists like Doubting Thomas also aren’t common.
AND it seems to think that ALL agnostics are Strong Agnostics….
Anyway,
Making theism/atheism a dichotomy, making it an epic struggle with no middle ground, were a person is either with YOU or with THEM, IS the same stuff that religions/governments/corporations do to create “Us vs Them,” the “Good vs Evil,” mentality that is, and always has been, the REAL problem.
April 30th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
What is really being talked about on this page is what people who believe in them call spiritual beings (or in the singular ‘being’) which we can refer to here as ‘many gods or one god’ according to the believers’ or non-believers’ choice. So it seems to me that what we are really trying to define are the variances in what all persons believe about the existence of and belief in – any one or many gods. Of those who choose to believe in a god or gods, the question then whether they believe their chosen god or gods are or can be known to exist. To me this is quite straight forward and …who cares, they choose to believe… they are allowed to.
But there seems to be a problem with establishing degrees of certitude in the belief among people who currently choose to reject a belief in a god or gods.
It seems to me that all athiests readily agree that they currently do not believe that any kind of god exists, if that god is described as being made up of non-physical stuff – at least I gather that that is a broad description of the kind of god or gods we are talking about here. And some of these athiests will also readily agree that they believe there will be and can be no circumstance that will ever alter their belief that no god or gods exist…who cares, they choose to not believe… they are allowed to.
But there seems, by reading the comments, that there are athiests who don’t believe now that god or gods exist but who have some degree of uncertainty about the future… maybe not their own future but the future of mankind. This uncertainty seems to revolve around two points : 1. that mankind currently does not know all there is to know so maybe in the future mankind will gain the kind of knowledge that will allow us to know for sure that a god (or gods) of some sort exists and 2. at that time these athiests will decide what they believe… and they are allowed to believe this.
This allows them to be sitting on the fence because as it has been pointed out in several comments here… it is possible to believe that at sometime in the future we can learn to know that god or gods exist but that it is highly likely (given what we know about the nature of man) that we cannot ever know for sure there is no god or gods.
What I read here is that amongst the absolute athiests there is an impatience and a rigidity of belief that if they could they would impose their belief in the non-existance of god or gods on all atheists – and these kind of people are no less dangerous than their opposite : the religious fundamentalist. In fact I see them as being the same coin.
I beleive that debating about the existance or non-existance of god or gods is a jeuvenille approach to the debate about what is “good” and what is “no good”. May The Force Be With You…
May 2nd, 2010 at 9:27 pm
(Sorry if there are some mistakes, I am french and my english is not perfect) :
This is actually SAD that we feel the NEED to clarify our positions about god(s). Seriously, this is about one’s belief. Some believe in god(s) ? Wether they are certain on not, good for them. Some do not ? Wether thay are certain or not, good for them too. Some don’t give a f*** ? Let them be.
The fact that we need to clarify shows that, to some people (lots of people) religion has became so important that you have to make your opinion public, to know how to define your case, and to be prepared for arguing and defend your opinion.
Well I am pretty sure it is a matter of culture
but to me, religious belief or absence of it does not have to interfere in the public sphere, it regards your feelings : you can keep it at home. Of course it is necessary, if you want to educate your mind, to know the meaning of agnostic, atheist, etc. But for the “Where do you stand ?” question, well, my feeling is :
I don’t want to know, I don’t need to.
I have been trying to define where I stand, seriously, and the fact is that I don’t know exactly WHAT I believe or not, and I am perfectly cool with that, because I don’t give to religion such importance, and it is not linked to my political views.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:50 pm
I’m not sure I understand where a deist would fall on this list…and what about panendeists? or panthiests? I get the last two confused. I ask because while I identify as agnostic or deist, I really believe that what some people consider “God” is actually just the universe, nature, the essence of life. Sometimes I go toward the deist view and think there was a creator, although not an actual deity, and nothing you can pray to or whatever, but mostly I identify either as a complete agnostic or the above-mentioned pantheist type.
I guess I should just forget labels. I mainly just do not agree with any of the revealed religions.
May 13th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I think you shouldn’t have cut the square to a diamond because I think I’m at the bottom left of the square. I know that a God exists but I feel I don’t believe in him.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:21 am
FAR OUT MAN. You guys need to get out more often
May 15th, 2010 at 11:02 am
theist, atheist, gnostic, agnostic.
Peter Brietbart’s bold and entertaining, “…attempt to clarify and classify these words, so that their rogue meanings no longer confuse and muddle religious debate.” is, sadly, deeply flawed and does exactly the opposite (as reflected in many of the responses).
Peter’s opening paragraphs revealed his own muddled thinking. No wonder he has many headaches! Apparently, his informing of someone that he is an atheist generates (‘too many times’) the response, “Oh, but how could you know that God doesn’t exist? You’re taking a faith position!” Instead of allowing himself to be embroiled in irrelevant controversy, his simple answer, as I am sure he realises, should have been, “Atheist simply means I disbelieve in the existence of god—it does not mean I claim that god does not exist.” Even though Peter might believe that god does not exist, by merely informing someone that he is an atheist he is not claiming that fact. Simple; end of story, no headaches. (In fact, of course, none of Peter’s four terms makes the claim of god’s non-existence.)
Moving on to the rest of Peter’s presentation, there are a number of issues which do not fare well under scrutiny.
1. The prefix ‘a’ is from the Greek, meaning ‘not’. Thus a word can automatically generate its own converse which together form a closed pair. In trying to mix two closed pairs, which are inevitably mutually exclusive, Peter is attempting the impossible. Think of it this way;
take a list of any such pairs, for example, theist/atheist, typical/atypical, on/off, gnostic/ agnostic, symmetrical/asymmetrical, dead/alive and try to mix any one with another. It is immediately obvious that closed pairs, by definition, in any combination, cannot be combined and are meaningless.
2. Peter’s graphs and text show and claim degrees of certainty; but that is impossible. Certainty is absolute—either you’re pregnant or you ain’t, babe! And the same principle applies to theist and gnostic. This leads me to mention that any suggestion of using ‘probability’ in place of ‘certainty’ is also doomed. For anyone to claim to have a 29% probability of believing in god (leaving a 71% probability of not believing in god) is clearly absurd! (NB A probability of 100% means ‘certainly’ and a probability of 0% means ‘certainly not’.)
3. Presuming cognisance of the concept of god as a supernatural object, it follows that, regardless of their belief or otherwise in the existence of god, anyone may be an agnostic. By definition it does not conflict with that of theism or that of atheism and can therefore coexist, separately, with either. It is irrelevant and meaningless, for example, to ‘insert’ oneself as an ‘I-don’t-know-whether-I-believe-in-god-or-not’ ditherer, between theist and atheist. (By default the don’t-know is not a theist and must be an atheist.)
4. Bearing in mind the declared intention of Peter’s article, his introduction of the combined labels, atheist agnostic, theist gnostic, atheist gnostic and theist agnostic only compounds the difficulties encountered by some folk. For those (and for the rest of us!) I suggest you abandon Peter’s added complexities and simply learn the definitions of the four words under discussion and treat them as two separate closed pairs. You will see the light—halleluiah!
theist: one who believes in the existence of God;
atheist: one who disbelieves in the existence of God;
gnostic: one who claims having knowledge, especially spiritual;
agnostic: one who believes that we know nothing of things beyond material phenomena, that a creator, creative cause and an unseen world are things unknown or unknowable.
May 18th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I contend that a person’s position on the graph is not dependent on the specific belief system being discussed.
Theism, after all “… in the broadest sense is the belief that at least one deity exists.” (Wikipeda – cited to Oxford and Merriam Webster dictionaries)
Thus, regardless of the religion being discussed, a Christian will remain a Theist. They may not subscribe to Buddhist teachings, but they remain a Theist even when denying those beliefs.
I do love the famous quote (“I contend to you that we are both atheists…”), but at the same time, it has never been more than opinion. The fact is that Theists are not — and can not — simultaneously be atheists, in any respect. The terms are utterly contradictory.
May 28th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I’m just Atheist. Any one has a problem, I walk away quickly and lock the closest door, release the hounds, and laugh when they pray not to get attacked. And yes, it’s leagal where i live
May 28th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Atheism is a belief that subscribes to the positive assertion “There is no God” Agnosticism is the neutral assertion “There is no eveidence for a belief in God” Agnosticism is often referred to as ‘weak atheism’ in that it is atheism that does not make the positive assertion that god does not exist, only that there is no reason to believe in god. Atheism is a positive assertion that there is no god, this entire paper is very misguided, primarily because it does no define atheism correctly, atheism is contrasted from agnosticism by a positive assertion of the non-existance of god. Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge for gods existance, hence ther term agnostic (without knowledge).
And the term ‘God’ is a term which means many thing to many people. As with any meaningful discussion you have to define the inportant terms cleasrly. Anytime I assert my atheism I make it clear that by ‘God’ I am referring to the Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God of western theism. It is this God about which I make the positive assertion that God does not exist. This definition of God entails some very interesting and unavoidable logical contradictions. With respect to other sorts of Gods I am essentially agnostic, but typically the term God for many people does mean that ‘most perfect being’ that is free of evil and has power over all things, since if it wasn’t perfect in every way, why even call it God, or worship it at all.
June 6th, 2010 at 4:31 am
This is uber MOЯONic. FÜĆК all you ЯETAЯDz for falling for this xtian propaganda whose purpose is dilute the meaning of the word “atheist.”
Atheist is boolean. PERIOD. śhıtheads
June 8th, 2010 at 3:02 am
This is very well laid out. Thanks for the work you put into this. Also, the last commenter is an idiot.
June 10th, 2010 at 7:17 am
I understand accept and know that god is a notion that originates in the mind,gnostic atheism.
June 11th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
all this is very good if one has a description of ‘god’. unfortunately, this is probably the vaguest word in the dictionary, as everyone seems to have their own opinion about it. if one reflects about ‘god’ from the description that others have given, such as by xtians, muslims, etc, then at least there is a starting point for debate or categorization. using existing religious descriptors of ‘god’, i seem to be a gnostic atheist. however, in my world, ‘god’ is not a physical entity, but a higher level of consciousness that i believe is available to all with the desire to connect with it. once a connection is made however, a description of such will not be forthcoming as the experience is beyond words. in these terms, i do not seem to fit into a category provided, although the gnostic theist seems to come close. the only problem with this categorization is that one still cannot show or prove this to another, so we are left make unsubstantiated claims, such as i have just done. i believe we have a rosy future in the spirit world, but what the hell do i know?
June 21st, 2010 at 6:34 am
Uh, I’m a totally gnostic Atheist.
July 15th, 2010 at 8:18 am
“Someone who does not know what they think yet cannot be placed on the graph, and should make up their mind if they wish to find a theological label for their views.”
I think you’re just too lazy to extend this graph into the third dimension
I think there are lots of people who don’t know if we can know whether God exists or not. How would they determine what they can and can’t know?
July 19th, 2010 at 1:39 am
There’s a single fatal flaw in this illustration, and that lies in the definition of agnosticism:
“We can’t know whether god exists or not.”
Agnosticism is the method of not applying certainty where it is undue, this statement conflicts with that method by assigning a far too certain trait to the nature of god. A more correct statement would read:
“I don’t know whether god exists or not.”
In the case of the speaker, this is a true statement, not a presumptuous claim.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:25 am
prepare to become gnostic with this site
July 31st, 2010 at 4:15 pm
You define atheist as “no belief in god”
Therefore it’s impossible to be an “apathist”, anyone who fails to understand the ideas involved (small children and stupid people) as well as those who simply do not care are ALL atheists.
The check for being an atheist is simple, do you believe in a god? If the answer is anything other than yes, you’re an atheist. There is no position in between or on the line, you either believe in a god or you dont.
Otherwise a fairly well constructed article, nicely done.
August 4th, 2010 at 8:00 am
What if one believed that it is POSSIBLE to know that god DOES exist, but that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know that god DOESN’T exist?
If god does exist, then we may someday be able to prove it, but if god does not exist, then as it’s generally not possible to prove a negative, we may never know for certain.
August 30th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
an Atheist is someone who does not believe in God because he is an ungrateful creature who always disputes, doubts,mocks,ridicules, conjecture ,argues,lies, misleads, deceive by the millions with their writings on the net.They are the worst of beast in the eyes of God.Happily would they deceive mankind but they cant deceive God and the Truth.If only they knew how they are blind,deaf and dumb to the Truth.If only they knew, how they are deluded all this while.Let them alone and their vain discourses and leave them to wander distracted on this world to and fro.Let the blind lead the blind .
An Atheist is someone who is grateful and always have only one answer when he/she is asked about God and his/her believe that is “all that is good”.And then he/she sleeps go to bed with a peaceful mind.
August 30th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
An atheist is someone who is ungrateful creature and disputes everything God has created and says “all that is doubtful”
A theist is someone who is always thankful to God and says”all that is good”.