I've decided to become an Atheist

[Siggon Kristov]

To be fair, you have a definition of atheist that is rather different from it's everyday meaning, where it usually conveys the message that someone is convinced that there is no God.

Your perception, not the perception of most atheists I've met. Not sure if I know any gnostic atheists except myself to be honest (and it's only in a specific context that I identify as such). Jamaica has a Secular Humanist group, with a lot of atheists, and we have a monthly meeting at my school. All the atheists I've met in it are agnostic. "Atheist" just means the lack/absence of theism. It doesn't mean that someone is convinced that there are no deities; it just means that someone recognises the claim of theism and isn't a theist, really.

the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic

Also, I just checked... What I call atheism is what the people in r/atheism refer to atheism as too. What you call atheism is what they would call gnostic atheism too. It's not something limited to me, because I didn't make that picture I linked (I googled it right when I was making the post and it was a pretty easy find).

At least, that's the first time I heard of the idea that you could be an atheist agnostic, or a theist one at that.
At least in usual terms, you have either a "theist" - divided into the hundreds of religions out there - an agnostic, who really doesn't believe anything firm, and the atheist, believing that there is nothing.

Again, atheism isn't limited to the belief that there is nothing. It can also be seen as the absence (as opposed to the negation) of the belief that there is something. You think extremely dichotomously.

Also, almost nobody would fall under the "gnostic" portion of your scale - only the extremist theists/atheists would claim that you could be 100% certain.

That is pretty much the point. Only persons who feel 100% certain are gnostic. Everyone else is agnostic.

All others, even the very faithful theists, would still say it's about belief. So I'll have to say that the conventional definition of agnostic makes a little more sense to me than putting it on a scale with "gnostic" - which, on top, is usually defined as a very specific religious path, which makes it slightly less useful as a broad term for all those a 100% certain.

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

Accordingly, "igtheism" seems to be either a specific reason for being atheist or agnostic, rather than its own position. As would be apatheism.

Again, dichotomous thinking.
Theists and atheists recognise the claim of theism, and have a position on it; they either believe or lack the belief. Igtheists, on the other hand, do not recognise the claim of theism in the first place. They don't think theism is defined enough for them to have a position on it. Among themselves, they would have different positions if it was defined, and some would possibly be theistic.

--

I'm still on the Agnostic side of the scale.

And here we have Afrocentric confirming that he's an agnostic atheist. To assume, that he was 100% convinced that there was no god or possibility of one, was silly because he never said that he held such conviction.

[Amazeroth]

To be fair, you have a definition of atheist that is rather different from it's everyday meaning, where it usually conveys the message that someone is convinced that there is no God.

Your perception, not the perception of most atheists I've met. Not sure if I know any gnostic atheists except myself to be honest (and it's only in a specific context that I identify as such). Jamaica has a Secular Humanist group, with a lot of atheists, and we have a monthly meeting at my school. All the atheists I've met in it are agnostic. "Atheist" just means the lack/absence of theism. It doesn't mean that someone is convinced that there are no deities; it just means that someone recognises the claim of theism and isn't a theist, really.

Since the claim of theism is "there is a God or Gods", the antithesis would be "there isn't a God". So in what way is saying "'there is a God or Gods' is wrong" different from saying "there is no God or Gods"?

the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic

Also, I just checked... What I call atheism is what the people in r/atheism refer to atheism as too. What you call atheism is what they would call gnostic atheism too. It's not something limited to me, because I didn't make that picture I linked (I googled it right when I was making the post and it was a pretty easy find).

I didn't think it was only you who would adhere to your definitions, but I still think they make less sense than the conventional ones.

At least, that's the first time I heard of the idea that you could be an atheist agnostic, or a theist one at that.
At least in usual terms, you have either a "theist" - divided into the hundreds of religions out there - an agnostic, who really doesn't believe anything firm, and the atheist, believing that there is nothing.

Again, atheism isn't limited to the belief that there is nothing. It can also be seen as the absence (as opposed to the negation) of the belief that there is something. You think extremely dichotomously.

The difference is only in the intensity of the belief, or non-belief then, but it's still present or not present.

Also, almost nobody would fall under the "gnostic" portion of your scale - only the extremist theists/atheists would claim that you could be 100% certain.

That is pretty much the point. Only persons who feel 100% certain are gnostic. Everyone else is agnostic.

So if you're either agnostic or gnostic, and one of them is only an extreme - why have this as its own scale? Rather than adding new meanings to agnostic and especially gnostic, it seems more sensible to just say extremist. In the few cases where this kind of extremism is even important to a discussion of faithfulness.

All others, even the very faithful theists, would still say it's about belief. So I'll have to say that the conventional definition of agnostic makes a little more sense to me than putting it on a scale with "gnostic" - which, on top, is usually defined as a very specific religious path, which makes it slightly less useful as a broad term for all those a 100% certain.

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

I'm not sure about the distinction with the the capital "G", but "gnosis", as Gnosticism, isn't part of Christianity, but was there before already in Hellenistic and similar religions, and is rather a term for achieving something like enlightenment through hidden knowledge about oneself. There were, and possibly are, Gnostic sects in Christianity as well. Gnosis is also used as a term for spiritual knowledge in Christianity, but not in a way that suggests certainty (like the word "know" suggests) but rather experience.
In any case, it's already laden with meaning, and it's definitions so far don't really make it a good word for an antithesis of agnosticism - even if that would seem logical just looking at Greek semantics.

Accordingly, "igtheism" seems to be either a specific reason for being atheist or agnostic, rather than its own position. As would be apatheism.

Again, dichotomous thinking.
Theists and atheists recognise the claim of theism, and have a position on it; they either believe or lack the belief. Igtheists, on the other hand, do not recognise the claim of theism in the first place. They don't think theism is defined enough for them to have a position on it. Among themselves, they would have different positions if it was defined, and some would possibly be theistic.[/quote]

There is no difference between "not recognising the claim of theism" and "recognising it but not believing in it". Mostly because the latter is impossible (if you're not talking about recognition as pure perception). The outcome is the same - belief, that no God exists.

By the way, while I wouldn't view dichotomous thinking as bad in this instance, it's not like I wouldn't recognise different shades of atheism. I merely use theism, agnosticism and atheism as the three main categories in which all the other -isms are integrated, which I'm pretty sure can't be called dichotomous. At least not any more than your way to categorise the different non-theist ways of thinking, just that you use a few more categories.

I'm still on the Agnostic side of the scale.

And here we have Afrocentric confirming that he's an agnostic atheist. To assume, that he was 100% convinced that there was no god or possibility of one, was silly because he never said that he held such conviction.[/quote]

So he's an agnostic.


Anyway, since this discussion is highly technical and only about terminology, and I don't forsee either of us convincing the other, I'll stick to the usual definitions, but will gladly recognise yours whenever reading your posts and discussing things with you. For that matter:

for me, even if a "God" existed, I would be opposed to him in the way that an anarchist opposes monarchism.

Why?

[Siggon Kristov]

"Atheist" just means the lack/absence of theism. It doesn't mean that someone is convinced that there are no deities; it just means that someone recognises the claim of theism and isn't a theist, really.

Since the claim of theism is "there is a God or Gods", the antithesis would be "there isn't a God". So in what way is saying "'there is a God or Gods' is wrong" different from saying "there is no God or Gods"?

Those aren't what I'm saying are different. I'm saying the following 2 things are different:
- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic

Also, I just checked... What I call atheism is what the people in r/atheism refer to atheism as too. What you call atheism is what they would call gnostic atheism too. It's not something limited to me, because I didn't make that picture I linked (I googled it right when I was making the post and it was a pretty easy find).

I didn't think it was only you who would adhere to your definitions, but I still think they make less sense than the conventional ones.

My point was that many others will disagree with you on what "the conventional ones" are.

At least, that's the first time I heard of the idea that you could be an atheist agnostic, or a theist one at that.
At least in usual terms, you have either a "theist" - divided into the hundreds of religions out there - an agnostic, who really doesn't believe anything firm, and the atheist, believing that there is nothing.

Again, atheism isn't limited to the belief that there is nothing. It can also be seen as the absence (as opposed to the negation) of the belief that there is something. You think extremely dichotomously.

The difference is only in the intensity of the belief, or non-belief then, but it's still present or not present.

The belief or non-belief is the whole theism/atheism scale.
The conviction is the gnosis/agnosticism scale.

So if you're either agnostic or gnostic, and one of them is only an extreme - why have this as its own scale? Rather than adding new meanings to agnostic and especially gnostic, it seems more sensible to just say extremist. In the few cases where this kind of extremism is even important to a discussion of faithfulness.

You're losing me here. I'm not adding a new scale. I'm using what I've seen being used. You may not see these as the conventional definitions, but they're the ones that I - and maybe Afrocentric and others here - are familiar with. I think EEL would have agreed with me too.
You're either someone who believes and doesn't claim to know for sure (agnostic), or someone who claims to have gnosis, i.e. you are 100% convinced that your belief is the only possibility (gnostic).

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

I'm not sure about the distinction with the the capital "G", but "gnosis", as Gnosticism, isn't part of Christianity, but was there before already in Hellenistic and similar religions, and is rather a term for achieving something like enlightenment through hidden knowledge about oneself. There were, and possibly are, Gnostic sects in Christianity as well. Gnosis is also used as a term for spiritual knowledge in Christianity, but not in a way that suggests certainty (like the word "know" suggests) but rather experience.
In any case, it's already laden with meaning, and it's definitions so far don't really make it a good word for an antithesis of agnosticism - even if that would seem logical just looking at Greek semantics.

I don't want to start talking about English and then have you accusing me of being arrogant since it's not your first language. I'm not the one presenting "gnosticism" as an antithesis for "agnosticism" you know. You may want to look up the etymology of "agnostic" and then learn that the definition of "agnostic" is literally "antithesis of gnosticism" or "absence of gnosis" - the "a-" prefix means "not" in English. (I think English got that from Greek or something else though, but English breaks things down like this and etymology is important)
An "atheist" is not a theist.
An "agnostic" person is not a gnostic person.
An "apolitical" person is not a political person.

"Gnosis" literally means "knowledge" - and it had this definition/meaning before other things were attached to it, so the way it is being used now (by others, not only myself) is not new.

Accordingly, "igtheism" seems to be either a specific reason for being atheist or agnostic, rather than its own position. As would be apatheism.

Again, dichotomous thinking.
Theists and atheists recognise the claim of theism, and have a position on it; they either believe or lack the belief. Igtheists, on the other hand, do not recognise the claim of theism in the first place. They don't think theism is defined enough for them to have a position on it. Among themselves, they would have different positions if it was defined, and some would possibly be theistic.

There is no difference between "not recognising the claim of theism" and "recognising it but not believing in it". Mostly because the latter is impossible (if you're not talking about recognition as pure perception). The outcome is the same - belief, that no God exists.

There is a difference, and the latter thing is possible.
Some persons don't see theism as a solid and consistent claim, so they don't see it as something that can be agreed/disagreed with. You identify as a theist and you have a definition of theism in your head. Another Christian in Jamaica may have a different definition of theism in his own head. Theism isn't seen as a solid thing by igtheists, so they don't recognise the claim enough to establish a position on it. You can say this is impossible, but I know what I mean, and I know a community of people who know what I mean. Maybe you don't understand, because of your dichotomous confines, but that really doesn't matter that much to me, sorry.

By the way, while I wouldn't view dichotomous thinking as bad in this instance,

I do.

it's not like I wouldn't recognise different shades of atheism.

First you were claiming atheists to be people who outrightly believe that "there is no God" and now you're talking about different shades?

I merely use theism, agnosticism and atheism as the three main categories in which all the other -isms are integrated, which I'm pretty sure can't be called dichotomous. At least not any more than your way to categorise the different non-theist ways of thinking, just that you use a few more categories.
Yeah, some persons think like this and some others don't.

Theism/atheism is its own scale. The way you put it, agnosticism and atheism seem mutually exclusive. This is silly, as many atheists also identify as being agnostic.

I'm still on the Agnostic side of the scale.

And here we have Afrocentric confirming that he's an agnostic atheist. To assume, that he was 100% convinced that there was no god or possibility of one, was silly because he never said that he held such conviction.

So he's an agnostic.

Yes, but he is also atheist. He is an agnostic atheist.
He is an atheist because he has an idea of theism in his head and doesn't believe in it.
He is agnostic because he doesn't hold his belief to be certain fact.

It's one thing to think dichotomously in terms of black/white, but it's another thing to mix up colours with shapes.
Something can be blue and triangular. Something can be blue, but not triangular. Something can be triangular, but not blue. Something can be neither triangular nor blue.

Afrocentric being agnostic doesn't mean that he isn't atheist. Something being blue doesn't mean that it can't be triangular.

Anyway, since this discussion is highly technical and only about terminology, and I don't forsee either of us convincing the other, I'll stick to the usual definitions, but will gladly recognise yours whenever reading your posts and discussing things with you.

The thing is... It's not just me.
Afrocentric identifies as both agnostic and atheist. I think EEL did too, based on the logic in his argument in a discussion we had where he brought up the burden of proof thing as if to say that atheism is simply lack of theism, not "a belief that there is no God"
You may encounter others who use the same definitions I do. I encounter people who use your definitions as well, but they usually change when I encourage them to use some basic etymology.

For that matter:

for me, even if a "God" existed, I would be opposed to him in the way that an anarchist opposes monarchism.

Why?

Because I don't like the "God" character I read about in the bible. I don't like the idea of a Kingdom of Heaven, and someone's unconditional reign over it. I've expressed this view on the forum before. I don't blog anymore, by the way. I seem to be able to get out there through daily interactions in university, as opposed to my situation high school.

[Amazeroth]

"Atheist" just means the lack/absence of theism. It doesn't mean that someone is convinced that there are no deities; it just means that someone recognises the claim of theism and isn't a theist, really.

Since the claim of theism is "there is a God or Gods", the antithesis would be "there isn't a God". So in what way is saying "'there is a God or Gods' is wrong" different from saying "there is no God or Gods"?

Those aren't what I'm saying are different. I'm saying the following 2 things are different:
- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

Those things aren't different. They're just different phrasings of the same thing.

Also, I just checked... What I call atheism is what the people in r/atheism refer to atheism as too. What you call atheism is what they would call gnostic atheism too. It's not something limited to me, because I didn't make that picture I linked (I googled it right when I was making the post and it was a pretty easy find).

I didn't think it was only you who would adhere to your definitions, but I still think they make less sense than the conventional ones.

My point was that many others will disagree with you on what "the conventional ones" are.

Having read up on the whole thing, I concende this point. I still think the names for the scale of conviction are unfortunately chosen, but it's as good a definition as any.

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

I'm not sure about the distinction with the the capital "G", but "gnosis", as Gnosticism, isn't part of Christianity, but was there before already in Hellenistic and similar religions, and is rather a term for achieving something like enlightenment through hidden knowledge about oneself. There were, and possibly are, Gnostic sects in Christianity as well. Gnosis is also used as a term for spiritual knowledge in Christianity, but not in a way that suggests certainty (like the word "know" suggests) but rather experience.
In any case, it's already laden with meaning, and it's definitions so far don't really make it a good word for an antithesis of agnosticism - even if that would seem logical just looking at Greek semantics.

I don't want to start talking about English and then have you accusing me of being arrogant since it's not your first language. I'm not the one presenting "gnosticism" as an antithesis for "agnosticism" you know. You may want to look up the etymology of "agnostic" and then learn that the definition of "agnostic" is literally "antithesis of gnosticism" or "absence of gnosis" - the "a-" prefix means "not" in English. (I think English got that from Greek or something else though, but English breaks things down like this and etymology is important)
An "atheist" is not a theist.
An "agnostic" person is not a gnostic person.
An "apolitical" person is not a political person.

Hence why I said "what would seem logical in Greek semantics". I know what the prefix "a-" means in Greek loanwords. However, despite their entymology, the definition for "agnostic" is not "not a gnostic person" - because what words actually mean isn't a matter of entymology (otherwise "thing", for example, would still just mean a gathering or meeting in English), but simply convention.

I had a more detailed linguistic excurse ready for this, but since I concede the point about what "agnostic" means, I don't think it would be necessary. Just as an aside - I won't think you arrogant if you'd lecture me about English, precisely because it's not my first language.

Accordingly, "igtheism" seems to be either a specific reason for being atheist or agnostic, rather than its own position. As would be apatheism.

Again, dichotomous thinking.
Theists and atheists recognise the claim of theism, and have a position on it; they either believe or lack the belief. Igtheists, on the other hand, do not recognise the claim of theism in the first place. They don't think theism is defined enough for them to have a position on it. Among themselves, they would have different positions if it was defined, and some would possibly be theistic.

There is no difference between "not recognising the claim of theism" and "recognising it but not believing in it". Mostly because the latter is impossible (if you're not talking about recognition as pure perception). The outcome is the same - belief, that no God exists.

There is a difference, and the latter thing is possible.
Some persons don't see theism as a solid and consistent claim, so they don't see it as something that can be agreed/disagreed with. You identify as a theist and you have a definition of theism in your head. Another Christian in Jamaica may have a different definition of theism in his own head. Theism isn't seen as a solid thing by igtheists, so they don't recognise the claim enough to establish a position on it. You can say this is impossible, but I know what I mean, and I know a community of people who know what I mean. Maybe you don't understand, because of your dichotomous confines, but that really doesn't matter that much to me, sorry.

There aren't different definitions of theism, though - it's not a coherent belief, and it's not meant as one. "Theist" just encompasses all the different religions that suppose the existence of one or more deities, and in a more broader term often the religions that don't as well. Saying "theism isn't a solid thing" would only be a relevant sentence if theism was supposed to be a solid thing, which it clearly isn't and never was.

it's not like I wouldn't recognise different shades of atheism.

First you were claiming atheists to be people who outrightly believe that "there is no God" and now you're talking about different shades?

Yes.

Anyway, since this discussion is highly technical and only about terminology, and I don't forsee either of us convincing the other, I'll stick to the usual definitions, but will gladly recognise yours whenever reading your posts and discussing things with you.

The thing is... It's not just me.
Afrocentric identifies as both agnostic and atheist. I think EEL did too, based on the logic in his argument in a discussion we had where he brought up the burden of proof thing as if to say that atheism is simply lack of theism, not "a belief that there is no God"
You may encounter others who use the same definitions I do. I encounter people who use your definitions as well, but they usually change when I encourage them to use some basic etymology.[/quote]

I'm not sure EEL did too, after all, he also said that he technically wasn't an atheist because of this - but he did make conflicting statements about that, so it would be hard to be certain. But yes - in a specific context, like this one, your definitions are not without merit, and I might start to use them as well.

For that matter:

for me, even if a "God" existed, I would be opposed to him in the way that an anarchist opposes monarchism.

Why?

Because I don't like the "God" character I read about in the bible. I don't like the idea of a Kingdom of Heaven, and someone's unconditional reign over it. I've expressed this view on the forum before. I don't blog anymore, by the way. I seem to be able to get out there through daily interactions in university, as opposed to my situation high school.

If the God you read about in the bible existed, what good would opposition do, though?

[Siggon Kristov]

I'm saying the following 2 things are different:
- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

Those things aren't different. They're just different phrasings of the same thing.

I, as well as many others, strongly disagree. One case is absence in believing, and the other case is believing in absence. Look up positive atheism and negative atheism. In both cases, they don't believe, but one is actively saying "No, there is no God" and the other is saying "I do not believe that there is a God" - there is a major difference in how these persons think.

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

I'm not sure about the distinction with the the capital "G", but "gnosis", as Gnosticism, isn't part of Christianity, but was there before already in Hellenistic and similar religions, and is rather a term for achieving something like enlightenment through hidden knowledge about oneself. There were, and possibly are, Gnostic sects in Christianity as well. Gnosis is also used as a term for spiritual knowledge in Christianity, but not in a way that suggests certainty (like the word "know" suggests) but rather experience.
In any case, it's already laden with meaning, and it's definitions so far don't really make it a good word for an antithesis of agnosticism - even if that would seem logical just looking at Greek semantics.

I don't want to start talking about English and then have you accusing me of being arrogant since it's not your first language. I'm not the one presenting "gnosticism" as an antithesis for "agnosticism" you know. You may want to look up the etymology of "agnostic" and then learn that the definition of "agnostic" is literally "antithesis of gnosticism" or "absence of gnosis" - the "a-" prefix means "not" in English. (I think English got that from Greek or something else though, but English breaks things down like this and etymology is important)
An "atheist" is not a theist.
An "agnostic" person is not a gnostic person.
An "apolitical" person is not a political person.

I know what the prefix "a-" means in Greek loanwords. However, despite their entymology, the definition for "agnostic" is not "not a gnostic person" - because what words actually mean isn't a matter of entymology (otherwise "thing", for example, would still just mean a gathering or meeting in English), but simply convention.

"Thing" is a different case. "Agnostic" is based on the word "gnostic" with a prefix attached to it, and can't really be divorced from its root word as easily as "thing" can be divorced from its original meaning. Yes, other compounds like "agnostic" have been divorced from their original meaning. Still, how agnostic is used in regards to religious belief/conviction today isn't far from its original meaning. I'm using it both for its original meaning and how I see it being used by most other people I communicate with, online and offline.

I had a more detailed linguistic excurse ready for this, but since I concede the point about what "agnostic" means, I don't think it would be necessary.

Just to note, I didn't have all the same outlooks that I have now. Among the members of the group I told you about is a guy who studied Linguistics (PhD level at the University of Montreal) and is the Dean of something at a major university in Jamaica.

Some persons don't see theism as a solid and consistent claim, so they don't see it as something that can be agreed/disagreed with. You identify as a theist and you have a definition of theism in your head. Another Christian in Jamaica may have a different definition of theism in his own head. Theism isn't seen as a solid thing by igtheists, so they don't recognise the claim enough to establish a position on it. You can say this is impossible, but I know what I mean, and I know a community of people who know what I mean. Maybe you don't understand, because of your dichotomous confines, but that really doesn't matter that much to me, sorry.

There aren't different definitions of theism, though - it's not a coherent belief, and it's not meant as one. "Theist" just encompasses all the different religions that suppose the existence of one or more deities, and in a more broader term often the religions that don't as well. Saying "theism isn't a solid thing" would only be a relevant sentence if theism was supposed to be a solid thing, which it clearly isn't and never was.

That's a part of the problem. To identify as an atheist without defining "theism" right then and there, someone is saying that he doesn't believe in any form of theism. What if he identifies as atheist to someone who has knowledge of things like pantheism? What if, when introduced to pantheism, this person says that was his stance all along but didn't know it was a form of theism? He had an idea of theism in his head that didn't include what he believed, despite the fact that what he believed was a form of theism.

That's why the difference between igtheists and theists/atheists is that igtheists don't have an idea of theism in their head. People who identify as theists and atheists have an idea of theism in their heads, and identify as believing or not believing in theism. Igtheists, on the other hand, want you to tell them what you mean by "God" or "theism" before they establish a position on it. If the definition is too vague, they don't try to establish a position. If the definition is clear enough and simple, they will either identify as theist or atheist in the context of that definition. If you told me that Fidel Castro is a deity, I would identify as a theist.

your definitions are not without merit, and I might start to use them as well.

This will be a good sight...

If the God you read about in the bible existed, what good would opposition do, though?

It would show my stance. I refuse to submit to his authority.

[Amazeroth]

I'm saying the following 2 things are different:
- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

Those things aren't different. They're just different phrasings of the same thing.

I, as well as many others, strongly disagree. One case is absence in believing, and the other case is believing in absence. Look up positive atheism and negative atheism. In both cases, they don't believe, but one is actively saying "No, there is no God" and the other is saying "I do not believe that there is a God" - there is a major difference in how these persons think.

Ah, so you mean the first one would be a gnostic atheist, and the other one an agnostic one? If that's the case, I see the difference. My point was merely that the effect is the same - they're still atheists. But their levels of conviction would differ, sure.

Well, "Gnosticism" with a capital "G" refers to a specific thing in Christianity, I think, but "gnosis" refers to religious knowledge. I'm not sure what adjective they use for the latter.

I'm not sure about the distinction with the the capital "G", but "gnosis", as Gnosticism, isn't part of Christianity, but was there before already in Hellenistic and similar religions, and is rather a term for achieving something like enlightenment through hidden knowledge about oneself. There were, and possibly are, Gnostic sects in Christianity as well. Gnosis is also used as a term for spiritual knowledge in Christianity, but not in a way that suggests certainty (like the word "know" suggests) but rather experience.
In any case, it's already laden with meaning, and it's definitions so far don't really make it a good word for an antithesis of agnosticism - even if that would seem logical just looking at Greek semantics.

I don't want to start talking about English and then have you accusing me of being arrogant since it's not your first language. I'm not the one presenting "gnosticism" as an antithesis for "agnosticism" you know. You may want to look up the etymology of "agnostic" and then learn that the definition of "agnostic" is literally "antithesis of gnosticism" or "absence of gnosis" - the "a-" prefix means "not" in English. (I think English got that from Greek or something else though, but English breaks things down like this and etymology is important)
An "atheist" is not a theist.
An "agnostic" person is not a gnostic person.
An "apolitical" person is not a political person.

I know what the prefix "a-" means in Greek loanwords. However, despite their entymology, the definition for "agnostic" is not "not a gnostic person" - because what words actually mean isn't a matter of entymology (otherwise "thing", for example, would still just mean a gathering or meeting in English), but simply convention.

"Thing" is a different case. "Agnostic" is based on the word "gnostic" with a prefix attached to it, and can't really be divorced from its root word as easily as "thing" can be divorced from its original meaning. Yes, other compounds like "agnostic" have been divorced from their original meaning. Still, how agnostic is used in regards to religious belief/conviction today isn't far from its original meaning. I'm using it both for its original meaning and how I see it being used by most other people I communicate with, online and offline.

And far be it from me to try and stop you - this was just about how etymology can be relatively irrelevant when it comes to meaning. I'm not sure if you can say that compounds change their meanings less freely than non-compounds - allthough I'm sure there are studies on that - however, seeing that compounds are often made to describe something new, I'd say it's probable that they change meaning more easily, at least meaning away from the word they were based on. As far as I know (although that just turned up in research for this discussion), gnosis doesn't refer to "knowing" something in a definite manner, so much as to knowing something in a way that you could say you've experienced it. But I'm pretty sure that hasn't been the exclusive meaning, and in any case, it doesn't matter much.

Some persons don't see theism as a solid and consistent claim, so they don't see it as something that can be agreed/disagreed with. You identify as a theist and you have a definition of theism in your head. Another Christian in Jamaica may have a different definition of theism in his own head. Theism isn't seen as a solid thing by igtheists, so they don't recognise the claim enough to establish a position on it. You can say this is impossible, but I know what I mean, and I know a community of people who know what I mean. Maybe you don't understand, because of your dichotomous confines, but that really doesn't matter that much to me, sorry.

There aren't different definitions of theism, though - it's not a coherent belief, and it's not meant as one. "Theist" just encompasses all the different religions that suppose the existence of one or more deities, and in a more broader term often the religions that don't as well. Saying "theism isn't a solid thing" would only be a relevant sentence if theism was supposed to be a solid thing, which it clearly isn't and never was.

That's a part of the problem. To identify as an atheist without defining "theism" right then and there, someone is saying that he doesn't believe in any form of theism. What if he identifies as atheist to someone who has knowledge of things like pantheism? What if, when introduced to pantheism, this person says that was his stance all along but didn't know it was a form of theism? He had an idea of theism in his head that didn't include what he believed, despite the fact that what he believed was a form of theism.

That's why the difference between igtheists and theists/atheists is that igtheists don't have an idea of theism in their head. People who identify as theists and atheists have an idea of theism in their heads, and identify as believing or not believing in theism. Igtheists, on the other hand, want you to tell them what you mean by "God" or "theism" before they establish a position on it. If the definition is too vague, they don't try to establish a position. If the definition is clear enough and simple, they will either identify as theist or atheist in the context of that definition. If you told me that Fidel Castro is a deity, I would identify as a theist.[/quote]

Wouldn't everybody be an igtheist, then? Maybe apart from some form of philosophy where you thought that every theist facet is right, regardless how much they conflict with each other? I mean, I definitely would identify myself as a theist in broad terms, but if we were talking about the ancient Egyptian pantheon, for example, I'd be an igtheist as well. Insofar, I don't really see how the term Igtheist brings anything new, or makes stuff easier to talk about.

If the God you read about in the bible existed, what good would opposition do, though?

It would show my stance. I refuse to submit to his authority.

Sure, but other than hell, what would it get you?

[Siggon Kristov]

- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

Ah, so you mean the first one would be a gnostic atheist, and the other one an agnostic one? If that's the case, I see the difference. My point was merely that the effect is the same - they're still atheists. But their levels of conviction would differ, sure.

Not necessarily. The first one could be gnostic or agnostic. The second is definitely agnostic. The difference between positive/negative atheism there, but yes, the effect is the same in the sense that they're atheists, but there is more difference than just the phrasing.

this was just about how etymology can be relatively irrelevant when it comes to meaning.

I believe it was relevant in this specific case.

I'm not sure if you can say that compounds change their meanings less freely than non-compounds - allthough I'm sure there are studies on that - however, seeing that compounds are often made to describe something new, I'd say it's probable that they change meaning more easily, at least meaning away from the word they were based on.

Not usually in the case of using a prefix like "a-" which means "not" with a word. It would be difficult for the definition of such a word to become independent of the original word. If there was a thing called "Xism" and we attached the prefix "a-" to it to mean "not Xism" then the definition of "aXism" would be dependent on the definition of "Xism" in the first place.
Someone could bring up the word "incredible" as an exception, but it's not really. Something is "credible" when it is more able to be believed, and "incredible" when it is difficult to be believed. Even casual use of the word "incredible" really links back to its definition which is "difficult to believe" - in Jamaica, people have a tendency to say "yuh too lie" (meaning "you're too dishonest" or "you're too much of a liar") when you tell them something that amazes them. They believe it, but they are so amazed that they say "yuh too lie" just like regular English-speakers would say "that's incredible" or something. There's some subconscious link we make between being amazed and being lied to. Natural pessimism? I don't know, but maybe I'm going off track.

Maybe there are better examples of compounds, but I can't think of any right now. I agree, however, that there will be cases where a new compound can divorce itself entirely from its roots through casual use, but this is rare and possibly less likely than a simple word, because a compound (especially one using a prefix) usually relies on a relation to the root word.

As far as I know (although that just turned up in research for this discussion), gnosis doesn't refer to "knowing" something in a definite manner, so much as to knowing something in a way that you could say you've experienced it. But I'm pretty sure that hasn't been the exclusive meaning, and in any case, it doesn't matter much.

Experience is a feeling of knowing. A lot of people have told me that they have felt and experienced God's work and presence. I think they're crazy. They are convinced that God has some presence in their life that they experienced.
Definitions of experience when I check Google's dictionary...
1) practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
2) an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

1) A person is likely to treat the perspectives of their own experience as facts, being more convinced by first-hand experiences than hearing some guy tell some story.
2) Leaving an impression on someone sounds a lot like leaving someone convinced, or at least believing strongly, i.e. with some level of conviction.

Whether you say it's knowledge or experience, it really comes of the same to me. Agnostic people say they can't know. Why? They don't think they can experience this "God" thing, or they don't think they have experienced it yet. If I was to replace "knowledge" with "experience" in my posts, I don't think it would change much, if anything at all. The thing most agnostic people say they lack is the ability to know (and you can read "know" there as "experience") enough for themselves to come to a definitive conclusion on whether "God" exists or not.

the difference between igtheists and theists/atheists is that igtheists don't have an idea of theism in their head. People who identify as theists and atheists have an idea of theism in their heads, and identify as believing or not believing in theism. Igtheists, on the other hand, want you to tell them what you mean by "God" or "theism" before they establish a position on it. If the definition is too vague, they don't try to establish a position. If the definition is clear enough and simple, they will either identify as theist or atheist in the context of that definition. If you told me that Fidel Castro is a deity, I would identify as a theist.

Wouldn't everybody be an igtheist, then?

Igtheists would argue that everyone should be an igtheist, not that everyone is an igtheist. I argue that everyone is born as either igtheist or apatheist. They don't know or care about this whole "theism" thing and don't establish a position on it until they realise it's a big deal to everyone else in society, usually their immediate family and friends first, but wider society later on.

Maybe apart from some form of philosophy where you thought that every theist facet is right, regardless how much they conflict with each other?

Igtheists just want to know what the common claim among all theists are. Only then can one establish himself as a theist or atheist. It's because theists conflict each other so much that igtheists just don't think theism is actually a thing. They think theism is too broad to have any meaning.

I mean, I definitely would identify myself as a theist in broad terms, but if we were talking about the ancient Egyptian pantheon, for example, I'd be an igtheist as well.

You're confusing it now. No. Identifying yourself as a theist in broad terms just makes you a theist. You identify as a theist because you already have an idea of what theism is, in your head. Igtheists have no idea of what theism is.

Insofar, I don't really see how the term Igtheist brings anything new, or makes stuff easier to talk about.

You're probably not understanding it enough. The language barrier could be a problem for us discussing such a complex thing.

If the God you read about in the bible existed, what good would opposition do, though?

It would show my stance. I refuse to submit to his authority.

Sure, but other than hell, what would it get you?

It's not about what it would get me. I'm not going to pretend to respect the Abrahamic "God" character just to go to Heaven. Again, I don't care if the Abrahamic "God" existed or not. I don't like the character and I would oppose him even if he does exist.

[Amazeroth]

- "I believe there is no God."
- "I lack the belief in a God."

Ah, so you mean the first one would be a gnostic atheist, and the other one an agnostic one? If that's the case, I see the difference. My point was merely that the effect is the same - they're still atheists. But their levels of conviction would differ, sure.

Not necessarily. The first one could be gnostic or agnostic. The second is definitely agnostic. The difference between positive/negative atheism there, but yes, the effect is the same in the sense that they're atheists, but there is more difference than just the phrasing.

Could you say where the difference is, or what the difference means, other than their different level of conviction?

this was just about how etymology can be relatively irrelevant when it comes to meaning.

I believe it was relevant in this specific case.

As I said - "can be", not "is". And the relevance has to be proven by the meaning, but can't be proven by the etymology itself, which is why, in discussions about the meaning of words, it's fruitless to go for etymology alone.

I'm not sure if you can say that compounds change their meanings less freely than non-compounds - allthough I'm sure there are studies on that - however, seeing that compounds are often made to describe something new, I'd say it's probable that they change meaning more easily, at least meaning away from the word they were based on.

Not usually in the case of using a prefix like "a-" which means "not" with a word. It would be difficult for the definition of such a word to become independent of the original word. If there was a thing called "Xism" and we attached the prefix "a-" to it to mean "not Xism" then the definition of "aXism" would be dependent on the definition of "Xism" in the first place.
Someone could bring up the word "incredible" as an exception, but it's not really. Something is "credible" when it is more able to be believed, and "incredible" when it is difficult to be believed. Even casual use of the word "incredible" really links back to its definition which is "difficult to believe" - in Jamaica, people have a tendency to say "yuh too lie" (meaning "you're too dishonest" or "you're too much of a liar") when you tell them something that amazes them. They believe it, but they are so amazed that they say "yuh too lie" just like regular English-speakers would say "that's incredible" or something. There's some subconscious link we make between being amazed and being lied to. Natural pessimism? I don't know, but maybe I'm going off track.[/quote]

There's actually an expression in German ("Wirklich?") which, in the part where I grew up, means the exact same thing - amazement, but not disbelieve. Funnily enough, when I did my military service, I was stationed in another state, where the same expression was used for disbelieve only. With the nice effect that I was offending some of my fellow soldiers by calling them liars, without ever having meant to.

Anecdotes aside, I agree that incredible is not an exception. However, "agnostic" is a good example in itself, since it's common meaning is not "someone who doesn't have knowledge", as it's etymology would suggest. While "gnostic" was never used for someone who would claim to "know" that a God existed. Of course, the Greek loanwords, or loanwords in general, would change definition a lot more easier than English words, since they usually are either loaned after the Greek word itself has undergone a change in meaning, or are actually newly invented for the sake of sounding educated when expressing a new concept. Like "automobile" which even combines Latin and Greek.

And, in our discussion, the new definition for "gnostic" is especially interesting, since its new definition is now as an antithesis to "agnostic", which, despite the etymological roots of "agnostic", it never was. Which means, that this is one of the few cases, where the meaning of a word is derived from it's "a-" word, and not the other way round.

Maybe there are better examples of compounds, but I can't think of any right now. I agree, however, that there will be cases where a new compound can divorce itself entirely from its roots through casual use, but this is rare and possibly less likely than a simple word, because a compound (especially one using a prefix) usually relies on a relation to the root word.

When prefixes are used, you're probably right.

As far as I know (although that just turned up in research for this discussion), gnosis doesn't refer to "knowing" something in a definite manner, so much as to knowing something in a way that you could say you've experienced it. But I'm pretty sure that hasn't been the exclusive meaning, and in any case, it doesn't matter much.

Experience is a feeling of knowing. A lot of people have told me that they have felt and experienced God's work and presence. I think they're crazy. They are convinced that God has some presence in their life that they experienced.
Definitions of experience when I check Google's dictionary...
1) practical contact with and observation of facts or events.
2) an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone.

1) A person is likely to treat the perspectives of their own experience as facts, being more convinced by first-hand experiences than hearing some guy tell some story.
2) Leaving an impression on someone sounds a lot like leaving someone convinced, or at least believing strongly, i.e. with some level of conviction.

Whether you say it's knowledge or experience, it really comes of the same to me. Agnostic people say they can't know. Why? They don't think they can experience this "God" thing, or they don't think they have experienced it yet. If I was to replace "knowledge" with "experience" in my posts, I don't think it would change much, if anything at all. The thing most agnostic people say they lack is the ability to know (and you can read "know" there as "experience") enough for themselves to come to a definitive conclusion on whether "God" exists or not.

Maybe there's a language barrier there - because there are two words in German differentiating between kinds of knowing - "wissen", usable only for facts (when not used rhetorically), like "I know that 1+1=2", and "kennen", usable, for example, for the knowledge of other persons, like "I know my mother". The same distinction exists in Greek, and there, "gnosis" only means the second kind. Which makes it so weird, to me, that that word should be used for the kind of knowledge that is absolutely certain.
And even the people telling you that they've experienced God (I would say that I have too, by the way, crazy as that might make me sound to you, otherwise I wouldn't still adhere to any religion), like all the mystics, would usually not be able to say that they "know" about God the same way you can know how mathematics work, because even with the experience they've had, all they can do is believe more strongly. And there's the difference between knowledge and experience - you can experience something without knowing it afterwards.

Maybe apart from some form of philosophy where you thought that every theist facet is right, regardless how much they conflict with each other?

Igtheists just want to know what the common claim among all theists are. Only then can one establish himself as a theist or atheist. It's because theists conflict each other so much that igtheists just don't think theism is actually a thing. They think theism is too broad to have any meaning.

And yet they still seem to use it in a meaningful way, even if just as an alternative to atheism. And that's all the term theism can really mean. (By the way, another good example of the "a-" word being the source of meaning for the etymologically "first" word.)

I mean, I definitely would identify myself as a theist in broad terms, but if we were talking about the ancient Egyptian pantheon, for example, I'd be an igtheist as well.

You're confusing it now. No. Identifying yourself as a theist in broad terms just makes you a theist. You identify as a theist because you already have an idea of what theism is, in your head. Igtheists have no idea of what theism is.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing as well. My idea of theism is "antithesis to atheism", not "Roman Catholic". Or even "religious". Or anything I'd rather identify myself as.

Insofar, I don't really see how the term Igtheist brings anything new, or makes stuff easier to talk about.

You're probably not understanding it enough. The language barrier could be a problem for us discussing such a complex thing.

I don't think it's the language barrier. Igtheism either seems to be irrelevant because it's just the position of saying that "theism" is covering too large a span (which you say it isn't), or unwillingness to find a definition for theism (despite a clear definition being there), which would just mean that it's another facet of apatheism.
Incidentally, both are not true, since theism seems to be defined enough to be used coherently when talking about attitudes in respect to religion. From all the different terms we were discussing here, "theism" seems to be the one we don't disagree on at all, concerning its meaning.

[Siggon Kristov]

Could you say where the difference is, or what the difference means, other than their different level of conviction?

One lacks the belief in something, while the other believes in the lack of something.
There's a logical difference in how they arrive at what they say their stance is. To you, they won't be different because you think dichotomously. We already established this, so there is no point trying to explain this to you further.

Anecdotes aside, I agree that incredible is not an exception. However, "agnostic" is a good example in itself, since it's common meaning is not "someone who doesn't have knowledge", as it's etymology would suggest. While "gnostic" was never used for someone who would claim to "know" that a God existed.

Yes, an agnostic person is someone who accepts that he is "doesn't have knowledge" on whether theism is true or not.
A gnostic person, on the other hand, would say that he knows his stance is true. Whatever experiences or other knowledge they claim to have, they believe that they know for sure that their stance is true.

And, in our discussion, the new definition for "gnostic" is especially interesting, since its new definition is now as an antithesis to "agnostic", which, despite the etymological roots of "agnostic", it never was. Which means, that this is one of the few cases, where the meaning of a word is derived from it's "a-" word, and not the other way round.

Well if it is that the Gnostics believed that they had knowledge through experience, agnostics believed that it was impossible to have knowledge, and they typically never had their own learning or experiences to push them on the Gnostic side.

And it's not really the new definition. "Agnostic" is just the antithesis of the old cross-language definition of "gnostic"
"Gnosis" was Anglicised as "gnostic" to have a new definition.
"Agnosis" was Anglicised to be "agnostic" and "gnosis" is just being Anglicised to "gnostic" to have its original meaning.

Whether you say it's knowledge or experience, it really comes of the same to me. Agnostic people say they can't know. Why? They don't think they can experience this "God" thing, or they don't think they have experienced it yet. If I was to replace "knowledge" with "experience" in my posts, I don't think it would change much, if anything at all. The thing most agnostic people say they lack is the ability to know (and you can read "know" there as "experience") enough for themselves to come to a definitive conclusion on whether "God" exists or not.

And even the people telling you that they've experienced God (I would say that I have too, by the way, crazy as that might make me sound to you, otherwise I wouldn't still adhere to any religion), like all the mystics, would usually not be able to say that they "know" about God the same way you can know how mathematics work, because even with the experience they've had, all they can do is believe more strongly.

There are people out there who are certain of the existence of what they consider to be "God" and they do not see this as a mere belief. They believe that they truly know for sure that God exists. Maybe you're not one of those persons, but such persons exist. Maybe you need to come to Jamaica and meet a few Jamaicans, or go to the USA to meet a few rednecks.

Remember it's not about our own assessment on whether a person should believe that he has enough information to be certain. This is about how a person sees himself, i.e. whether he claims to have certainty, or whether he doesn't. You and I can say "Oh no, you only believe more strongly, but you can't know for sure" but some persons believe that they know for sure.

And there's the difference between knowledge and experience - you can experience something without knowing it afterwards.

Remember, we're talking in the context of someone identifying himself based on whether he thinks he knows, not our own assessment on whether a person should believe that he has enough information to be certain. So if 2 persons have a similar experience, but only 1 accepts it as confirmation of a particular belief, that person would be gnostic if the experience made him certain. It's possible that the other person:
- never saw the experience and belief as related
- saw the experience as related to the belief, but hasn't drawn definitive conclusions from the experience

I mean, I definitely would identify myself as a theist in broad terms, but if we were talking about the ancient Egyptian pantheon, for example, I'd be an igtheist as well.

You're confusing it now. No. Identifying yourself as a theist in broad terms just makes you a theist. You identify as a theist because you already have an idea of what theism is, in your head. Igtheists have no idea of what theism is.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing as well. My idea of theism is "antithesis to atheism", not "Roman Catholic". Or even "religious". Or anything I'd rather identify myself as.

Logical problem here.
To define something as the antithesis of atheism, you'd first have to define atheism.
If you're going to identify atheism as "not believing in X" - you would have to identify what "X" is.
An igtheist would raise these questions. You're not an igtheist. An igtheist doesn't identify as theist or atheist in broad terms (because an igtheist would say that he has no understanding of what either word means). An igtheist identifies himself as an igtheist in broad terms, and may identify as theist or atheist along with a specific definition.

An igtheist needs to have a clear idea of what theism is before deciding for himself whether he is theist or atheist by the given definition. An igtheist identifies as an igtheist generally, and only identifies as a theist/atheist when both terms are defined clearly. An igtheist would therefore introduce his stance by saying that "If theism means believing that ... then I am a theist." When I identify as atheist, I make it clear that it is in the context of opposition to monotheism which I equate to monarchy, or opposition to polytheism which I equate to oligarchy, and therefore support for atheism which I equate to Anarcho-Communism.

Some theists believe that there is a deity responsible for creation of the world. Some theists believe that there are multiple deities with different functions. To some non-Christians, angels and other beings don't seem to be different from what Westerners/Christians claim to be deities in other religions. There is heavy debate on whether Buddhism is theistic or not, since some Buddhists argue that Buddhism is not a religion, and some Buddhists accept that it is a religion but identify it as a non-theistic religion like Samkhya Hinduism. Samkhya Hindus identify themselves as atheists, in contrast to other Hindus who identify themselves as monotheistic, henotheistic, or polytheistic. Some outsiders would say that Samkhya Hindus are still theists since they believe in karma even though they don't believe in deities.

In short... For some persons, theism refers to belief in deities. For some other persons, theism refers to belief in anything metaphysical or supernatural. For some, who believe that theism refers strictly to deities, dispute what qualifies as a deity, i.e. whether they need to be creators, whether they are conscious, whether they are anthropomorphic, whether they communicate/intervene, etc.

I don't think it's the language barrier. Igtheism either seems to be irrelevant because it's just the position of saying that "theism" is covering too large a span (which you say it isn't), or unwillingness to find a definition for theism (despite a clear definition being there), which would just mean that it's another facet of apatheism.

Incidentally, both are not true, since theism seems to be defined enough to be used coherently when talking about attitudes in respect to religion. From all the different terms we were discussing here, "theism" seems to be the one we don't disagree on at all, concerning its meaning.[/quote]
We're not discussing theism, because we have specific meanings for the word in our own heads. Yes, igtheism is the position of saying that theism covers a span that is too large (when did I say that it doesn't cover a span that is too large, and even if I did, why does that matter to other persons who identify themselves as igtheist?), but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. If persons want to identify themselves as that, they should be able to. It's not any less relevant than you identifying yourself as a theist.

Every igtheist is possibly an apatheist, but not every apatheist is an igtheist. Some apatheists have a clear definition of theism in their heads, but don't care whether it is true or not. Igtheists don't have a clear definition of theism in their heads.

[Amazeroth]

Could you say where the difference is, or what the difference means, other than their different level of conviction?

One lacks the belief in something, while the other believes in the lack of something.
There's a logical difference in how they arrive at what they say their stance is. To you, they won't be different because you think dichotomously. We already established this, so there is no point trying to explain this to you further.

We haven't established that I think dichotomously - I've always contested that. You just assumed. However, the difference is not a definitional one, which is all this was about, because it's irrelevant how they arrived at their stance, only that the stance is the same. So there is no difference there, they only arrived by different ways.

Anecdotes aside, I agree that incredible is not an exception. However, "agnostic" is a good example in itself, since it's common meaning is not "someone who doesn't have knowledge", as it's etymology would suggest. While "gnostic" was never used for someone who would claim to "know" that a God existed.

Yes, an agnostic person is someone who accepts that he is "doesn't have knowledge" on whether theism is true or not.
A gnostic person, on the other hand, would say that he knows his stance is true. Whatever experiences or other knowledge they claim to have, they believe that they know for sure that their stance is true.

No, an agnostic person is not someone who accepts that he "doesn't have knowledge", but that he "doesn't have knowledge on whether there's a God". "Agnostic" never meant "someone who doesn't have knowledge". Otherwise, people who didn't know what weather they should expect on a given day would be called "agnostic" too.

And, in our discussion, the new definition for "gnostic" is especially interesting, since its new definition is now as an antithesis to "agnostic", which, despite the etymological roots of "agnostic", it never was. Which means, that this is one of the few cases, where the meaning of a word is derived from it's "a-" word, and not the other way round.

Well if it is that the Gnostics believed that they had knowledge through experience, agnostics believed that it was impossible to have knowledge, and they typically never had their own learning or experiences to push them on the Gnostic side.

No, because "agnostics" didn't exist back when Gnostics were around as a discernable religious group (or rather a group of people given to the same lines of religious thinking - it would be wrong to suggest they were something of a unified religious group by themselves). "Agnostic" has never been the antithesis to Gnostics back when Gnostics existed. For someone accusing me of thinking dichotomously, you seem to have a hard time wrapping your mind around the fact that the meanings of words are very fluid, and not bound by anything to their literal translations.

And it's not really the new definition. "Agnostic" is just the antithesis of the old cross-language definition of "gnostic"
"Gnosis" was Anglicised as "gnostic" to have a new definition.
"Agnosis" was Anglicised to be "agnostic" and "gnosis" is just being Anglicised to "gnostic" to have its original meaning.

The original meaning of "gnosis" was never "someone who has knowledge that God exists". It's gotten a new meaning, and not by being Anglicised - gnosis has been loaned from Greek long before - but by confusing literal with actual meaning.

Whether you say it's knowledge or experience, it really comes of the same to me. Agnostic people say they can't know. Why? They don't think they can experience this "God" thing, or they don't think they have experienced it yet. If I was to replace "knowledge" with "experience" in my posts, I don't think it would change much, if anything at all. The thing most agnostic people say they lack is the ability to know (and you can read "know" there as "experience") enough for themselves to come to a definitive conclusion on whether "God" exists or not.

And even the people telling you that they've experienced God (I would say that I have too, by the way, crazy as that might make me sound to you, otherwise I wouldn't still adhere to any religion), like all the mystics, would usually not be able to say that they "know" about God the same way you can know how mathematics work, because even with the experience they've had, all they can do is believe more strongly.

There are people out there who are certain of the existence of what they consider to be "God" and they do not see this as a mere belief. They believe that they truly know for sure that God exists. Maybe you're not one of those persons, but such persons exist. Maybe you need to come to Jamaica and meet a few Jamaicans, or go to the USA to meet a few rednecks.

Remember it's not about our own assessment on whether a person should believe that he has enough information to be certain. This is about how a person sees himself, i.e. whether he claims to have certainty, or whether he doesn't. You and I can say "Oh no, you only believe more strongly, but you can't know for sure" but some persons believe that they know for sure.

I realise that, but I don't believe these persons when they say that they "know" (other than the truly insane). I know that there are many out there who would say they do, but I have yet to see a single case where that would actually sound believable. And I don't mean that I think they're kidding themselves, I actually think they are lying (when they're not just using "know" as a word for "believe very hard", of course).

And there's the difference between knowledge and experience - you can experience something without knowing it afterwards.

Remember, we're talking in the context of someone identifying himself based on whether he thinks he knows, not our own assessment on whether a person should believe that he has enough information to be certain. So if 2 persons have a similar experience, but only 1 accepts it as confirmation of a particular belief, that person would be gnostic if the experience made him certain. It's possible that the other person:
- never saw the experience and belief as related
- saw the experience as related to the belief, but hasn't drawn definitive conclusions from the experience

If the person would be certain, he wouldn't be gnostic (according to the Greek definition, which this part of the discussion was about) anymore.

I mean, I definitely would identify myself as a theist in broad terms, but if we were talking about the ancient Egyptian pantheon, for example, I'd be an igtheist as well.

You're confusing it now. No. Identifying yourself as a theist in broad terms just makes you a theist. You identify as a theist because you already have an idea of what theism is, in your head. Igtheists have no idea of what theism is.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing as well. My idea of theism is "antithesis to atheism", not "Roman Catholic". Or even "religious". Or anything I'd rather identify myself as.

Logical problem here.
To define something as the antithesis of atheism, you'd first have to define atheism.
If you're going to identify atheism as "not believing in X" - you would have to identify what "X" is.
An igtheist would raise these questions. You're not an igtheist. An igtheist doesn't identify as theist or atheist in broad terms (because an igtheist would say that he has no understanding of what either word means). An igtheist identifies himself as an igtheist in broad terms, and may identify as theist or atheist along with a specific definition.[/quote]

Unless you're saying that igtheists is a fancy word for someone to lazy/uninterested to think about the issue, which I hardly think you are - then again, everyone is an igtheist. Because all they are, is being aware of the problem with different definitions, and that something has to be defined clearly before talking about it becomes viable. However, they seem to fail to see that that's the case with every single word, not just with theism/atheism. They are to a debate of religious inclinations what somone would be to a political debate who said "I don't define myself as conservative or progressive, because I've yet to see a definition of either one. There are, of course, countless definitions out there, and, as with every word, the speaker just has to pick one and hope that it becomes clear, by context, to the others, which one he's talking about.

An igtheist needs to have a clear idea of what theism is before deciding for himself whether he is theist or atheist by the given definition. An igtheist identifies as an igtheist generally, and only identifies as a theist/atheist when both terms are defined clearly. An igtheist would therefore introduce his stance by saying that "If theism means believing that ... then I am a theist." When I identify as atheist, I make it clear that it is in the context of opposition to monotheism which I equate to monarchy, or opposition to polytheism which I equate to oligarchy, and therefore support for atheism which I equate to Anarcho-Communism.

So you're not an igtheist. If I'm not an Igtheist if I identify myself as a theist in the context of Catholic Christianity, but not in every context, you can't by an Igtheist if you identify yourself as an atheist in the context of mono- and polytheism.

Some theists believe that there is a deity responsible for creation of the world. Some theists believe that there are multiple deities with different functions. To some non-Christians, angels and other beings don't seem to be different from what Westerners/Christians claim to be deities in other religions. There is heavy debate on whether Buddhism is theistic or not, since some Buddhists argue that Buddhism is not a religion, and some Buddhists accept that it is a religion but identify it as a non-theistic religion like Samkhya Hinduism. Samkhya Hindus identify themselves as atheists, in contrast to other Hindus who identify themselves as monotheistic, henotheistic, or polytheistic. Some outsiders would say that Samkhya Hindus are still theists since they believe in karma even though they don't believe in deities.

In short... For some persons, theism refers to belief in deities. For some other persons, theism refers to belief in anything metaphysical or supernatural. For some, who believe that theism refers strictly to deities, dispute what qualifies as a deity, i.e. whether they need to be creators, whether they are conscious, whether they are anthropomorphic, whether they communicate/intervene, etc.

Exactly. But since you are able to identify yourself in relation to any of these different versions, something like Igtheism doesn't exist. By the way, that's overall two different versions of how you could define Theism - either as belief in deities, or the belief in anything supernatural. In both cases, somone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural is clearly an atheist, and someone who believes in deities is a theist. So even without the definitions being completely exact (without added qualifiers), you can define a large group of peole very clearly as theists, and a very small but easily discerned group of people with atheists. So the definitions are, especially for everyday use among those who need these definitions, namely atheists - since theists wouldn't usually identify themselves by belonging to the group of "theists", but their own religion in any case - clear enough to use them in everyday speech, and for scientific speech you need additional qualifiers/specifications, as with almost any other broad definition, but that doesn't make theism or atheism meaningless or even impractical to use.

I don't think it's the language barrier. Igtheism either seems to be irrelevant because it's just the position of saying that "theism" is covering too large a span (which you say it isn't), or unwillingness to find a definition for theism (despite a clear definition being there), which would just mean that it's another facet of apatheism.

Incidentally, both are not true, since theism seems to be defined enough to be used coherently when talking about attitudes in respect to religion. From all the different terms we were discussing here, "theism" seems to be the one we don't disagree on at all, concerning its meaning.

We're not discussing theism, because we have specific meanings for the word in our own heads. Yes, igtheism is the position of saying that theism covers a span that is too large (when did I say that it doesn't cover a span that is too large, and even if I did, why does that matter to other persons who identify themselves as igtheist?), but that doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. If persons want to identify themselves as that, they should be able to. It's not any less relevant than you identifying yourself as a theist.[/quote]

And if I want to be able to identify myself as a sports car, I should be able to do so to as well. This is not about me trying to take the right from Igtheists to call themselves that, just saying that it makes little to no sense, because it's either dressing up not being interested enough to being comfortable to be ignorant, or something that everyone always is - which would make it a useless term. But if people want to call themselves Igtheists, I won't hinder them.
By the way, if it's the first, it would be much more relevant than me identifying myself as a theist, which I would only do if you'd force me to think in the inherently dichotomous theism/atheism-scheme. At least they state who they are, if I were to identify myself as a theist, instead of a Catholic or Christian, I'd say nothing other than that I'm about the same as 85-95% of the world's population, or 51-77% of Europeans (margins according to different definitions of theism, of course). And nothing else.

By the way, by "which you say it isn't" I didn't mean that you said that theism wouldn't be covering too large a span, but that you said that Igtheism isn't just the position of saying that.

Every igtheist is possibly an apatheist, but not every apatheist is an igtheist. Some apatheists have a clear definition of theism in their heads, but don't care whether it is true or not. Igtheists don't have a clear definition of theism in their heads.

So apatheism wouldn't be an alternative to atheism and theism, like igtheism would be, but just a description of the attitude of the atheist/theist in question? If so, igtheism would have worth as describing the position of someone apathetic enouth to not even think about differnt possible definitions, since apatheism is something else, true.