Definitions of gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism: would these definitions see

I've seen so many people with varying concepts of what these titles mean so I thought I'd outline the most widely accepted definitions. These are also the most useful as they are the only ones that can be used in combination to describe all basic perspectives.

The confusion seems to arise when people fail to realize that there are two distinct spectrum's.

A theist believes in one or more gods. An atheist fails to believe in any god.

A gnostic believes 100% even without proof either way while an agnostic doesn't know or believes there to be no proof.

Therefore you can be a gnostic theist (100% sure there is god/s) or a gnostic atheist (100% sure there isn't god/s). You can also be an agnostic theist (belief in god/s but open to possibility that there is none) or an agnostic atheist (no belief in god/s but open to the possibility that there is).

Most people are agnostic whether theist or atheist. This has nothing to do with being sure or unsure of any religion, just of god/s.
I know what you mean, Skepsis. It's just that the (albeit less common) definition of agnosticism is to be unsure of SOMETHING, not just of god and I feel that if we use this definition then it enables us to be more clear about where we come from. I'm an agnostic atheist so I don't like the assumption that I think I'm SURE that there is no god. I don't believe there is, which defines me as an atheist but unless we use the agnostic/gnostic spectrum to complement this then there is no option but to say I'm agnostic which could really apply to anything and doesn't place me anywhere but 50/50 theist/atheist. I think we should move towards the definitions I propose (though I didn't invent them).
Great reply Jeff D and very helpful. I think the whole reason I raise this is precisely because we need these particular criteria when describing our positions in order for a little more clarity. Seeing as how people were already inconsistently using the a/gnostic spectrum along with the a/theist spectrum I thought it was necessary to standardize them.

Perhaps it'd be better to invent an alternative spectrum for level of surety seeing as the word gnostic has a widely known meaning as a noun. I used it as an adjective (opposite to the agnostic adjective that was listed in the Oxford dictionary) to describe the a/theist noun. So I took gnostic to mean "know" as agnostic means "don't know" for even non-god issues.

As for the word "fail" I actually didn't intend that inference. I guess I felt I was saying what (c) said as I feel it is the theist who is the active believer while the atheist wouldn't have an issue without the theist. I'll be more careful with this in future though.
Actually I meant to say I took AGNOSTIC to be opposite of the adjective GNOSTIC rather than the other way round as this is how you actually listed them. Apologies.

Now to prophet_alt reply which I also have to say was extremely helpful. I agree with you on the definition of atheism and theism as beliefs even though atheism is not necessarily as active as theism, given that the burden of proof lies on this side.

The problem is that people do have varying degrees of surety and it is often helpful to know if someone is more or less sure. It's also helpful to the atheist or theist in terms of knowing that no assumptions are made about them as they are not immediately banded with other a/theists who may be more fundamental or illogical than they.

I accept your position completely but except for the ends of the spectrum, there is no mutual exclusion and therefore, in most cases the combined usage will be helpful.
As for my position, I don't believe in god and in fact would be fairly sure there isn't one as it is highly epistemic ally and objectively improbable. That caters for the atheist label.

As a scientist, I can not be positive of any belief without proof. The burden of proof is on the theists so I may not attempt to disprove it while still being atheist but at the same time I can only ever say that I don't know but it's highly improbable, from a point of view of evidence. That engages the use of the word agnostic.

Therefore the word agnostic would appear to me to be perfectly applicable at the same time as the word atheist. It also shows that I am not claiming to KNOW there isn't a god which would be unscientific and is the main reason I wish to find a standard system to qualify my position to a greater degree.


Any further thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help you've already volunteered.

Perfectly agreeable to me. There should be a way to make this question a sticky so that everyone who posts here will read it at least once.

Very pretty, but the term "gnostic" has already been taken to mean something else entirely. My diagram shows theists believing divinities are possible and real, atheists believing they are impossible and delusions, and agnostics saying "Shut up, BOTH of you!"

Any mental state of "belief" or conviction can be described in terms of a number of criteria or aspects. You have chosen two:

1. The "content" of the belief expressed as a conclusion.
2. The level of confidence with which that belief is held.

But we wouldn't need to stop there. Why not go on and add a third element:

3. Whether the belief is supported by or "needs" or is dependent on or independent of evidence.

And a fourth element:

4. The process (investigation, reasoning, personal "revelation") by which the belief is acquired.

There are always lots of ways to slice up any given phenomenon into categories or aspects or "dimensions."

I don't agree that an atheist "fails to believe in any god." I challenge you to find a definition of "atheism" or "atheist" in a widely-published dictionary that uses the word "fail." That would imply that the atheist has missed something, drawn an incorrect conclusion, omitted to perform a duty, acted defectively or incompetently, in concluding or coming to the belief or conviction that there are no gods.

It's more accurate, and more consistent with the panoply of dictionary definitions of atheism, to say that an atheist is one who (a) doesn't believe in the existence of gods, or (b) denies that gods exist, or (c) lacks a belief in the existence of gods, or (d) is convinced that no gods exist.

"A gnostic believes 100% without proof either way." No, you are constructing a Humpty-Dumptyism here, an idiosyncratic definition that creates confusion. "Gnostic" is already a word used to describe members of various dualist schools of religious thought in the early history of Christianity, influenced by Zoroastrianism and continuing in various heretical strains of Christian religion (as practiced as recently as the 13Th century by the Cathars or Albigensians).

I disagree that it makes sense to label someone as an "agnostic theist." In standard English, "agnostic" is never used except to describe a mental or philosophical stance that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable or a nonsensical or unresolvable problem.

You make a valid point that both atheists and theists can differ in the level of confidence they express about their belief or non-belief. But quite a few atheists whom I know don't say that they are "99.5 percent certain" or "99.9 percent certain" of their non-belief in gods. They prefer to say that the existence of a personal god (of the sort depicted in the Bible) is so improbable (0.5 percent or 0.1 percent, etc.) that they have concluded no gods exist and choose to conduct their lives accordingly.

It's a given that lexicographers have compiled dictionaries to collect the meanings and definitions of words as those words have been and are used by MOST people, and because most people have been and still are believers in this or that monotheistic religion, just about all the dictionary definitions that I see for "atheist" and "agnostic" use the capitalized word "God" in the singular.

In the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2ND edition (2005):

atheism (n..). The theory or belief that God does not exist. Late 16Th cent. from French atheism, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god.' -- atheist n. / -- atheistic adj.

agnostic (n.). A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

gnostic (adj.). Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge. Gnostic [capitalized] of or relating to Gnosticism. [There is no entry for "gnostic" as a non-capitalized noun.]

God (n.) 1. [capitalized and without a definite article] (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. god [uncapitalized] (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

I've seen this marrying of these two "spectrum's," as you put it, a lot more recently. What results is a lot of redundancy and, frankly, confusion. A theist is someone who believes that there is a deity or multiple deities. The term began to be used a little more widely in the 18Th Century to distinguish someone who believed that the deity revealed him/herself to humankind (theist) from someone who believed in the "Clockmaker" Creator idea (deist), where the Creator put the wheels in motion and just stepped away. An atheist believes there is no deity (from the Greek "ethos", which means godless). Now, the two terms share something in common -- belief.

"Gnosis," on the other hand is the direct experiential knowledge of the Divine. So a Gnostic is not someone who "believes;" they "know." An agnostic doesn't know or is ignorant (and I'm not using that as a bad word). By appending the word with an "a," you render it the opposite of its original meaning.

So, the real difference between each spectrum is "knowing" versus "believing." You can only know something you've experienced, but you can believe anything, even in another person's belief, which is how religion has basically been passed down through the ages. Knowing negates the need for belief. Therefore to marry the terms "gnostic" and "theist" is not only impractical, but absurd. Belief is a choice; knowledge just is.

In the same vein, to marry "agnostic" and "atheist" seems a little odd to me as well. If you don't know, you don't know. How can you then willfully believe there is no deity if you've already said you don't know? Seems contradictory to me. But, I won't judge you if you do decide to call yourself that. Call yourself whatever you wish.

EDIT: Agreed CH: there is hardly a place, especially in religion, where there aren't shades of Grey. Fundamentalists on both sides of the issue (and yes, I do believe some atheists are as ardent in their non-belief as "true believers" are in their beliefs) tend to draw lines and say, "You're either with us or against us. There is no middle ground." I appreciate your stance that the burden of proof lies with the believers. But at the same time, it is the responsibility of the individual to process what they've seen and heard and make up their own mind. Too often have I seen someone just blindly believe something someone said because they believe it so much. The Buddha stated that a person should not believe their teachers or the text they read, but they should hold up those things to the scrutiny of their hearts and minds to measure their worth.

Lastly, I appreciate that you are examining for yourself what it means to be an agnostic atheist. I tend to get all bristly when I hear someone give themselves a cutesy title like that and realize they're doing it to try to prove how intelligent they are. But you're obviously beyond such an egotistical motivation. In the end, I think we're all seekers of some sort, trying to find those answers that will fulfill us as humans.

My definitions were for words and concepts. And just like hypotheses in science, words and concepts don't really take on their true value until they're applied to the real world and tested in each individual psyche.