Presuming Certainty
Theological discussions often turn ugly. A major contributing factor is our terminology. Theists seem to equate ' atheist ' with ' evil ' while atheists liken ' theist ' with ' mindless follower '.
We routinely use the terms atheist, agnostic and theist yet it is not clear they mean what we think they mean .
Everyone is either a theist or an atheist in terms of belief in a deity (supreme being). A theist believes in one or more deities whereas an atheist believes in none.†
Certainty Of Knowledge
What about agnostic? The word agnostic refers to a measure of certainty of knowledge . Much like atheist counters theist in belief , agnostic counters gnostic in knowledge . Agnosticism has crept into descriptions of belief because most people realize that certainty is not supportable – one could be wrong. Agnostics recognize they could be wrong about a deity whereas gnostics insist they have found truth. This is a huge difference in position.
Combining belief with knowledge yields four positions regarding belief in deities:
- Gnostic Theist — 100% certain their deity(ies) exist; no other possibilities
- Agnostic Theist — believes in at least one deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken
- Agnostic Atheist — no belief in a deity but open to persuasive evidence to the contrary
- Gnostic Atheist — 100% certain no deity exists; no other possibilities
Having established the ( well known ) terms ...
Why Does This Matter?
It matters in discussions between atheists and theists.
Most everyone, I submit, is agnostic - either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. This is a rational position given nobody can absolutely know if a deity exists or not at this point. In contrast, gnostic positions are usually untenable‡ and easy to dismiss.
During discussion (or debate), many presume ' atheist ' to mean ' gnostic atheist ' when in reality most every atheist is an ' agnostic atheist '. When the atheist stipulates: ' I am not convinced a deity exists ' the theist often presumes certainty : ' there is no deity '. Even outspoken activist atheist Richard Dawkins acknowledges that he is an agnostic atheist . If provided with persuasive evidence I am confident even the most ardent atheists such as Dawkins would be theists, and with no regrets.
Similarly, atheists tend to presume every theist is a gnostic theist - an individual who would under no circumstances question their belief (e.g. Ken Ham). There is a huge difference between strong belief and irrational certainty such as with Ham. While there are quite a few gnostic theists I suggest most everyday believers within Judeo-Christian religions privately acknowledge the possibility that their deity does not exist.
In short, people can hold strong positions without necessarily being irrational. Yet discussions / debates often presume the most extreme positions - gnostic atheism and gnostic theism. If you are arguing with ' the other side ' check to see if they are claiming certainty. If not, you may be debating a fellow agnostic who leans one way while you lean the other. Do not presume certainty - there is likely more common ground than you might imagine.
† Those who claim to not know if they believe in a deity do not, by definition, have a belief and are atheist.
‡ Note that these positions arguably depend upon specific deities. A pantheist for example equates all of existence with 'god', the gnostic position here is supported by definition. A gnostic atheist position that no deities exist is impossible to prove. A gnostic theist position of a specific deity with a self-refuting characteristic such as omniscience is untenable by logic.
Tags
Who is online
196 visitors
When someone refers to their religious beliefs as 'agnostic' they are using a vague shorthand for 'agnostic theist or agnostic atheist'. However, most theists do not refer to themselves as agnostic so, basically, 'agnostic' is for all practical purposes a shorthand for 'agnostic atheist'. Most people who label themselves agnostic, when asked, will admit that they are simply not convinced there is a god.
I'm an agnostic theist.
very interesting. I personally have not encountered many problems with agnostic atheists - but i have encountered issues with theists (whether agnostic or gnostic), especially during debates. Most people who debate want to debate with facts and usually require proof (either for or against etc - this is when links are presented etc to back up their assertions), but it seems that many theists just want to present there is a god (their version) as fact and get very angry when asked for proof - they seem to expect everyone to just take it as fact and don't want to have to present proof because their lack of proof would eliminate their claim about their god existing in the debate itself. Now, i'm sure this happens with atheists as well (either agnostic or gnostic) but i haven't really encountered that issue with them.
I do agree that things get childish with both sides - atheists (either agnostic or gnostic) make fun of the theists and vice versa - both sides indulge in it.
this is just my experience and take on things - and that's all it is. thanks for the article and clarification on terms, hopefully its helpful to many when they debate in the future on religious articles.
Sometimes I write articles for reference purposes - so as to avoid having to repeat explanations for common misconceptions. This is one of those articles.
I think our conversation was relevant for this topic.
Gnostic atheists are just as obnoxious as gnostic theists IMO. But I have found that in debates or conversations gnostic atheists do receive pushback from agnostic atheists when they begin expressing an unsupportable level of certainty. While the two sides essentially agree, agnostic atheists seem to be much more resistant to any idea of absolute knowledge than either category of theist. You rarely ever see a theist tell another theist that there is the chance they are wrong.
I agree
In fact I engaged in just that sort of push-back on NT a few months back.
I am a gnostic atheist when it involves Zeus, Apollo, Yahweh and all of the other gods and goddesses that mankind have believed in and worshipped.
Christians are gnostic atheists when it involves Zeus, Apollo, and all of the other tens of thousands of gods and goddesses that mankind have believed in and worshipped with the exception of Yahweh and Yeshua.
I think it is quite possible to prove the inexistence of a particular god based on how that god is defined. That would be a proof of logic alone.
Below is a list of religions that the Christians summarily dismiss as being fake with the exception of their own, of course.
If a person worships one god and dismisses all other gods as fake, then they are both theist and atheist.
Whenever I see the list of historical God’s I am reminded how easily our minds can invent a god and how easily others believe in the god.
I agree.
In my experience, a gnostic theist doesn't even care to know about any god (or religion) other than the one that they have been indoctrinated to believe in. They just summarily dismiss the idea as being impossible without definition or discussion.
Men, who invent gods to control others, probably needed to be charismatic and powerful enough to be believed and followed.
Maybe, some of the inventors had some good intentions when it came to diet and hygiene. However, the punishments of the Jewish religion were conceived by sadists. This is why there are NOT allowed today. Even beating your children is frowned upon. Stoning them to death should have never happened. I cannot understand the mentality of people who would have ever stoned their own children to death.
YHWH and Yshua are the same person. It is the core of all Christianity.
The I AM statements of Jesus
Who do you say Jesus is? Jesus asked this same question to his disciples about what others thought of him and then asked what they thought of him. Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Are there two Lords or one? Two Saviors or one? Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD,And besides Me there is no savior.”
Philippians 2:11 “and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Titus 2:13 “looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”
John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
John 10:30-38 “I and My Father are one.”31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him.”
The most important of all the I AM statements is in John 8:24 after he tells them I am not of this world.
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am [He], you will die in your sins." ( he is not in the original). He is communicating to them he is the same I AM that Moses met at the burning bush which commissioned him.
Christ who is called the exact image of the invisible Father is the voice that the people heard. He then says that they search the Scriptures in them you think you have eternal life but they testify of me."(v.39) The Son is said to be the eternal life with the Father. Are we to believe the Scriptures testify of only a human being and not God himself? In the end of the discourse Jesus says in vs.46-47 "If you believed Moses you would believe Me; for he wrote about me. But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"
When did Moses write of him? Deut.18:15-19: "The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, "according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' "And the LORD said to me: 'What they have spoken is good. 'I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 'And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him." Jesus claims to be the prophet Moses spoke of that should listen to. Notice that it says they did not want to hear the voice of the Lord anymore or see his glory in Horeb. Then God says he will put his words in a future prophets mouth if they do not listen to his words, God will require it of him." This very thing Jesus said of himself in Jn.8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins."
John 6:51:"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever;"
John 8:23: And He said to them, "You are from beneath; I AM from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
If you accept that ALL things were created by God, then you must accept that Jesus is God if you accept the words of the Apostles.
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
He was present originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and
without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. John 1:1-3 Amplified Bible
And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth. John 1:14
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17
Is that supposed to be a contribution to the current discussion?
History is filled with the various Christian sects slaughtering one another over how to interpret dogma and other things.
I have no interest in re-fighting the Christian crusades on whether your sect has the Yahweh approved interpretation of numerous translations and re-writes.
Are you a gnostic theist?
There are NO Christian denominations that reject Jesus as YHWH. Only cults of Christianity like the Jehovah Witnesses.
Yes it is. Moscow girl claimed that YHWH and Yshua are different. That is contrary to Christian doctrine, both Protestant and Catholic.
Are those the only 2 Christian sects? Huh, could have fooled me. Regardless, who cares, it was the dumbest plan of all time, literally makes no sense from start to finish.
Since you're a "Oneness Pentecostal" I doubt you speak for Catholics or Protestants.
.
I guess that means your buddy Jesus is psychotic since he supposedly said "I am not god."
That's a bit simplistic.
IMNAAHO, you should be taking account of chronology and context. Our perception of divinity has evolved constantly since our cave-dwelling days. Originally, divinities were expressions and explanations of natural phenomena. Streams, lightning, whatever. There was no particular link with ethics. (I think that's what makes the Greek pantheon so "quaint": they behave like people... with super-powers.)
The God of Abraham required ethical behavior from His people. (All other peoples being of no interest!) But He could sometimes still be very much a person with super-powers, wreaking havoc on a whim. The ethical content of Judaism grew progressively, and became paramount with Jesus.
Meanwhile... Buddha... Confucius... The slow evolution of "gods" to God was not limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Why? The point I made seems perfectly valid without necessarily exploring the evolution of the created gods. We know that we are quite capable of evolving ideas - we often call that 'progress'. The creation of a god seems to be the significant phenomenon - not the fact that the story naturally evolves over time (usually to be more effective at ensnaring susceptible minds).
Especially in an age when having children that lived to adulthood was not easy
Because your text is facile and dismissive. You said
... but the history of Man's perception of God appears to me to be anything but "easy". That word, IMNAAHO, makes the statement... wrong.
Today, we're sitting on thousands of years of collected thoughts. So for us, perhaps, it's "easy". But most of the road was not.
I do not understand your complaint. It would have been easy for an uninformed ancient human being to look at the sun, stars, lightning, etc. and proclaim same as the work of a god. The human mind has no problem imagining gods as explanations - even today. You disagree??
We are not talking about the same thing.
Never mind.
I'm not a Oneness Pentecostal which is a cult of Christianity. I'm a pure Trinitarian. The Father is neither YHWH nor the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son (YHWH)
So many conflicting interpretations of the Bible - and each knows that their interpretation is the right one.
And yet you've said things like "Jesus gave the laws to Moses". Normal Christians would never say that.
On the point of atheists assuming theists are gnostic theists, I think that assumption is made because you rarely hear anyone claiming to be a theist admit any level of uncertainty. They may admit a level of uncertainty in regards to the specifics of their chosen faith, but rarely do they ever admit uncertainty in their belief in a deity. You usually get some answer along the lines of "I know in my heart", and I think that is why atheists are often so hard on theists. I suspect that deep down you are right, most are not sure of the existence of their god. That is evidenced by the fact that self-proclaimed theists seem to have very little problem tossing their expressed beliefs aside when it is convenient for them or they think they stand to personally gain. I would go so far as to say most people deep down are really closer to agnostic atheists than anything, again given their lack of fear of any real sort of supernatural punishment. But until I can read minds, I really just have to take the theists word for it when it comes the level of certainty they have in their beliefs.
Ultimately I am very confident that most people are either agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. The gnostic positions are irrational and I think most people realize that.
The atheists are almost exclusively agnostic atheists in my experience. I do not know any atheist who has maintained that no god could possibly exist (unless talking about a specific god and an argument is made showing how that god could not possibly exist per its definition).
The agnostic theists are curious to me. I live my life surrounded by theists and would submit that the super majority of them are indeed agnostic theists. They tend to believe in the Christian God but it is more of a hope rather than a devout belief. In all, I think that there are more gnostic theists (as a percentage of all theists) than there are gnostic atheists (as a percentage of all atheists). I also suspect (just based upon my own observations) that people are moving from gnostic-theist to agnostic-theist and from agnostic-theist to agnostic-atheist.
Today, that is what I see in my friends, family and acquaintances (and always have), but for decades, I did not realize how little faith that they had in Yahweh and that there was a Heaven.
According to recent surveys, the belief in a personal god is dwindling.
Below is a link to a list of religions that believe in a "personal" god.
I wonder if others have the same personal experiences. The Bible Belt would be interesting since it should be jam-packed with gnostic theists.
I think the evidence indicates you are correct in the way religious beliefs are changing. I am a great example of it. As a kid I would have expressed a certainty in the existence of a god, but as I grew older and less and less of the Bible and religious teachings made sense and just seemed flat our wrong I became skeptical. Not exactly of the existence of a god, but more in the validity of the church I attended and the things that were being taught. Naturally by the time I was 14 I got to thinking, "if what the church is teaching is mostly nonsense, and the Bible is full of so much outright crap, then how do I even know its central claim is valid?" The nail in religion's coffin for me came by the time I reached physics my sophomore year of high school, and by that point I was of the opinion that there was virtually nothing useful a religion, or its deity could teach me, and there is no way a deity would be as stupid as the ones portrayed in the various religions. Especially the Bible. And now here I am, gnostic theist, to agnostic theist, to agnostic atheist.
Interesting if a person is only visiting to conduct a scientific study on how effective mass brainwashing is to produce a population filled with narcissists who believe that they are the image of god, if not god itself.
Ever notice how the Bible Belt portrays itself as being crammed with gnostic theists, yet those states are generally leaders in poverty, teenage pregnancy, crime rates etc? Although I doubt you have much luck finding people who will admit they don't really believe it, religion down there has more to do with social standing than anything else in my experience (I dated a girl from Memphis for quite some time and spent a lot of time with her family and friends).
The Bible Belt prides itself on being "godly". The impoverished are taught that it is their lot in life to endlessly toil for little monetary reward in this life in order to achieve riches in Heaven because "it is easier for the camel to pass through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven". (This is from memory so may not be exact quote.)
Teen pregnancy? No sex ed. Abstinence is required. Only a slut has sex before marriage. Sex involves coercion to make a girl "give in". Of course, unplanned sex by the girl often equals no condoms used by guy for any number of reasons because preplanning sex would be "sinful" and "slutty".
Crime rates? Low income, lack of education and poverty = crime.
I googled for more info on "teenage pregnancy".
more...
No, real christianity is a personal relationship with God in which we not only KNOW Him, but more importantly, He knows us
Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24 NKJV)
So you have embraced the completely untenable position gnostic theism?
No, I have embraced the ONLY reasonable position which is to believe God at His word and then experience that belief in it's reality
You cannot call yourself a Christian and NOT KNOW God. If you don't have a personal relationship with Him, you are NOT a Christian.
How is claiming to know the unknowable reasonable?
And don't worry, I am not a Christian, AT ALL. IMO Christianity is a bunch of crap that only a fool would buy into, especially as an adult. Children can be forgiven because they are indoctrinated before they have really developed the mental faculties to critically analyze whatever faith is being forced upon them, there is no excuse for adults though. That aside, the god in the Bible sounds like a total dick, I would prefer to not have ANY relationship with it.
Oh no, we could tell...
don't worry you won't have a relationship with Him. You have chosen Hell instead
Can't possibly be worse that licking the ass of an ego maniac for eternity lol.
Larry's god sounds a lot like Trump.
What are you saying 'no' to? Not following how this relates to my post. Looks like you are saying that most Christians are not 'true' Christians.
The thing is, you presume the Bible is the Word of God simply because you were told that it is. Same as a Muslim accepting the Qur'an as the Word of Allah.
Does not sound as though reason plays a strong role here. A reasonable approach IMO is to follow the evidence to where it leads and draw one's own conclusions. Be skeptical and do not accept anything on faith alone.
using search engines available to you and doing your own research so you can check and recheck various sources until you have found the answers to your questions?
I dropped out of high school, got a GED, took some college courses and have spent many decades learning how to answer many of my own questions.
After gaining internet access, I discovered that I learned more by doing my own research than by taking someone else's word for it. Also, the more I learn, the more questions I usually have. I can spend days on the computer researching something as simple as various vegetable gardening techniques. This year I am going to attempt to start my own heirloom tomato plants from seed without an indoor grow light. I will need all of the help I can get.
I have probably read every tip and watched every video on youtube on how to deal with cucumber beetles, squash bugs and squash vine borers. Basically, my solution has been to plant 5 times as much as I need and hope some survives the bugs. LOL!
He is a fundie, we know there is no reasoning with them.
Some I do and some I don't.
When it involves Arkansas, I am well acquainted with how little value is placed on academics throughout the state.
I should have been been valedictorian. I would have graduated high school with a decent 6th grade education.
I don't think that's all of it. I think that so many of Bible belt dwellers take pride in their ignorance and non-intellectual status. Have you seen the bumper sticker that said "God said it and I believe it!"? They don't want to learn anything that doesn't come from Sunday school or Wednesday night prayer service. Knowledge is an affront to God
Good luck on the tomato plants. I think I may try my hand at some this year
It is according to their Bible.
Also, knowledge of evolution completely dispels the Garden of Eden, Tree of Knowledge, Original Sin myth.
Without belief in the Abrahamic creation myth, there is no need for Yeshua to impregnate a human with himself in order to be born as Yeshua so he can sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive his creations for being the imperfect creatures that he created for the purpose of acting out his divine plan.
According to the Christian religion, humans are to god what hamsters are to humans. We can see distant galaxies from our cage, but are largely confined to living a life of monotony doing repetitious tasks in the community where we are born.
I doubt if there are more abortions in rural areas than urban centers because there is limited access. And I'm taking religion into account.
However, and this is only anecdotal, I was raised in a rural area I know of at least 5 girls that had abortions.
in Maryland? The state that ranks #1 in the nation in education?
and
When I attended church with my mom, her Sunday school teacher said verbatim, "Education takes you further away from God" and "all you need to know is in the Bible."
I almost got up and walked out. I was unable to suppress an eyeroll, and my mom saw it. I had already begun to have doubts, and it was pretty obvious to me from those words that the church knew there was reason for doubts like mine, and feared them.
I think I only went one or two more Sundays. I just couldn't sit there silently anymore.
What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is what it is NOT. It's NOT about a religion. It's not about church hierarchies, or buildings. It's NOT about money. It is first and foremost about restoring an intimate, personal relationship with God.. A relationship that grows through EXPERIENTAL knowledge of God on that relationship journey during one's life. Christianity centers on being empowered to KNOW God even as we are known by Him.
Sadly, as Jesus predicted, most people who claim to be Christians actually have nothing to do with really being a Christian.
And this is eternal life, that they may know (ginosko) You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent John 17:3
I am the good shepherd; and I know (ginosko) My sheep, and am known (ginosko) by My own. John 10:14
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know (eido) all things ! John 2:20
And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know (ginosko) Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life 1 John 5:20
From Vines New Testament Dictionary. There are two forms of “to know” or knowledge in the NT, Eido and Ginosko
The differences between ginosko and oida demand consideration:
ginosko, frequently suggests inception or progress in "knowledge," while eido suggests fullness of "knowledge,"
In the NT ginosko frequently indicates a relation between the person "knowing" and the object known
Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24 NKJV)
It is NOT enough to just say you are a Christian
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” John 14:21
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. John 8:31
“Whoever makes Me known in front of men, I will make him known to My Father in heaven. 33 But whoever does not make Me known in front of men and acts as if he does not know Me, I will not make him known to My Father in heaven Matthew 10:31-33
By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples. John 15:8
Then he spoke to them all. “If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps, he must give up all right to himself, carry his cross every day and keep close behind me. For the man who wants to save his life will lose it, but the man who loses his life for my sake will save it. For what is the use of a man gaining the whole world if he loses or forfeits his own soul? Luke 9:23-24
You do realize that you cannot quote the Bible in order to support the Bible right?
I didn't write it to support the Bible. I wrote it to support the position of Christianity that either as a Christian you know God or you are not a Christian.
Gotta love the fundies, the most dangerous people on earth
Larry is a good example of why gnostic theists are such a threat to civilization.
That (^) post was pretty much gibberish.
Which is why I skipped over it
Good evening. Sorry to be so late to the party.
I think there's a logical flaw in your article:
Since theism - belief in a god - is a matter of faith, and faith is independent of physical evidence... your formulation effectively precludes "coming to belief through enlightenment". Paul's fireworks on the road to Damascus are excluded.
This is tricky, for sure: An agnostic atheist cannot exclude "enlightenment". That is, coming to belief by inspiration, in the absence of any physical evidence.
Historically, there have been a lot of people who claimed to have been "enlightened". So an agnostic atheist cannot rationally exclude the possibility.
Interesting.
I would not interpret the definition as prescriptive but rather descriptive. That is, these definitions serve simply to distinguish the 4 different states without prescribing what one can or cannot do to move between these states. So, for example, there is no attempt to preclude a 'wormhole' shift from agnostic atheist to theist based on some magical enlightenment event. By the same token, an agnostic theist could suffer a brain injury and wake up as a gnostic theist.
The phrase is 'open to persuasive evidence that a God exists' in the agnostic atheist definition is there to distinguish from the gnostic atheist who holds certainty - thus nothing could change his/her mind.
If you like, the following would also work:
Agnostic Atheist - "no belief in a deity, but does not preclude the possibility"
That works...
Being a maniac about things like symmetry, I'd tend to do something like
Gnostic Theist — 100% certain their deity(ies) exist; no other possibilities
Agnostic Theist — believes in at least one deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken
Agnostic Atheist — no belief in a deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken
Gnostic Atheist — 100% certain no deity exists; no other possibilities
I could live with that. The basic ideas get across. Although I prefer the agnostic atheist = 'not convinced' rather than 'no belief in'.
Sure.
"no belief" were your words.
Convinced / not convinced works just as well.
How funny. Apparently I have changed my phrasing since I originally wrote this (years ago).
While one might think those are synonymous, the atheism trait is also along a positive / negative assertion axis where "not convinced" is more negative than the positive assertion of "no belief in".
Good point. That is why I prefer 'not convinced'. Atheism is the lack of sufficient evidence to formulate a rationale belief. Belief is a consequence of being convinced.
I know how that works... I have a GDocs file where I store miscellany... for years...
As there are no absolutes, what one chooses to believe or not to believe is a personal matter that we arrive at over a period of time. The only certainty in life that I am aware of is death.
I'll let you know when I get to the other side, not today I hope.
I am certainly not certain about all this uncertainty.