Happy Atheist Forum

For real.  I'm talking about the agnostics who refer to themselves as "just agnostic," precluding themselves from being atheists as well.

Atheist â€" One who has no belief in a deity.  (without belief in a god)
Agnosticism â€" One who claims no knowledge of a deity/knowledge of a deity is impossible.

I find myself cringing, and sometimes becoming insulting, when trying to explain that being an agnostic does not put you in the middle ground between atheism and theism, nor does it preclude you from being an atheist.  I find it a little sad that they get the definition of agnosticism half right; they just don’t understand it in relation to atheism and theism.

For those of you who don’t feel like reading the rest of this, the general question is, how can I convince people to use atheism and agnosticism correctly?  If everyone believes atheists are something they are not, how can we possibly have constructive communication with them?  

I feel insulted when people lie about my beliefs, and I don’t understand why they think “their” definition is more apt than mine.  It wouldn’t be fair to tell a Mormon that they define Mormonism incorrectly, in fact it would be absurd, so why do so called “just agnostics,” and theists do it to the atheist position?  I suppose the answer to this question doesn’t matter unless it affects how I should go about explaining the two concepts.  I understand the theists, but the “just agnostic” group makes me a little confused.  The only reason I can imagine for their poor understanding of atheism is that the “agnostics” do it simply because they are uninformed.  Yet the method for informing them seems to be extremely tricky to find.

Simply telling them isn’t enough to make them understand.  Often when explaining it to them they will say things like “words change all the time, you’ll have to deal with it.”  How can I get across to them that atheism isn’t a word that changes simply by people who aren’t atheists using it in a different fashion?  As I said earlier, you wouldn’t say such a thing about Mormonism.  If everyone who wasn’t a Mormon started saying Mormonism meant farmer, I’m sure Mormons would disagree that this definition is a fair depiction of them.  Mormon might take on two definitions at that point, but certainly it wouldn’t then be that when a person said Mormon they had to mean farmer.  Stressing the difference between belief and knowledge doesn’t work.  Explaining the difference between believing in not, and not believing falls on deaf ears.  Asking them to go to atheist organizations and read their definition of atheist doesn’t seem to work either.

Please, I would rather do an adequate job of informing others when I see them straw manning the atheist position.  If any of you have perfected a method for communicating these concepts appropriately let me know, I can’t take talking to people who are brick walls and refuse to acknowledge anything.  It has gotten to the point that I don’t even bother speaking with "agnostics" about the topic, even if it really erks me.  How can I break down the wall?

I apologize for the length of this post. I also apologize for any breaks in continuity that I didn't catch, I was tired while writing this and my eyes aren't having fun proofreading and editing.

Hey Invidy,

I don't find the God existent / non-existent debate interesting these days, though I am an atheist. Just wanted to say hi. Welcome to the board.

Thanks AIP

Really good question...one idea I have is to suggest that  they are apatheists (a contraction of apathetic about theist.) This is basically a position that says "Religion is not an important part of my life, and I think there are more important things to worry about than whether religion is right." That seems a reasonable position for a nontheist to take, although most of us here at HAF would probably disagree with it, seeing the damage that religion does in the world.

Then again, if they are sufficiently interested, suggest that they read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion," which is a great book to introduce the basic arguments for taking a stronger position. (I'm sure some others are good too, but thats the one I read to start.) Before I read this, I would have termed myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I found his arguments against fence-sitting to be fairly convincing. And it really is much easier to "convert" a fence-sitter than a theist, for obvious reasons!

Invidy, I'll let the fine agnostics on the board defend themselves, but if you want to break down walls, I suggest you start by not assuming you are right and agnostics are wrong. I find the agnostic position very tenable. You post seems overly critical and presumptuous. You'll see why I think that as soon as the agnostics here begin to reply to you.

Good luck breaking down walls. I hope you are able to listen to the agnostics here, it would be a good first step.

I'm an agnostic atheist, but it doesn't sound like what you're describing refers to me.

You can break down the wall by educating them.

While I think there really are agnostics who are so undecided they can't really claim to be atheist or theist...most will fall towards one side or the other since agnostic is a position related to what can be known, not what one thinks of the subject.  I created this post (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830)) with the help of other members to explain what the different terms mean; trying to define them in a universally accepted manner.  The only thing you really can do is discuss the meaning of the terms calmly so you can remove any incorrectly held stereotypes as to free up the other person's perception of your own position...otherwise you end up enforcing those negative views.  

Ok, I'll chime in for the Agnostic Theist side.

Good topic and comments thus far.

As stated, Agnostic and Gnostic are positions of knowledge.
Atheist and Theist are positions of belief.

IMHO, where the answer is unknown (or unknowable), the only honest answer is "I Don't Know" - welcome to the Agnostic position.

Agnostics (pure, theists, and atheists) are not "on the fence", "undecided", or "unable to choose".  There is no choice to make.  The only valid answer is "unknown".

Coming from a database background in computers, let me offer this analogy:
In relational databases, DATE values may contain a valid date, or be null.
The "null" value is used when a date is unknown.
For example, an employee record may have "Starting Date", and "Ending Date".
While the employee works for the company, Ending Date is unknown, and therefore "null".

So, on the question of god's existance, the only valid answer is "null"... or I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else.

2 cents thrown in,
JoeActor

I think I know what you're getting at-

The way you defined the terms:

QuoteAtheist â€" One who has no belief in a deity. (without belief in a god)
Agnosticism â€" One who claims no knowledge of a deity/knowledge of a deity is impossible.

Plenty of agnostics are also atheists whether they realize it or not. The term atheist refers to a lack of belief, which in my estimation is an opinion on a matter, while agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge.
Of course the flip side, is that many agnostics are also theists though they don't realize it (And many theists are also relatively agnostic.) Their opinion is that there is a higher power, though they wouldn't say they were sure of it.

Kind of like belief in aliens while not willing to admit certainty.

Do we agree so far?

So to address your question of the best way to educate people in the nuances of the terms -- I'm not sure that there is a best way. I find that if I explain to individuals with patience and make a point to characterize beliefs as opinions while absolute knowledge as a percentage of certainty, they usually get it (at least for those willing to listen.)

This doesn't address the negative stereotype associated with the term 'atheist' and why many these days use sugar-coated terms such as 'skeptic'


EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

Quote from: "BadPoison"EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

Yeah!  I win the internets!

I find that analogies are great teaching tools.  If you can boil down a concept into real world terms - something tangible - all the better.

It's like those diagrams you get with Lego sets that show you how to build the real thing.

Wait!

I just gave an analogy for analogies!

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled discussion, already in progress...

Quote from: "McQ"Invidy, I'll let the fine agnostics on the board defend themselves, but if you want to break down walls, I suggest you start by not assuming you are right and agnostics are wrong. I find the agnostic position very tenable. You post seems overly critical and presumptuous. You'll see why I think that as soon as the agnostics here begin to reply to you.

Good luck breaking down walls. I hope you are able to listen to the agnostics here, it would be a good first step.

I'm not certain I understand what you mean when you say I'm assuming I am right and agnostics are wrong.  I am an agnostic, and I am an atheist.  There is no doubt about what these words mean.  My only intention is to make it so that people don't wrongly pigeon hole the atheist position.  Agnostics can be atheists, and atheists can be agnostics.  They do not preclude each other.  This is the only point I want to get across.  However, when trying to express that people are using words incorrectly, it often seems like the person doing the correcting is being arrogant, rude, and overly critical.  It wouldn't be overly critical of a Mormon to ask that the person use the word Mormon appropriately, so I am confused when people get angry at me for trying to convince them to use atheist appropriately.

The only people who are in the middle ground between atheism and theism are the people who shift back and forth between believing and not believing, and even then this isn't really such a middle ground but more of a shaky ground.  They can't tell you what they will believe tomorrow, or even a few seconds from now.  Their belief is in constant transition.  I think this is the kind of person Whitney might have been referring to.

Let me make this clear, this thread isn't about what positions are valid or not valid, this thread is about how I can clear up misconceptions about the positions atheists hold to people without coming off as the words you describe me as coming off, something like "overly critical and presumptions.

Quote from: "templeboy"Before I read this, I would have termed myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, but I found his arguments against fence-sitting to be fairly convincing. And it really is much easier to "convert" a fence-sitter than a theist, for obvious reasons!

But you do recognize that you can be an atheist and an agnostic right?  (you see, I've never actually read the book, so I can't make an inference as to what you mean by saying this) What I mean is, you recognize that you are still an agnostic (probably), but answering the question with just agnostic isn't really much of an answer, so you answer it with a more appropriate answer.

Quote from: "Whitney"While I think there really are agnostics who are so undecided they can't really claim to be atheist or theist...most will fall towards one side or the other since agnostic is a position related to what can be known, not what one thinks of the subject.  I created this post (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830)) with the help of other members to explain what the different terms mean; trying to define them in a universally accepted manner.  The only thing you really can do is discuss the meaning of the terms calmly so you can remove any incorrectly held stereotypes as to free up the other person's perception of your own position...otherwise you end up enforcing those negative views.  :cool:

I would consider myself an anti theist.  I don't believe there is a deity, and I think it would be horrible if there were one.  Well,if everything else in reality were the same and a deity existed it would be horrible.  If history had unfolded another way it might have been nice to have a caring deity.

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, I'll chime in for the Agnostic Theist side.

Good topic and comments thus far.

As stated, Agnostic and Gnostic are positions of knowledge.
Atheist and Theist are positions of belief.

IMHO, where the answer is unknown (or unknowable), the only honest answer is "I Don't Know" - welcome to the Agnostic position.

Agnostics (pure, theists, and atheists) are not "on the fence", "undecided", or "unable to choose".  There is no choice to make.  The only valid answer is "unknown".

Coming from a database background in computers, let me offer this analogy:
In relational databases, DATE values may contain a valid date, or be null.
The "null" value is used when a date is unknown.
For example, an employee record may have "Starting Date", and "Ending Date".
While the employee works for the company, Ending Date is unknown, and therefore "null".

So, on the question of god's existance, the only valid answer is "null"... or I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else.

2 cents thrown in,
JoeActor

Agreed.  The only valid answer to knowledge about some kind of godlike thing is null. However, the nature of belief in and knowledge are entirely different.  Something I find interesting is the relation of positive claims and negative claims of knowledge and belief in regard to (a)theism and (a)gnosticism.  I use the word negative in a general frame work, I can't remember the proper way to use it right now, but for the time being imagine negative means no God.  (You see, I can use words incorrectly too, heh, but if someone can correct me I'll use the proper definition from now on.)

Both the negative and positive claim for knowledge of a god's existence fall into the first term, gnosticism.  I know there is, I know there is not. While the non claim falls into the second position.  Agnosticism.  Atheism and theism on the other hand have it a little odd.  Theists make the positive claim, and atheists can make both the non claim and the negative claim.  It seems to me if we had followed the same rules for belief that we use for knowledge in relation to god, strong atheists would be theists, hehe.  However, the problem is, we don't use the word theism to relate simply belief in general, we use it to assert a specific type of belief, the belief that there IS a god, and this can not include the exact opposite statement of belief that there is no god.  So, here began the eternal confusion between atheists, and theists and new atheists who call themselves agnostic.

Quote from: "BadPoison"So to address your question of the best way to educate people in the nuances of the terms -- I'm not sure that there is a best way. I find that if I explain to individuals with patience and make a point to characterize beliefs as opinions while absolute knowledge as a percentage of certainty, they usually get it (at least for those willing to listen.)

This doesn't address the negative stereotype associated with the term 'atheist' and why many these days use sugar-coated terms such as 'skeptic'

EDIT: And there goes JoeActor beating me to the punch! I like the programming analogy too.

I'm not sure how well talking about opinions would be for me in a conversation over this subject. It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  The words theism and atheism are defined in such a way that confusion will always exist, I think, at least for those who only look up the definition of theism and then assume atheism is the opposite.  What they don't understand is that the opposite of believing isn't believing in not, it is simply not believing.  This is exactly why agnosticism is used as a middle ground by people who haven't studied the concepts, I think.

Agnosticism really is a middle ground, between knowing there is, and knowing there isn't, and I think the odd relationship of the words atheism and theism to agnosticism is because of how theism is defined, it isn't any belief about the subject, but rather a specific belief about the subject, gnosticism on the other hand is either knowing that there is, or knowing that there is not, the definition is any knowledge about god, rather than a specific knowledge about god, even though the early rootings of it were originally used in a different way.

If we defined gnosticism as ONLY knowledge that there is a god, then agnosticism and gnosticism would carry the same rules as atheism and theism.  I think the problem is that people view atheism and theism in the same framework as gnosticism and agnosticism, but they forget that if they viewed it that way they would have to include those who believe there is no god in the theist group.  EDIT: Or rather, they view atheism and theism in the framework of gnosticism, and preclude the concept of agnosticism from entering either atheist or theist positions.  Because of the odd relation of theist to atheist, they can not comprehend the concept because of the nature of needing the position of a negative, but the negative is (following logic) meant to be included in theism, and so they believe atheism must be the position that the flawed definition of theism lacks.  Because of the impractical nature of using theism as both belief in no god, and believe in god, we have our position strawmanned constantly while theists, and new atheists calling themselves agnostics, try to compensate for the somewhat illogical nature of our definitions.  Atheism and theism are impractical defined any other way than they already are, yet they are also confusing because of the nature of dealing with specific claims versus the more general system implied in agnosticism and gnosticism.


I do find it somewhat hard to simply intuitively understand, but I think when someone explains it to you it should be so hard to understand.  Could it be that those who identify as simply "agnostic" don't want to admit that they are using definitions incorrectly?  Or do they continue to use these definitions because they know theists almost always use these definitions incorrectly.

And, again, I apologize for the length of this post.

Quote from: "Invidy"It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  

I don't follow.
The statement: "I believe there is no god" is a fact describing my opinion. (The description being factual while my actual belief is an opinion.) I don't see how admitting that we're simply talking about our opinions on a matter hurts our position. As stated, I could be of the opinion that aliens exist (for whatever reason I rationalize) but could admit that I do not know for sure.

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "Invidy"It would seem to me they would then believe that all atheists are of the opinion that god does not exist, which would leave them thinking that agnosticism still a midway between the two extremes.  

I don't follow.
The statement: "I believe there is no god" is a fact describing my opinion.

Well, yes, that may be your opinion, and for the majority of gods I will agree with you, but there are many non specific general gods who I don't say I believe they don't exist, I simply don't believe they do exist.

The point is that while some atheists assert there is no god, many atheists make no assertion, and simply say "I don't believe there is a god."  Or they might say "I believe there could be a god, I just don't agree that there must be one, or that there is a reason to believe there is one."

To have people confuse all atheist positions with one position of some atheists is not fair.

Quote from: "Invidy"Well, yes, that may be your opinion, and for the majority of gods I will agree with you, but there are many non specific general gods who I don't say I believe they don't exist, I simply don't believe they do exist.

The point is that while some atheists assert there is no god, many atheists make no assertion, and simply say "I don't believe there is a god."  Or they might say "I believe there could be a god, I just don't agree that there must be one, or that there is a reason to believe there is one."

I don't see the difference between "I don't believe X exists" and "I believe X to not exist." Are you saying the two statements do not describe the same idea? Please clarify.

If you mean that many do not make a conscious assertion when they say "I don't believe in X" I might agree, but I still would say they are describing and making the assertion even if they don't realize it.

EDIT: Maybe I'm beginning to understand what you're attempting to communicate. You aren't arguing that the two statements above don't mean the same thing - instead you were talking about something else entirely. "I don't believe god exists" is not he same as "God does not exist." Was that the point you're making? If so, we agree - however I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

Quote from: "BadPoison"... I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

That's the difference between "weak atheism" (aka "agnostic atheism") and "strong atheism" (aka "gnostic atheism").

The "weak" or "agnostic" atheist position is "I don't believe in god", meaning there is no belief and there is no statement of knowledge.
Where the "strong" or "gnostic" atheist position is "I believe there is no god", meaning there is no belief and there is the statement of knowledge that there is nothing to believe in.

It is also possible to have gnostic and agnostic theism, but for whatever reason few care to differentiate.

Quote from: "BadPoison"I don't see the difference between "I don't believe X exists" and "I believe X to not exist." Are you saying the two statements do not describe the same idea? Please clarify.

If you mean that many do not make a conscious assertion when they say "I don't believe in X" I might agree, but I still would say they are describing and making the assertion even if they don't realize it.

EDIT: Maybe I'm beginning to understand what you're attempting to communicate. You aren't arguing that the two statements above don't mean the same thing - instead you were talking about something else entirely. "I don't believe god exists" is not he same as "God does not exist." Was that the point you're making? If so, we agree - however I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

I'm not sure your edit shows that you understand what I'm saying.  I actually am in fact arguing that believing X is false is not the same as not believing X is true.

The problem is as follows.  Lets call the group that says "I believe X to not exist" group A and the group that says "I do not believe X exists" group B.

A = I believe there are no gods.  Belief in absence of a god's existence
B = I don't believe there are any gods.  Absence of belief in a god's existence.

All of group A is also group B, but all of group B is not also group A.

For example, if I say "do you believe I have five dollars in my pocket right now?"
The options for what you believe are as follows.  I do believe it is.  I do not believe it is.  I believe it is not.  Lets refer to the value in my pocket as value y.  

I put the bare minimum requirements to be met for each position, you see, p2 is similar to p3 except in that p2 does not necessitate the additional "y != 5."  They y != 5 is optional in the "not believing" position.

p1. I do believe it is:  I believe y = 5
p2. I do not believe it is:  I believe y = x (it could be five, it could not be, I don't believe in any value)
p3. I believe it is not:  I believe y = x; y != 5 (value can not equal 5)

p2 would be group B
p3 would be group A


If I say "I believe there could be a god," this sentence means that I don't accept the proposition that a god does exists(I do not believe in god), and neither do I accept that a god does not exist(I do not believe there is no god).

Because of the nature of the word belief, if someone says "do you believe x is true?" The no response gives you two options to consider.  One is simply nonacceptance that the claim is true(believing neither that it is false nor true, thus forcing the answer to be no), and the other option is to believe that it is false.  

It is the difference between not holding a positive belief in a deity's existence because you have suspended your belief, believing neither claim, and asserting that you believe a deity does not exist.  

Quote from: "BadPoison"... I wouldn't characterize the atheist position as "god does not exist" - instead I would characterize it as - "I do not believe god exists." I think the second statement is more intellectually honest.

I would also use that definition, but I think the meaning of that sentence for you is different than it is for me.


Maybe I can put this all in an easier way...  If I tell you I own a pet, you can either believe I do not have a pet, believe I do have a pet, or believe neither(suspend beliefs).  Those who suspend their beliefs do not believe I have a pet, but they also do not believe that I do not have a pet.

It is so difficult to get this point across...I'm not even sure how to go about doing it.  Those who don't believe there is a god don't have to believe there is no god, it is simply suspension of belief about both claims, the claims being that there is and that there is not.  However, those who believe there is NO god also do not believe there is a god.  And so the confusion continues.

To put it simply, I hope, believing there is no deity is an extension of not believing there is a deity.  First you do not accept the claim, and then after that you accept that it is false.  Not accepting something as true isn't the same as accepting it as false, and this distinguishment is necessary to understand who atheists are in the broadest sense.

Try to explain to them to be agnostic is a natural state of being...it is obvious we cannot answer most things 100%...but we can answer a great deal of items with extremely high certainty/probability... True Agnosticism is suspension of belief, an individual truly doesn't know, which is very rare...most people who call themselves agnostics believe in some form of a higher power/God/whatever or don't subscribe to any supernatural/metaphysical nonsense...I find that most agnostics stay away from the term/label because of the stigma attached to it in America...Anyway to say we are all agnostic is true to a very small extent...but that is a given...it would be silly to premise everything with agnostic...agnostic atheist..agnostic theist..agnostic scientist...agnostic mathematican...agnostic doctor...of course nothing is 100%...be we can go up to that line... I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% atheist and that is as certain as we can humanly be...

I surmise this will not work and the conversation will go back to the inane relativist nonsense...but at least I tried..

Quote from: "RtPt"Try to explain to them to be agnostic is a natural state of being...it is obvious we cannot answer most things 100%...but we can answer a great deal of items with extremely high certainty/probability... True Agnosticism is suspension of belief, an individual truly doesn't know, which is very rare...most people who call themselves agnostics believe in some form of a higher power/God/whatever or don't subscribe to any supernatural/metaphysical nonsense...I find that most agnostics stay away from the term/label because of the stigma attached to it in America...Anyway to say we are all agnostic is true to a very small extent...but that is a given...it would be silly to premise everything with agnostic...agnostic atheist..agnostic theist..agnostic scientist...agnostic mathematican...agnostic doctor...of course nothing is 100%...be we can go up to that line... I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% atheist and that is as certain as we can humanly be...

I surmise this will not work and the conversation will go back to the inane relativist nonsense...but at least I tried..

Indeed.  We are all agnostics, but agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean suspension of belief, it means no knowledge, you could claim to believe something without claiming to know it.  I believe I will be on a flight tomorrow morning, but I don't know that I will.

I prefer that when people talk about atheism they use terms like strong atheist and weak atheist, and if they say "atheist" they shouldn't exclude weak atheists.  Weak Atheist = I don't believe in a god.  Strong Atheist = I believe there is no god.  One requires evidence to support the claim that a god doesn't exist, the other makes no claims about gods existence and requires no evidence to support it since there are no claims to support.

People who call themselves agnostic generally seem to say "I don't believe god doesn't exist so I can't be an atheist." It is to these people that I say atheism is simply not believing a god does exist.  If you have no beliefs about god, then you don't believe in god do you?  

An excellent way I have heard atheism described before is as follows.

When I say "do you believe in a deity?" and your response is anything other than yes, you are an atheist.

Well, it is very difficult to assert someone has "no knowledge" of this subject...There is really only two way to fall on the subject, that is why I say "suspension of belief", which seems like a highly unlikely place for most people to be.

I understand why people use "weak/strong" to denote the agnostic level in each...but basically atheism is atheism...

We are pretty close in what we think about the subject.

I would assert the premise of falsification...A question that has to disprove something that cannot be proven in the first place is invalid. This is different from trying to disprove a negative, which is possible if the existence of something is proven beforehand.

Bingo! That is great way of putting it.

Quote from: "joeactor"Ok, I'll chime in for the Agnostic Theist side.

Good topic and comments thus far.

As stated, Agnostic and Gnostic are positions of knowledge.
Atheist and Theist are positions of belief.

IMHO, where the answer is unknown (or unknowable), the only honest answer is "I Don't Know" - welcome to the Agnostic position.

Agnostics (pure, theists, and atheists) are not "on the fence", "undecided", or "unable to choose".  There is no choice to make.  The only valid answer is "unknown".

Coming from a database background in computers, let me offer this analogy:
In relational databases, DATE values may contain a valid date, or be null.
The "null" value is used when a date is unknown.
For example, an employee record may have "Starting Date", and "Ending Date".
While the employee works for the company, Ending Date is unknown, and therefore "null".

So, on the question of god's existance, the only valid answer is "null"... or I don't know.

... and neither does anyone else.

I understand what you're saying but Atheism doesn't claim to know that there is no god. It just simply means "I don't believe in one." If atheism is to know there is no God then I would identify as an Agnostic as well.

Quote from: "Sophus"I understand what you're saying but Atheism doesn't claim to know that there is no god. It just simply means "I don't believe in one." If atheism is to know there is no God then I would identify as an Agnostic as well.

Agreed.  I think many atheists would fall into the agnostic category by default.

Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

2 more cents,
JoeActor

Quote from: "joeactor"Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

2 more cents,
JoeActor

Which I find to be incredibly arrogant. What do they 'know' that I don't? I'll gladly change my opinion if I am ever provided with a satisfying explanation.

Quote from: "joeactor"Theists (imho) are more likely to be gnostic.

I think a lot of theists actually are agnostics, but are afraid religion might be right, or can use religion to their advantage.