For clear definitions:
Theist: A person with theism (a belief in the existence of one or more deities)
Gnostic: A person with knowledge.
A-theist: A person without theism
A-gnostic: A person without knowledge
Agnostic + atheist = no belief in any deities, but claims no knowledge. An agnostic atheist might say, "I do not believe in the existence of any deities".
Gnostic + atheist = believes the non-existence of deities to be irrefutable fact. A gnostic atheist might say, "There is no such thing as gods, period."
Agnostic + theist = believe in any number of deities, but claims no knowledge. An agnostic theist might say, "I believe there is a god/are many gods."
Gnostic + theist = believes the existence of deities to be irrefutable fac. A gnostic theist might say, "there is definitely a god/are many gods".
Where does that place people who just call themselves agnostic without using it as a modifier? I suspect these are people who don't actually know whether or not they believe in the existence of any number of deities. Not necessarily being 'wish-washy either', it's just uncertainty.
One grammar Nazi pet peeve here, but with reason. People tend to capitalise 'atheism' and sometimes even 'theism' and I think actually it can sometimes cause slight confusion. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Humanism, Scientology, Taoism, Liberatarianism, Communism, Capitalism etc. all NAME collectives of ideals, hence the capitalisation. 'Atheism' and 'theism' are both terms or labels, just like: builder, scientist, jogger, footballer, maniac, alcoholic, programmer etc. and aren't capitalised (except, of course, when it's grammatically correct, like at the beginning of this sentence).
The reason I highlight this is because of this fallacy that 'atheism' is a collective set of ideals, when all it means is that somebody doesn't believe in the existence of any deities. Even atheists make this mistake. To illustrate, I care not for anything Richard Dawkins says, I'm sure it's all very interesting, but as he's a Humanist and I'm a Buddhist I don't think I'd find it relevent enough, well perhaps maybe his comments on science (because I find science interesting), yet we're both atheists. Just as a Hindu and a Christian might not find what each other say about their beliefs to be particularly relevant to their own, despite both being theists.
[edit]
Quote: "... for engaging in religious conversation whilst avoiding a lock.
This could be the first ever thread to have successfully done so. I salute you all!"
I am REALLY surprised. I figured somebody would at least step in offended, but actually I am glad that people have discussed this in a completely mature matter. Hopefully it has killed a few misconceptions for both sides of the fence...now if the world's politicians could be as mature.
