Identification preferences

Hello I’m new here :smiley_cat:
Just thought this was somewhat inaccurate

While signing up, I was asked to pick what I identify as:

I am a/an:
  • Atheist
  • Agnostic
  • Theist

But I identify as an Agnostic Atheist in that I don’t think anyone possesses enough knowledge (how much ever they may claim to possess) since there’s been no actual justification provided for me to reach the same conclusions as them, and hence I disbelieve.

Theism and gnosticism are mutually exclusive, aren’t they? So wouldn’t it be more accurate to have something like this?:

I am a/an:
    • Agnostic
    • Gnostic
    • Atheist
    • Theist

It’s a suggestion; if I’m wrong about something or haven’t been clear, please tell me :upside_down_face:

Edit: Originally in Site Feedback

…you may find yourself with many of like mind.

We’ve had threads discussing the idea of “knowledge” and “believe” (two separate things).

Mostly the identifier is whether you BELIEVE.

It’s like how specific does a person want to get with “theist” identity? Fuck - that would go in forever… lol :joy:


Haha Thank You!

Thanks for clarifying

Welcome to the forums, I would suggest moving the topic to the debate room.

You would be “WRONG.” Thank you for trying, do not pass ‘Go’ and do not collect your $100. Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager? Have you ever heard of Doubting Thomas? Have you ever met a Christian who was not Agnostic (Think about it.) ** Did you ever meet a Christian who actually 'KNEW" anything at all about god?

Pascal’s Wager is designed for the Agnostic-Christian. (You don’t have to know anything! Why not just be safe and say you believe in god? Then you get to go to heaven and avoid hell. No knowledge necessary!)

What does the Bible actually say about knowing God? Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” ([John 20:26–29

Neither Christianity, Islam require knowledge of a deity for salvation.

You would be better off asserting all theists are in fact Agnostic. Not one of them can demonstrate empirical facts or evidence supporting the existence of their version of god as far as I know. What they have are stories, unsupported assertion, appeals to emotion and traditions. I don’t believe I have ever seen any actual evidence that can stand against critical inquiry. Wouldn’t that make them ‘agnostic?’

I don’t think so. I’d argue all theists are gnostic, even if they deny it or avoid comment on it. They claim to have ‘special’ knowledge through their ‘special’ divinely inspired interpretations of scripture and those spooky bouts of revelations that lead to the salvation of the soul.
The original Gnostics insisted that an individual could have a personal relationship with ‘God’ through that special knowledge only following the example of Jesus and not through him as an advocate. For various reasons Gnosticism was declared a heresy for their denial of certain attributes about Jesus, which seemed to undermine the central plank of Jesus’ authority. The nascent Church was also concerned about losing influence over congregations that might supplant the authority of rectors and bishops as community and spiritual leaders. You cant maintain power if everyone is free to seek their own brand of special knowledge. So in the minds of many Christian theists, Gnosticism is still a dirty word.
My take is they believe their faith provides them with ‘special knowledge’ about Jesus, The Holy Spirit, God, and the meaning of the Bible that they claim we atheist pagans and fallen ex-believers have denied ourselves.

How often have we read a theist accept they are agnostic? Not many if any if my memory serves me at all. They only concede, grudgingly as Sheldon can show, that they have no evidence, but they insist their God exists. That can only be because they rely on their ‘special arcane knowledge and relationship’ with their creator. They’re closet gnostics, in the same way I am a closet hard atheist.

LOL… Yes, they assert they have special knowledge. I can not argue with that. On the other hand… The value I place on their brand of special knowledge and their ineffectiveness at defending that brand of special knowledge, still makes them agnostic as hell in my book. They have as much special knowledge as the average psych ward patient believing he is talking with God. I just don’t attribute much credibility to personal revelation. I have not seen it stand against critical inquiry yet. As soon as they break down and admit to belief based on “faith” I consider them Agnostic. They actually know nothing about god or gods.

“Specialis” or “peculiaris” are latin translations for ‘special’.
I quite like the term ‘peculiaris gnostic’ which infers a personal aspect. It’ll fit on a tshirt too.

Oh absolutely. I’ve met people who can describe god in detail . One of my dotty teachers could also give an accurate description of hell. Seems it’s all about fire ,getting burned yet never being consumed.

Yair; religious belief is not based on reason or facts, but on faith. IE “belief in that not seen”. A pretty good definition of superstition imo.

No believer can know, but that doesn’t stop them from claiming to know. In terms of outrageous beliefs, I think Hindus take the biscuit.

It’s more than just the Christians though isn’t it?
Some people assert that they have knowledge of a deistic god; I’d agree that rn there isn’t any good reason to believe, but nonetheless if they’re right, then they would’ve been gnostic all along.

Yep probably should. Thanks.

Here here! Give this man a cookie! Professed belief, in my book, does not qualify as 'knowledge." If it did, every fucking god on the planet would be just as real as every other fucking god on the planet… ??? … *** Bilnking ---- Reading that last sentence again. **** Wait a minute? They do all seem as exactly as real as one another. They are as real as one another with or without knowledge? OUCH! What have I done to my head!

Hi everyone, I am new here.

I think it’s very necessary for me to introduce myself first before posting any questions or replies, because without introducing myself first I think it would be difficult for members here to engage with me freely or wholeheartedly. Actually perfectly I neither fit in theists nor I fit in atheists because of my philosophies and understanding of God and religions. Though I signed up as an agnostic I am not agnostic, but because I can’t fit in either of theists or atheists, I simply chose agnostic as there’s no option for entering any fourth category in this site. If I simply say myself a theist, it would probably be very hurtful to people generally called as theists.

I am philosophical theist, which means I accept the religious doctrine if it can be discerned by reason and contemplation of natural laws, otherwise I don’t. I mainly try to understand God through understanding nature.

Why don’t I fit among theists?

Because I think religions are always created by devil or Satan and never by God. God don’t create religions or do anything which cannot be objectively knowable. God is determinist, and create things on the basis of logic, mathematics, perfect cause and effect, which are actually knowable without intervention of God or a prophet. God don’t speak rhetorically, poetically, which would be interpreted differently and will create conflict. God will only speak so objectively that couldn’t be interpreted differently. It can be interpreted in only one way. There are more logic why I think religions are always created by Devil or Satan, and these are logic not just reason. Logic and reason are two different things. Logic comes from understanding natural cause and effect, while reason could be effect of man-made cause. So there’s a logic which I would like to share with you all that why I think so. So I think I am right in thinking that it is hurtful to other theists to call myself as a theist. This is why I can’t fit among theists.

Why I don’t fit in atheists?

Because I am a theist, and a perfect theist. That means I actually believe that God exist and is knowable. I believe in miracles, mysterious occurrences and supernaturals. I don’t think everything can be understood through physics. Physics fails to tell you anything related to life. You can’t understand biology using physics. I think consciousness is fundamental property or basic element of universe, and things related to life can be understood through understanding of consciousness. This is why even for atheists I could be very irritating, maybe.

So I thought it would be better if I introduce myself first before posting any questions or replies, otherwise it maybe possible that nobody would like engage with me. But because there seems no introduction section in this forum, I used this thread to introduce myself. So, to site admin, if I did something seriously wrong by signing in as an agnostic, then please change it to what you think would be appropriate.

I speak from logic, that means from understanding of nature or the phenomena inherent in nature. This I would like to share with you all.

So tell me, what you think of me from my introduction.

Some things can be understood through biology, chemistry, history… there are various fields of study, not just physics.

And btw - “experiencing” something or “imagining” something is not the same as “knowledge or knowing”… ( 1. the state of being aware or informed.)

Welcome :blush:

1 Like

Seems to me that you are a theist. The fact that you might be a considered weird by other theists, doesn’t mean you aren’t a theist. I’m saying you certainly meet the definition of theist that is commonly used around here. :woman_shrugging:

1 Like


Interesting claim. You can prove that of course?

As far as I’m aware any claims made about god(s) ,the devil and anything else which cannot be seen or measured is unfalsifiable. To put it another way, god cannot be argued into or out of existence.

Reason and logic are unreliable tools for arriving at truths. In formal logic, rules of inference begin with;
IF A then-----. An argument may be perfectly valid but the conclusion untrue. This is not an absolute rule, but it’s a handy one.

From your post, it seems your beliefs are based on faith. IE you believe in things unseen. That my friend is a definition of superstition.

I don’t care if your believe if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, until you begin making unfounded claims as you have. Your philosophical approach comes across as no more reasonable than any other personal superstitions

The word agnostic has nothing to do with belief, nor is it limited to god(s). It comes from the Greek gnosis, meaning knowledge. “Agnostic” a=without gnosis=knowledge.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I do not believe in god(s) and do not claim to know. I’m agnostic and about thousands of things, ranging from how to write computer code to the strange sport Americans call football…

By definition, if you are not agnostic about god(s) you are gnostic, IE possessing knowledge. Positive claims attract the burden of proof. That includes anything you belief which you have concluded through reason and philosophy

Attempting to discover god through observing a nature is a form of argument from intelligent design . Our world and the universe is full of wondrous things only a very few of which we understand. Using logic it is not reasonable to say “Gee, look that! How wonderful, how glorious-----therefore god”

Philosophical theism does not demonstrate the existence of god(s) A thirty second search turned up many critiques of your position. I good idea to check when you have what you think is a good idea.

Below a few links. Might be a good idea to glance at them,.



Thanks Whitefire13 :blush:

You are right that different aspects of reality needs different field of study to be discovered, but those who think miracles or supernaturals are impossible, theists and atheists alike, seem to think that such realities should be explained through physics, rather than anything else.

And btw - “experiencing” something or “imagining” something is not the same as “knowledge or knowing ”… ( 1. the state of being aware or informed. )

Also, not experiencing something or not imagining something should not be accounted as the basis or criteria for knowledge. Some people talk about their inexperience as an experience, and they derive a conclusion on the basis of their inexperience or absence of experience, which should not be considered as valid approach to assert something to be a knowledge. What do you think?

Yes, I am certainly theist, but the fact that I think that religions can only be made by Satan or Devil and not God exclude me from the theistic group so much that it feels very awkward to be considered in the group of theists(from p.o.v. of theists), because theists are generally religious and belong to some religion. Some theists are non-religious but they don’t think that only Satan can establish a religion.


Interesting claim. You can prove that of course?

I can prove or show on the basis of logic but not science.

As far as I’m aware any claims made about god(s) ,the devil and anything else which cannot be seen or measured is unfalsifiable. To put it another way, god cannot be argued into or out of existence.

I think the contrary, that science or anything related to knowledge is actually about showing, explaining or revealing the unseen or invisible, with significant degree of certainty. Knowledge or truth is all about rules, laws which cannot be seen, but discovered and understand. You can measure some hidden realities only after discovering them, and discovering them or understanding them means discovering the laws and not just a thing. For example, if you know that electron, proton and neutron exists doesn’t mean that you know all of chemistry or particle physics. You need to know the laws about how they interact and how they can be influenced by other factors, and lot of things about them. Other example is, just because you can see the car and measure its dimensions doesn’t mean you know all the technology behind the car and you can actually make such car. No, making such car needs a knowledge which can’t be acquired by just seeing the car, you need to actually understand it, which is all about understanding the laws which are invisible or unseen.

From your post, it seems your beliefs are based on faith. IE you believe in things unseen. That my friend is a definition of superstition.

No, I think my beliefs are based on logic and some observation of nature, which I would like to share with you all. Let me put forward my philosophical or logical position first about why I think what I just mentioned in my introduction.

Physics introduced quantum “weirdness” from a wave/particle to effect before cause to entanglement…also (used now in quantum computers) the quality of being both “on and off”. The word they chose actually accurately described what these scientists “experienced”. They didn’t choose quantum “miracles”.

A miracle: (your usage) not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
Your usage of “supernatural” likewise (a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature)

…Require a standard for evidence to back such a claim.

…OR have explanations (think illusions or tricks or deceit)

Every person (perhaps a few who’s brain :brain: may not process in the same manner) experience EVERYTHING as we use our IMAGINATIONS. “Memory”, “story telling”, “explanations for observations”…

Ohhh - that one! “Explanations for observations”. This is science. Peer review (challenge to both explanation and observation and test ability)…one of first steps to ensure both
(explanation/observation) are as close to what is “true” as humanity can get.

BTW “imagination” is what is behind (explanation) “Multiple Universe”; “Simulation”
(we are in a computer of sorts); AND others…

Some of these proposals/papers suggest future “testing methods”…basis for paper may be backed by maths or such…BUT until evidence is provided - I play with and enjoy the idea :bulb: however withhold a high level of confidence (belief).

Now, you perhaps have accepted your deity to be Satan? Understandable, given such a strong Christian influence (or perhaps other religions).
I would like to introduce you to Loki…
Out of all the imaginative, make-believe, invisible friends - he’s the one I’m rooting for and his behaviour is more accurate to “god descriptions by man in holy books”…
OR (Loki is just a side to “us” as humans we don’t like to examine in ourselves)…

More modern:

No, you can’t. Even if what you originally said was true (about the origins of religions), you still won’t be able to prove it with logic. The fact that you think you can suggests to me you don’t really know what it means to work with logic. We commonly get theists here who pontificate about logic until they are blue in the face, only to show they don’t know what logic even is. Perhaps we can not repeat the past and address this directly. For example:

Statement A: If 6 = 7, then 8 = 9.

Is that statement logically true or false, and why (a proof would be nice)?

I offer you this opportunity demonstrate that you aren’t just making it up as you go along, like so many before you.


Oh dear, another one. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god(s). There is no such thing as an atheist position on anything else

Straw man fallacy. I’ve never seen anyone here make such a claim. In fact such a claim is common among believers. It’s a logical fallacy called ‘argument from ignorance’ . EG “I’m too ignorant, too stupid or too unimaginative to think of anything else, therefor god did it”. This line of thinking is commonly used in claiming miracles.

I have never said that miracles or god for that matter are impossible. I do not believe in either for the same reason; lack of empirical evidence. Anyone making a claim of “x was a miracle” or “I believe in god(s)” attracts the burden of proof. It is up to them to demonstrate the proof of their belief(s), not to me to disprove them.