[Ixa]

Okay, hopefully this shall be my last atheological post. I prefer real philosophy.

"A", as in the words "atheism" and "amoral", means "without" or "lacking". "Gnostic" comes from the Greek word "gnosis", which means "knowledge". An agnostic, therefore, is someone without knowledge of God. If someone can say that God exists, and that that is the only knowledge which he has of Him, it is knowledge nonetheless. The agnostic has [no knowledge whatsoever of Deity, and cannot even apply the concept "existence" to it. Atheism is a lack of belief in Deity, i.e. a lack of belief in the existence of Deity. To believe in something one must have knowledge of it. The agnostic has no knowledge of Deity; therefore, all agnostics are atheists, most atheists are agnostics.

It is impossible by definition for agnostics to believe in God. Agnostics absolutely lack knowledge of Deity. If you believe in Deity, you must also necessarily believe that you have knowledge of Deity. To be able to say that something "exists" is knowledge. The agnostic cannot even apply the concept "existence" to Deity, for that would be knowledge. Ignorance is total ignorance; that is, ignorance is ignorance of ignorance. One cannot even know that there is a "thing" of which to be ignorant. If the agnostic has any knowledge whatsoever of Deity -- he is on the contrary no agnostic at all, even if all he can say about Deity is that he "exists".

Therefore, all agnostics are atheists, and no theists are agnostics; for if you have knowledge of Deity, you necessarily believe in him. Agnostics cannot have knowledge of Deity. They necessarily do not believe in him. They are necessarily atheists.

This is why it is wrong to say, "I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic." For you cannot be an agnostic and at the same time be a non-atheist.

[Tam]

Ok, I follow you and it is interesting.

You do make the much needed distinction that agnosticism is not synonymous with atheism.

As you say, an atheist can be defined by his distinct lack of belief in a deity. An agnostic can be defined as his disinct lack of knowledge regarding a deity.

So yes all agnostics will not have a belief in God, but that is not what makes them agnostic.

"This is why it is wrong to say, "I am not an atheist; I am an agnostic."

Yeah but you are getting too caught up in semantics. It is like me having 2 pencils, and someone asks me "Do you have a pencil?" There is a sense of ambiguity. YES I have A pencil, (and I have a second pencil also), or NO I do not have a singular pencil, I have a couple of pencils. Perhaps the first answer is more precise but I dont think its so bad to give the second, because it gives more information to the asker of the question.

So if someone asked me if I were an atheist, (being agnostic) if I said yes, they would take it that I based on the available information of the term God, I simply did not believe in it. If I told them I was in fact an agnostic, they would realise not only did I not hold a belief in God, I did not think their was sufficient basis to make a judgement either way. If I told them I was both an atheist and an agnostic, not only would the first expression be pointless (because it is covered by the second) but it would also most likely result in them looking a little puzzled.

Finally, I think that the word 'atheist' today has taken on a greater meaning then simply no belief in God. It seems to be more an active belief that no God exists, because the middle ground is adaquately occupied by agnosticism. If you disagree, what would you call the position where a person believes there is no God? I reckon we should dwell more on the modern form of the word instead of the original Ancient greek words. Otherwise powerplants do not generate electricity, they generate amber, to name but one of many examples.