Okay lets try again to shove some sense in you:

Atheism, from the Greek g0eoç (atheos), is defined as "The
lack of belief in the existence of any deities."

That is the defintion, okay.

In modern context, atheism can represent several different viewpoints, but is most commonly conceived of as a rejection of belief in gods. A person can by the way also be both atheist and religious, provided that he or she believes in a religion that does not have any deities, such as some forms of Buddhism.


An agnostic on the other hand is someone who claims they don't know ("weak agnosticism") or it is not possible to know ("strong agnosticism") for certain whether or not gods exist. The term agnosticism comes from Greek: a (without) + gnosis (knowledge).

So what's the difference between agnosticism and atheism?

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. "Agnosticism" is not some third position which is neither "atheism" nor "theism". They are different answers to different questions, in this case "Do you believe that any gods exist? and "Do you believe it is possible to know whether any gods exist?".

Anyone who does not hold a belief in one or more gods is an atheist. Someone who holds an active belief in the nonexistence of particular gods is specifically known as a "strong" or "explicit" atheist, as opposed to "weak" or "implicit" atheists who make no claims either way. On the other hand, the vast majority of atheists are at least technically agnostic, even if they are willing to treat fairy tales about Zeus or Allah with the same contempt that they treat tales about unicorns and leprechauns. Describing yourself as "Just an agnostic", or stating "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" makes about as much sense as saying "I'm not American, I am male".

Aristotle was not a classic theist. He believed in "something up there", but he didnt believe in any religion and also didnt believe that god was a "person". As I already said, an atheist can even be religious in an abstract sense and that is exactly what Aristotle was in my opinion.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 25 2024 04:05am

lol you almost got it. You correctly defined agnosticism. "without knowledge". The a- prefix means "without" as I said, not "anti-" as you claimed earlier in this thread.

Now apply this to atheism. As I said, "without god". Not "maybe god, I don't know." It's very clearly "without"


Again, with the ancient Greek usage you are wrong. Atheism was a charge of godlessness, which sometimes translated into just denying the existence of the "right" gods. This is because the ancient Greeks were absolutely convinced of the validity of their own gods, so denying their existence was, in their eyes, fully denying the existence of the real gods.

Unfortunately for you, again, I've actually read the ancient Greeks, so I've quickly looked up a source for you.

Here's Socrates on the charge of atheism leveled at him, for which he was sentenced to death. "[H]e says that I am a poet, that I make new gods and deny the existence of old ones; this is the ground of his indictment." -Socrates

You'll notice that Socrates is not accused of "not necessarily believing" but of outright "denying the existence of" the old gods.



Again(lol again) describing yourself as an agnostic at all is misleading at the very least, because it is not a creed. It's like describing yourself as a scientist. Maybe you practice science for money, but no one can apply the scientific method to every aspect of their lives, because humans are irrational by nature. Agnosticism is the application of the scientific method. You can be agnostic at one particular time, in regards to one particular problem. You can not BE agnostic, because you are irrational by nature.



lol yeah, an atheist can be religious. As I said, most buddhists are atheists. An atheist can not simultaneously be a theist though, obviously. Aristotle was a theist, your opinion on the matter is nonsense.

One advice for you for religious and Atheist folks.

Live and let live.

What you write is wrong again and again and again. Atheism is about not believing the god claim and thats it and thats what atheism has ever been. Now, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, whatever timeframe you wanna talk about.

However atheists can lean into gnostic or agnostic views making there views strong or weak. Thats what every atheist ever will tell you. Only you religious guys try to put labels on atheist like you do. Its pathetic and not rare. I have heard shit like yours quite a few times (only from religoua idiots of course)

You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist. Thats how it is.

Also, if Aristotle was a theist is highly debatable. His prime mover is more described as a force of nature than anyone else. If I 'd say the singularity is my god, I wouldnt be a theist all of a sudden.

What you are both trying to conjugate is none the less the same thing. You are both correct to a certain degree but seeing it differently. This is where language and verbiage itself becomes a barrier to what is actually attempted to be conveyed.

I've never heard anyone of any religion ever even use the terms "atheist" "gnostic" anyone who pursues what we all call "God" immediately moves passed such trivial and mundane concepts such as those Socrates/Aristotle cop'd from the East 3,000 years ago.

If you stop at "atheism and Gnosticism" all you did was wipe the dust off the book that is and if you start at "atheism and gnosctism" you'll never move passed the crude cynicism that both are stained with.

No one is a through and through atheist just like no one is a through and through agnostic because both are terms to explain abstract/non-physical illusions that are fabrications of the mind.

When Buddha was asked questions such as these he would fall silent because the question is so silly and irrelevant that it literally deserves zero attention. When people's minds get caught up in that duality all they experience is separation and that's why you will never here someone proclaim, "I'm an atheist and here's why!" or "I'm agnostic and here's why". It's a joke to anyone who has walked the spiritual path beyond the first pages that such verbiage falls on deaf ears as it shows the inexperience of the experiencer as identifying with words that literally mean nothing.

When they say, "Silence is Golden" it's because language/symbolism/words are divisive at their very root. "He who knows does not say and he who says does not know". All of this verbiage creates an illusion that their is something to be explained and that their is a "difference". This is why its famously said that things only vary by degree and not of kind because oneness is the secret of everything. The same principle the atheist is trying to explain is the same that the theist is. The gnostic and agnostic same thing. Ultimately none can be right because it cannot be known. Only when someone drops their ego entirely and understands that "separation" can it even be seen/experienced in the first place. There's a million different "gods" and "no gods" but we are all trying to put an image on the exact same thing. Anothe reason why the whole "my god your god NO god" is just the musings of a troubled mind.

lol I've provided highly reputable sources for everything I've said. You've provided nothing except your feelings, "your" definitions, and have even changed those definitions mid-argument... You're entitled to your own opinions but in this case your opinions are demonstrably incorrect. Atheism and theism are both gnostic by definition.

On the question of God, I am generally agnostic. By assuming I'm "religious"(you actually mean theist, even after I've told you the difference twice you seem unable to grasp it) you are just providing more evidence that atheists believe that the only alternative is theism--belief or denial. Atheism and theism are equal opposites. There is another option, entirely separate. Agnosticism is the rejection of both of these claims to knowledge.


It's not debatable whether or not Aristotle was a theist. He believed in a non-interventionist God. A non-interventionist God is a God, therefore he was a theist, therefore he was not an atheist.

This is all very straightforward.





Most atheists have the same weakness that most theists do, you both want to be right instead of wanting to learn. You are predisposed to believe that Aristotle is intelligent, so you're determined to twist his words until they match your own beliefs... My advice is to read and respect the opinions of those who think differently than you. This is the path to greater understanding.

Read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov and you should be forever broken of the delusion that you are more intelligent than religious people. Or look for more ticktock videos about why religion is dumb if you'd rather just carry on in your ignorance.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Sep 25 2024 12:50pm

Great post & welcome back from jail!

Both and make great points and I believe both are correct in their own way, that one side is correct on the definitions of the terms and the other side is correct that you cannot neatly categorize what people believe into these strict definitions. People who would say they're an atheist in their own understanding can range from what was called weak atheism which isn't too distinguishable from agnosticism, and strong atheism which can range to full blown insane Reddit atheists "anti-theists" who are largely unhinged anti-Christian barbarians. Words are used to help communicate our thoughts & beliefs, but they by axiomatic principle can never be 100% accurate though we try our best.

It is also correct that the cosmological/prime mover argument does not belong to Aristotle, while he was the first to enter it into the Western literature & cultural realm, the enlightenment of Greece was preceded by the enlightenment of Persia, from which that knowledge was transferred to the Greeks via Cyrus the Great's patronage to the land. Cyrus & his Zoroastrian Magi well understood the cosmological argument & were well ahead at the time.

Another note on the topic of the prime mover is that it is logically true and cannot be argued. There has never been a single coherent argument to rebut the cosmological argument, because there isn't one. It is simply logically true that there must exist or have existed a Supreme Being who began time so to speak. No one in this thread has formed an argument against it, and no one in human history has either because it can't logically exist. In modern Western scientific thought this has been reduced to the hypothetical singularity, which as someone pointed out would essentially be the effective "God" of a nonbeliever who does believe in the Big Bang theory. It's also important to reiterate that science is not a belief system, it is a method of inquiry based upon the falsification of well defined statements (hypotheses).

This is very true and is typically well understood among the enlightened!

I never had a problem with the gay/LGBT/trans/woke cult until they started trampling on us, refusing to let us live, shoving THEIR ideology and religion down our throats against our will, while we had mercifully given them amnesty & tolerance (tolerance could be defined by me as "letting live" but not necessarily accepting them). While they don't tolerate us

This post was edited by El1te on Sep 25 2024 01:28pm

Ah, the historically maligned and oppressed group that is middle aged straight white men

anti-white racism has risen in modern times.