A modern explanation of the terms "theist", "atheist" and "agnostic"

James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
Over the years on sciforums, we have had several threads in which members have discussed what they understand to be the meanings of the terms "theist", "atheist" and "agnostic". I have started several threads on the topic myself. It seems to me that in the early 21st century, people have been working towards a consensus about the meanings of these terms. I am wondering whether we can agree on these matters here on sciforums in 2025.

Here's my latest crack at it, for discussion and possible debate.

Two independent axes

Agnosticism is often conceptualised or explained as a "middle ground" between theism and atheism. However, I assert that agnosticism is best understood as lying on a perpendicular axis to the theism-atheism axis. Thus, we have the theist/atheist distinction and another, independent, gnostic/agnostic distinction.

All four combinations are possible, such that it is quite reasonable for a person to self-identify as a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

About belief

To say that one believes a claim is to assert that one accepts that the claim is true or very likely to be true.

For example, if somebody says "I believe that 2+2=4", they are saying they accept as correct the statement that 2+2=4.
But also, if somebody says "I believe it will rain tomorrow", they are saying that they accept as very probably correct that it will rain tomorrow (even though the outcomes of future events cannot be known with certainty).

Some care has to be taken when people make statements about what they do not believe, however.
For example, when somebody says "I do not believe that it will rain tomorrow", it is possible that they hold the view that "it will not rain tomorrow". But it is also possible that they are only saying they do not accept that the claim "It will rain tomorrow" is certainly true or very probably true. For instance, perhaps they estimate the chance that it will rain tomorrow to be 1 in 3, which means that they think it is more likely than not that the statement "It will rain tomorrow" is false. It is also possible that they merely consider that they do not (yet) have sufficient reason to accept that the claim "It will rain tomorrow" is true.

It is important to recognise that in the second and third examples, the person who does not believe is not making a claim. The person might believe that "It will not rain tomorrow", but he has not (yet) made the claim that it will not rain tomorrow; he might go on to make that claim, or he might not. Alternatively, the person might believe "It is more likely than not that it will not rain tomorrow" but, again, he has not yet made that claim. Finally, the person might believe "I don't yet have sufficient information to decide whether it will rain tomorrow or not", which means he would be lying if he claimed to believe that it will rain tomorrow (or not rain tomorrow).

Thus, it is straightforward to interpret what a person means when they say "I believe that X is true", whereas further interrogation will usually be necessary to get to the bottom of what a person means when they say "I do not believe that X is true".

It should be clear by now that the statement "I do not believe that X is true" is not equivalent to the statement "I believe that X is false".

Depending on the claim, the passage of time might reveal whether the claim is actually true or false, or it might not. The claim "It will rain tomorrow" will be shown to be either true or false tomorrow. In the meantime, it is perfectly reasonable for somebody to wait until the truth or falsity of the claim becomes apparent. In many cases we even find ourselves in the position where we simply can't know whether a claim is true or false at this time, and in some case we will never know.

On being convinced

In light of this, it is clear that belief statements boil down to whether the speaker is convinced that a claim is true, at the time of his or her statement of belief. A person who, for whatever reason, is convinced that the claim is true (or very likely to be true), will say "I believe" it is true. On the other hand, a person who is not convinced will say "I do not believe" the claim is true, either because they believe the claim is false (or likely false) or because they are adopting a "wait and see" approach (e.g. lack of sufficient information to form an opinion, or prudence about unwisely leaping to a conclusion that might turn out to be wrong).

Ontology - the axis of belief

Ontology is the philosophical topic concerned with questions of what things exist in the world and what their nature is.

When somebody says "I believe that X is real" or "I believe that X exists", they are making an ontological statement. They are convinced that the statement "X exists" is true, or very likely to be true.

A person who says "I do not believe that X exists" is not making an ontological claim. They are saying that they aren't convinced that the statement "X exists" is true. Maybe that's because they are convinced the statement is false. Maybe it's because they are convinced that the probability that the statement is true is low. Or maybe they are adopting a "wait and see" approach and they don't want to leap to a conclusion that might turn out to be wrong. More questioning will be required to discover why they are not convinced that X exists.

Theism and atheism - definitions

A theist is a person who believes that one or more deities exist. That is, they are convinced that the claim "One or more deities exist" is either true or very likely to be true.

An atheist is a person who does not believe that one or more deities exist. That is, they are not convinced that the claim "One or more deities exist" is true. It could be that they are convinced that there are no deities. It could be that they are convinced that there is a low probability that one or more deities exist. It could be that they are adopting a "wait and see" approach and they don't want to jump to a conclusion that might turn out to be wrong.
 
Last edited:
(continued...)

Epistemology - the axis of knowledge

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that explores the nature, origin, scope and limits of knowledge.

When somebody says "I know that X is true" or "I know that X is false", they are making a knowledge claim. More broadly, when somebody says "It is possible to know whether X is true or false", they are making a claim about epistemology - in this case the question of whether X is a thing that human beings can know.

Importantly, the statement "I believe that X is true" is different from the statement "I know that X is true".

"Knowledge" is often defined as "justified true belief". To "know that X" (where X is any ontological statement) requires, then (a) a belief that X is true; (b) that X is actually true; and (c) that there is justification for believing that X is true.

(a) Belief, as we have already discussed, is about a person's mental attitude to the claim X.
(b) For a claim X to be true, the claim must accurately reflect reality or correspond to facts.
(c) For a claim X to be justified, the reasons, evidence or arguments that support the claim must be sufficient and sound - they must be reasonable (or rational).

A person who says "I know that X exists" is saying (a) that they believe the claim "X exists", (b) that the claim "X exists" corresponds to the fact of X's existence, and (c) that the claim "X exists" is justified by sufficient reasons, evidence or arguments (or, to put it more simply, that there are sound reasons to accept the claim).

Agnosticism - definition
A gnostic is a person who believes that it is possible to know for certain whether one or more deities exist.
An agnostic is a person who either (a) does not believe that it is possible to know for certain whether one or more deities exist, or (b) believes that the existence of deities is an open question, because the answer is currently unknown.

Since the gnostic/agnostic axis is about what is or isn't know, or about what can or can't be known, one's position on that axis is an epistemological position. In contrast, the theist/atheist axis is about what one believes about the existence of one or more deities; one's position on that axis is an ontological position.

Hard vs soft / Strong vs weak

Theism and gnosticism each come in only one "flavour". The theist definitely believes that one or more deities exist; if she didn't, she would be an atheist, by definition. The gnostic definitely believes that it is possible to know whether one or more deities exist; if she didn't, she would be agnostic, by definition.

On the other hand, both atheism and agnosticism come in two "flavours", generally speaking, which are often referred to using the adjectives "hard/soft" or "strong/weak". A brief summary follows:

Strong (or hard) atheism is a belief that deities do not exist. The hard atheist asserts that the statement "Gods do not exist" is true.

Weak (or soft) atheism is the absence of belief that deities exist. The weak atheist is not convinced that "One or more deities exist" is true. But the weak atheist does not assert that "No deities exist" is true. (For example, she might be open to accepting that one or more deities exist, if compelling evidence were presented.)

Strong (or hard) agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to know whether any deities exist. It asserts that human beings are incapable of obtaining knowledge about the existence or non-existence of deities.

Weak (or soft) agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of deities is currently unknown, but not necessarily unknowable.

The spectrum of religious belief

Because the theism/atheism axis is fundamentally different to the gnostic/agnostic axis, it is possible for a person to hold any of the four possible combinations of views. So:
  • A gnostic theist believes that one or more deities exist and also claims to have knowledge of the deity or deities' existence.
  • An agnostic theist believes that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have knowledge or certainty about the existence of the deity or deities.
  • A gnostic atheist does not believe in deities and also claims to know that they don't exist.
  • An agnostic atheist does not believe in deities but does not claim knowledge or certainty about their non-existence.

The agnostics can be further categorised according to whether they are strong agnostics or weak agnostics, and the same goes for the atheists. This means that the total number of possible combinations of religious belief expands from the listed four to a more detailed list of nine. For example, a person could be a "soft agnostic, theist" or a "hard agnostic, weak atheist".
 
Last edited:
With the basic definitions covered, here are a few generalisations, which might help you to get a handle on the spectrum of beliefs. The following comments are not intended to be exclusive definitional categories.

Theists generally believe in a divine being or beings that interact with the world and influence human affairs.
Atheists do not believe in divine beings and often rely on scientific explanations for the nature of the universe and human life.

Agnostics (both theist and atheist) are more likely to less certain about their own beliefs than gnostics, because the gnostics believe that they have definite knowledge about the existence (or non-existence) of deities. Thus, agnostics are probably more likely to shift from atheism to theism, or vice versa, than gnostics. Probably this is why agnosticism is often described - for the wrong reasons - as a "half-way house" between theism and atheism.

Nevertheless, a common pathway from theism to atheism starts, I think, with a drift from gnosticism into agnosticism, followed later by the loss of one's religious convictions. When a gnostic, who believes that they know about the existence of deities, loses confidence in that belief, they may start to question the extent to which their theistic beliefs are justifiable, and eventually move to a position where they are no longer convinced, at which point they have become a de facto atheist.

Traffic goes the other way, too. Even a gnostic atheist can lose confidence in his own gnosticism. The agnostic (or even the gnostic) atheist can have a personal experience or a communication from another person that convinces him to believe in one or more deities, at which point he becomes a theist (and possibly also a gnostic for the first or second time).

On strong vs weak agnosticism

The strong agnostic position often follows from the idea that deities are beings that are beyond human comprehension and investigation. Thus, strong agnostics maintain that no amount of evidence or argument can ever lead to true knowledge about the existence or non-existence of gods.

In contrast, the weak agnostic position holds that it is possible that new evidence or revelations could potentially clarify or answer the question of the existence or non-existence of gods. That is, although the existence of God or gods isn't known now, it is possible that it might be knowable/known in the future.

On Huxley's definition of agnosticism

The term "agnostic" was invented by Thomas Huxley in the late 19th century.

Huxley said that human beings should not make claims about the truth of matters that are beyond empirical evidence and logical reasoning. In the context of religion, Huxley said that agnosticism "simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe".

Note: this quote from Huxley uses the word "believe" in the context of a definition of agnosticism. This is potentially confusing in the modern context. Recall from the discussion above that agnosticism is about what a person believes about what is known or can be known about a deity or deities. Agnosticism is not a position on the ontology of deities; it is an epistemological stance. I think is also made clear in other writings by Huxley.
 
Last edited:
Other views

For completeness, I might mention that there are a couple of related philosophical positions that I have not yet mentioned:
  • Ignosticism: the view that the concept "god" is not sufficiently defined to be meaningful or to allow for meaningful discussion. In other words, it's useless to take a position on whether one believes that deities exist, either way, since the word "deity" or "god" doesn't refer to anything meaningful.
  • Apatheism: the view that the question of the existence or non-existence of deities is irrelevant or just too uninteresting to be worth considering. (The term is a portmanteau of "apathy" and "theism/atheism".)

On the burden of proof

The hard (or strong) atheist often expresses confidence in the belief that gods do not exist. Since he is making a positive claim (gods do not exist), he must accept the burden of proof in arguing his claim.

The soft (or weak) atheist, on the other hand, does not assert that gods do not exist. He is simply not convinced that they exist. The theist who wants to convince the weak atheist that gods do, in fact, exist, obviously bears the burden of proof here, because in this case it is the theist who is making the positive claim (especially if the theist is also gnostic and claims to know that one or more gods exist).

The theist who asserts that one or more deities exist always bears a burden of proof.

Nontheism

The general terms "nontheism" and "nontheist" describe all forms of disbelief and indifference towards the question of the existence of deities. The category "non-theist" therefore includes all atheists, ignostics and apatheists.
 
Last edited:
That made my head spin a little bit James R just scan reading it!

I think there are two other terms that are useful, anti-theist. Someone who thinks religion is a bad is a for humanity (me)
Henotheism which less familiar but very pertinent to Christians or should be.

The Ancient Israelites were polytheistic, they at times worshipped more than one god.

They eventually became not monotheistic but henotheistic, they still thought other gods existed but they only worshipped Yhwh.

Sometimes they strayed from this and Yhwh got angry and punished them, the prophets talked about this extensively.

A bone of contention with Christians today as they do not realize that the Israelites were polytheistic, todays doctrine based on the Bible, including the OT, is strictly mono (forgetting the trinity for the moment)


So, if they are mono this goes against the historical back drop from the Bible.

So the first term is relevant to today regarding how we view religion in the world and the second from a historical perspective but also has significance I think.
 
Pinball1970 said:
I think there are two other terms that are useful, anti-theist. Someone who thinks religion is a bad is a for humanity (me)
Click to expand...
OK, but this is qualitatively different from James' categories. It is a stance of what should be, or what we want to be. It is technically the logical fallacy "wishful thinking".
 
DaveC426913 said:
OK, but this is qualitatively different from James' categories. It is a stance of what should be, or what we want to be. It is technically the logical fallacy "wishful thinking".
Click to expand...
Eh! How is it wishful thinking thinking?
Christianity IS declining in the UK there is no wishing needed.
Islam is increasing so that is a worry but there is no reason why that cannot be addressed too.
There has also been a drop in the US.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Eh! How is it wishful thinking thinking?
Christianity IS declining in the UK there is no wishing needed.
Click to expand...
Allow me to clarify.

Whether or not Christianity is declining, the point is your term "anti-theist" is about what you want it to be doing.

Theism and atheism etc. are descriptors about what someone believes (evidence-based or no) to be objectively the case.
Your term Anti-theism is a descriptor about what someone thinks should happen.

Theist: "I believe there is a God".
Weak Atheist: "I am not convinced there is a God."
Strong Atheist: "I am convinced there is no God."
Anti-theist: "It's bad to believe in God. It's caused so much suffering."

In a debate context, the fourth line is not the same as the first three.
The first three speak to the question of whether or not God objectively exists.
The last one It does not address the question whether god exists or not; it suggests we should let our desires lead our beliefs. In the context of a debate, it's an "appeal to emotion" argument, which is also known as a "wishful thinking" argument.
 
Russell's distinction of types of knowledge also could be relevant - knowledge by acquaintance v knowledge by description.

Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu iep.utm.edu

The concept of acquaintance was introduced to contemporary philosophy by Bertrand Russell in his seminal article “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description” (1910).... Russell explains that a person is acquainted with an object when he stands in a “direct cognitive relation to the object, i.e. when [the subject is] directly aware of the object itself” (Russell 1910, p. 108). In another place, he writes “we have acquaintance with anything of which we are directly aware, without the intermediary of any process of inference or any knowledge of truths." To have knowledge by acquaintance, according to Russell, occurs when the subject has an immediate or unmediated awareness of some propositional truth. Knowledge by description, by contrast, is propositional knowledge that is inferential, mediated, or indirect.

So I'm thinking how, even with a community of, say gnostic monotheists (god exists and has aspects that may be knowable to us and about which we can make knowledge claims), there would be some epistemic gradient along which members are arrayed - from those who have Russellian knowledge by acquaintance (e.g. experienced a revelation in which a deity manifests directly) to those who have only knowledge by description (e.g. based on inferences made from what they are told by holy ones or whatever, and concerning entities that lie beyond their own personal experience but which can be understood using concepts that are accessible to them). So within this community you have people who touched God or were filled with God or blinded by the holy light or whatever sorts of divine revelation there are, and then those who never met the Big Kahuna yet find the knowledge claims of the holy ones to be credible. Other communities of belief, like the UFO (as ET craft) community, seem to have a similar epistemic gradient.
 
DaveC426913 said:
appeal to emotion" argument, which is also known as a "wishful thinking" argument.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. I think overall Religion is bad for humanity, this is based on a lot events historically and continuing today, nothing to do with what I wish for or how I feel, these are just facts.
Obviously Theism and religion are inextricably connected regarding the Abrahamic religions, one cannot be a Christian AND not be religious.
Also not all atheists are anti theists, some may reject the idea of a god but think Religion is cohesive for the community.
The term is relevant.
 
James R said:
The hard (or strong) atheist often expresses confidence in the belief that gods do not exist. Since he is making a positive claim (gods do not exist), he must accept the burden of proof in arguing his claim.
Click to expand...
Ok I will have a crack at this. So I am (currently) an gnostic, hard atheist and anti theist. Previously an agnostic atheist but what the hell I know a lot more these days.
I have to be specific though I am gnostic w.r.t. Yhwh, El, Eloheim, Baal and Ashera, the players in the Bible. I think I am justified in sticking Allah in there too,I have read his book a few times.
 
Pinball1970 said:
No it isn't. I think overall Religion is bad for humanity, this is based on a lot events historically and continuing today, nothing to do with what I wish for or how I feel, these are just facts.
Click to expand...
OK, I think you're missing my point.

What you describe as anti-theism does not speak to the objective existence, non-existence, knowability or unknowability of God. It's categorically different from James' attempts to define what people believe about God's existence. Whereas yours is about what they think should be happening.
 
DaveC426913 said:
What you describe as anti-theism does not speak to the objective existence, non-existence, knowability or unknowability of God.
Click to expand...
I did not say it did. I said as a term, it is relevant to the discussion in terms of terminology. We cannot discuss terms regarding belief systems on the existence or non existence of gods if that excludes religion, religion is part of the package.
It make no sense in fact to discuss theism w.r.t the Abrahamic gods (the main ones on the planet) without having religion and terms relating to religion as part of the discussion.
 
Just to add, if everyone either believed in a god or did not we would not have any issues. It is people looking into scripture and then applying that life when it becomes an issue.
So anti theist and religious adherent are more relevant than just just Gnosticism and theism/atheism.

If I am in the minority on this I am happy to hear an argument at the moment it seems to me and DaveC426913 that disagree,
 
Pinball1970 said:
I did not say it did. I said as a term, it is relevant to the discussion in terms of terminology. We cannot discuss terms regarding belief systems on the existence or non existence of gods if that excludes religion, religion is part of the package.
Click to expand...
But exclusion of your term doesn't "exclude religion" from the package. I don't follow why you think it would.

Pinball1970 said:
It make no sense in fact to discuss theism w.r.t the Abrahamic gods (the main ones on the planet) without having religion and terms relating to religion as part of the discussion.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's irrelevant; I'm just saying it's a different kettle of fish. Which is fine; it just sort of blurs the line between a primary glossary of terms and a secondary glossary of terms.

I mean, I think churches ought to be collecting one-twentieth in taxes, rather than a tithe, and that should be enforced by law - but is my personal argument about what believers ought to be doing really a top-level glossary term in the discussion at-hand? See my point?

Anyway, I have no real objection, so I am happy to concede the point.
 
DaveC426913 said:
But exclusion of your term doesn't "exclude religion" from the package. I don't follow why you think it would.


I'm not saying it's irrelevant; I'm just saying it's a different kettle of fish. Which is fine; it just sort of blurs the line between a primary glossary of terms and a secondary glossary of terms.

I mean, I think churches ought to be collecting one-twentieth in taxes, rather than a tithe, and that should be enforced by law - but is my personal argument about what believers ought to be doing really a top-level glossary term in the discussion at-hand? See my point?

Anyway, I have no real objection, so I am happy to concede the point.
Click to expand...
Your input is always important to me, you challenge me and you are annoyingly rarely wrong. It must be a Canadian thing.
Let's see how the discussion pans out sir.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Your input is always important to me, you challenge me and you are annoyingly rarely wrong. It must be a Canadian thing.
Let's see how the discussion pans out sir.
Click to expand...
I blame my parents. They taught all of us that rigorous debate is the only valid form of talk at the family dinner table. They came to regret that.
 
Please post on topic.
I no longer care about the fine distinctions or about the debating.

I have bills to pay.

If I don't pay them, I know there will be hell to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top