To me, the video sorta oversells the difficulty in identifying / escaping from "ridiculous claims", at least in comparison to my personal experiences.

I grew up in a very religious (Christian, Methodist) family / city / state / country. I was questioning the indoctrination at an early age (younger than 10), and rejecting it due to never receiving satisfactory answers to those questions by ~12. Actually, one of the most significant pushes for me was the ultimate reward/punishment thing. Zero consistency and open contradictions between different religions / sects / sources, etc. In symbolic logic, contradictions mean that one of your premises is wrong. Reconsider what you "know" and try again.

With regards to atheism vs (a)gnosticism, technically I'm an agnostic because I don't know with absolute certainty that there is no god / gods out there. However, in practice, I easily and comfortably would rather self-identify as an atheist. Why, when I don't know for certain? Because I also don't know that there isn't an Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, or Leprechauns, yet I don't feel compelled to tell people that I'm "agnostic" about those things. No. They are pretty clearly human-invented bullshit, with readily apparent human motivations behind their invention. Sounds like religion to me.

That's basically Russel's teapot.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

You're correct about gnosticism, but incorrect about (a)theism.

And dictionary.com is also wrong.
Merriam Webster defines it as:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism

If you ask google to define: atheist, you get:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Theism/atheism speak only to BELIEF.

This chart explains it well

Do you understand what the word “atheist” means?

It simply means someone who doesn’t believe in god(s).

Gnosticism is the KNOWLEDGE of gods existence.

Anyone who claims not to be agnostic (regardless of their BELIEF in gods) is either lying or delusional.

Hey Enoch,

No I am getting married soon and I don't think my fiance would appreciate that. As far as posting scripture is concerned, faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. You may believe that they are merely words in a book, but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. I understand where you're coming from Enoch. Sometimes I feel like you are trying to pat me on the head, but it's not that I don't understand your gnostic beliefs. It is that I did understand it, fully embraced them, and rejected it all on the basis of divine revelation. I had gnostic beliefs, mixed with hindu, buddhist and new age ideas, among other things, before I became a Christian. I rejected those beliefs and embraced the word of God as the truth because the Lord directly revealed Himself to me as the Messiah. It wasn't that I read the bible and thought it sounded reasonable, it is because I had direct revelation it is the absolute truth. That's why I am a Christian.

I don't know if you hold the belief that the body is the problem as some gnostics do, but it is sin which is the problem. That is why mankind is separated from God and that is why we need a Savior. Jesus made the way for us to be reborn and be reconciled to God; not as the gnostics teach, that He brought secret knowledge, but that He paid the penalty for sin in our place.

if you view this video with a western theosophy perspective,in which god is externalized,then yes..this clip makes no sense.
but if you view this with a more eastern theosophy,where god/gods are internalized,then this woman would not be so confusing.

the olsteens preach the 'prosperity gospel".though they deny it when asked directly,but thats what they preach,with a side order of mutated gnosticism.

see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
see:http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/

Thank you @shinyblurry for the contribution. Even if I disagree on the basic message, it was interesting input that this discussion was IMO lacking so far. Now somebody's might post something dismissive now (I have to admit, asshole that I am, my fingers are actually itching in way trolls know too well) but I found that worth reading. Which brings me back to the point Mitchell made.
The issue is dialogue and how disruptive the selfrighteousness of those who found their definitive answer can be. We can argue semantics even further than already done here but it doesn't matter how gnostic or theistic one is. There is a silent majority consisting of various levels of belief and disbelief and at the fringes of both sides people tend to get loud, sometimes unbearably so.
What the screaming people at the edge like to do is to get bogged down into dogmas and discussions of detail but in the end both kind of extremists would like to force their worldviews on everyone else. I think it is certainly not acceptable to insist that people seeking solace in religion must be idiots who don't know how the world works. If a woman who just lost her child wants to tell herself that this is part of gods plan then I have no right to walk up to her and tell her she's full of shit. Even though I know this to be true. We all live in a world we're poorly equipped to understand and have to make sense of it somehow.
The problem starts once you force yourself onto somebody. The point I made before is that one side's extremists is assholes who walk up to grieving women and tell them their full of shit, the other side is people executing that woman for praying to the wrong god. It's easy for me to pick a side here.
However, most people aren't that extreme. Most people are more civil than that and I believe/know that a more civil and understanding approach is better. It necessary to push back against those who are harmful in executing their beliefs, be it Osama Bin Laden or Rick Santorum (Santorum he he) but everyone else is better dealt with in a respectful manner. Antagonism doesn't feed dialogue well.
That is why I resisted my urge to make fun of the deeply religious guy posting here. I really wanted to because I disagree with his worldview so strongly but all he did was stating his journey to where he now in his life and on top of that, he did it without telling anybody else here off. I would be the asshole if I would react like a Hitchens. I'd rather behave like a Tyson (not the rapey one). LIke most humans, I want to be one of the good guys. It's just not that easy to figure out how to be one.
In the end it all boils down to this (and several posts in this thread truly showed it): Why can't we be friends? Why can't we get along?
Because we're humans. That's how we roll.

Atheism is not the reverse of theism....it is the lack of theism. It's not a belief in no god, it's a lack of belief in a god. I understand that's a difficult concept for some.
Agnosticism is lack of certainty (or admission that certitude is impossible) in what you believe, Gnosticism is absolute certitude in your (unknowable)belief.
Personal 'revelation' by god is not real evidence and is far from proof, even for the one receiving the 'personal revelation'.
Why does the 'all powerful, benevolent god' hate amputees? Not once in history has anyone ever had an arm re-grow thanks to their belief in/worship of god (or any other reason). I've never heard a serious answer to that question.

I guess my point is that agnosticism is the default. Even the most devout people I know would admit that while they 100% believe in god, they can't know for certain.

And I'm with you on the anti-gnostic thing... I'd much rather not know (and maybe one day find out) than have some bullshit certainty.

Here in America we seem to have more people 'certain' of/in their beliefs than we do people who admit some things are unknowable. (OK, I guess you could say they fall under 'lying or mad', but most don't think they are).

About being 'interesting' being a virtue, remember the Chinese curse..."May you live in interesting times." ;-)

Can I be an anti-gnostic? I find that certitude in the unknowable or the incorrect causes problems.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.

@newtboy

On definitions, I recall a clip from The Atheist Experience where they made the distinction that while a/theism relates to what you believe, a/gnosticism relates to what you know. Colloquially it's all a bit of a wash but I think it's a good framework for outlining a specific belief.

You could be gnostic atheist, professing certain knowledge of no gods. Alternatively you could be an agnostic atheist, profession to not be able to know but choosing to believe in the lack of a god. Or you could be a gnostic theist, presuming to know by certainty that there is a god, although of course you would also be an atheist unless you believed religions coexisted simultaneously.

EDIT - D'oh, someone already said it.

I think 'agnostic' does not imply that both camps have equal footing, it only implies that you are honest enough to not state you have knowledge of the unknowable.
Are you open to the idea that there may not be a creator too, even a little? If so, you're agnostic...sorry. If there's any doubt (meaning you leave open the possibility there's no god) that's agnostic. Gnostic is certitude in your position that god exists.

EDIT: To me, anti-theism is believing that (X) god doesn't exist, so almost everyone is an anti-theist to some extent (unless they believe in every god ever conceived). I'm not sure there is a proper term for those that 'believe' there absolutely is no god at all...or for those that think they 'know' there's no god. perhaps pan-anti-theism and anti-gnostic?

I think you are incorrect in your assumption about "science". True scientists admit that they KNOW nothing, but have overwhelming evidence for one hypothesis or another. The claim that there "is no god" is not scientific. The claim that all evidence points towards the conclusion that there is no god is scientific. The claim that there is no need for god in order to explain the universe is also scientific.
Science does not "attack" the unknown, it investigates hypotheses and attempts to verify or prove them wrong. (investigation of the veracity of a religion is considered an attack by believers, but it isn't one) So far every hypothesis arguing for the existence of god(s) has proven false, and many hypotheses for alternative explanations that don't require god(s) have proven correct. Again, when the score is 1000000-0, you can call the game in my opinion...but to be 100% honest you have to leave open the tiny .00000000000000.......000001% possibility that the other team scores 1000001 points after you leave (but that kind of incredible claim requires credible incontrovertible proof, not just the teams claim it happened).
As pointed out above, atheism and agnosticism are answers to two different questions. If you believe in god(s) you are a theist, if you don't you are atheist. If you don't KNOW there is/are god(s) you are agnostic, if you do KNOW there is/are god(s) you are gnostic (the only one I think is outright wrong, because it's impossible to KNOW the unknowable, so all gnostics are dishonest, at least with themselves and more often with all others). It's about a distinction between beliefs and knowledge.

It reminds me of a great quote from my dad..."Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person....but you don't need to know the 'truth' in order to not lie."

But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.