Where do you fit most on the chart?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[afleitch]

Agnostic Atheist. I cannot ultimately disprove the fact that the Big Bang may be the result of a 8th grade science experiment gone wrong on the planet Gablorax, that the mighty Apollo is lord of all or that Allah is the only god and Mohammed is his messenger.

Interesting the graph puts a little asterix at Gnostic Atheist as being 'stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge' yet doesn't do so at Gnostic Theist which also makes claim of knowledge.

[Torie]

Same as the gay Scotsman.

[DC Al Fine]

Definitely theist. If we're discussing some vague first cause God, I'm a gnostic theist. If we're talking the God of Christianity, I'm agnostic.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's not what Gnostic means.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Agnostic atheist.

[fezzyfestoon]

I went with "Gnostic" atheist because the doubts I have are so negligible that I can all but say I know there are no gods.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Interesting the graph puts a little asterix at Gnostic Atheist as being 'stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge' yet doesn't do so at Gnostic Theist which also makes claim of knowledge.

'Strong atheist' is probably a term that whatever the source of this graph is had previously mentioned or defined. 'Weak' and 'strong' atheism is a dichotomy I've heard talked about in the past, whereas 'weak' and 'strong' theism for whatever reason isn't.

I suppose if pressed I would go with some combination of what both Als said (although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context), but, like the political matrix, this chart makes presuppositions about the nature of the question that I don't necessarily agree with.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Gnostic Theist

[danny]

I answered agnostic atheist, but it depends how you look at it. "Know" could mean beyond a certain percent, or it could mean 100% certain. I lean heavily towards gods non-existence. However, at 100% I can't prove or disprove anything, I don't even "know" that the keyboard I'm typing this post with exists.

[TNF]

Agnostic Atheist.

[minionofmidas]

Depends on definition of "god" and "know", but if I can use my own than bottom right. Which would obviously be considered very misleading by a lot of people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely theist. If we're discussing some vague first cause God, I'm a gnostic theist. If we're talking the God of Christianity, I'm agnostic.

[DemPGH]

I was initially confused by capital-G Gnostic as well, but little-g gnostic works.

Agnostic atheist or "weak atheist" for me. I cannot prove that there is no god, but there sure does not appear to be. If someone finds evidence for the existence of God, I surely would like to see it. Because of course the burden of proof is on the affirmative.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context)

Sure, it's obvious enough, but is typical of that nasty 'I understand [some of] insert 'classical' language, therefore, look at how brilliantly and privately educated I most certainly am' mentality that infects discussions surrounding the subject area of this particular board like smallpox and which deserves to be responded to with nothing less than a sudden outburst of extreme violence.

[Antonio the Sixth]

(although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context)

Sure, it's obvious enough, but is typical of that nasty 'I understand [some of] insert 'classical' language, therefore, look at how brilliantly and privately educated I most certainly am' mentality that infects discussions surrounding the subject area of this particular board like smallpox and which deserves to be responded to with nothing less than a sudden outburst of extreme violence.

So because someone is smart enough to take away an "a" from "agnostic", they must be some privately educated haughty snob?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context)

Sure, it's obvious enough, but is typical of that nasty 'I understand [some of] insert 'classical' language, therefore, look at how brilliantly and privately educated I most certainly am' mentality that infects discussions surrounding the subject area of this particular board like smallpox and which deserves to be responded to with nothing less than a sudden outburst of extreme violence.

So because someone is smart enough to take away an "a" from "agnostic", they must be some privately educated haughty snob?

No. It's more that if someone is stupid enough to think that doing so demonstrates how oh-so-f[inks]ing clever then they are more likely than not to be a privately educated snobbish idiot.

[afleitch]

No. It's more that if someone is stupid enough to think that doing so demonstrates how oh-so-f[inks]ing clever then they are more likely than not to be a privately educated snobbish idiot.

How's that PhD going Al?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. It's more that if someone is stupid enough to think that doing so demonstrates how oh-so-f[inks]ing clever then they are more likely than not to be a privately educated snobbish idiot.

How's that PhD going Al?

Fine, thanks.

[Insula Dei]

Suddenly the atmosphere was quite tense.

[© tweed]

Suddenly the atmosphere was quite tense.

Al unfortunately suffers from long-standing anger issues that have grown worse over time.

[minionofmidas]

Suddenly the atmosphere was quite tense.

Al unfortunately suffers from long-standing anger issues that have grown worse over time.

Though on this one (as, thankfully, on well over half of those outbursts), at least he's entirely right on the issue even if not in tone.

[Antonio the Sixth]

(although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context)

Sure, it's obvious enough, but is typical of that nasty 'I understand [some of] insert 'classical' language, therefore, look at how brilliantly and privately educated I most certainly am' mentality that infects discussions surrounding the subject area of this particular board like smallpox and which deserves to be responded to with nothing less than a sudden outburst of extreme violence.

So because someone is smart enough to take away an "a" from "agnostic", they must be some privately educated haughty snob?

No. It's more that if someone is stupid enough to think that doing so demonstrates how oh-so-f[inks]ing clever then they are more likely than not to be a privately educated snobbish idiot.

I missed the note at the bottom of the chart that reads "OMG I'm so [inks]ing clever".

[k-onmmunist]

i'm a pantheist, so i don't really belong to any of them. i'd fit under agnostic atheist with regards to a personal god.

[Insula Dei]

(although I do understand the back-derivation of the term 'gnostic' in this context)

Sure, it's obvious enough, but is typical of that nasty 'I understand [some of] insert 'classical' language, therefore, look at how brilliantly and privately educated I most certainly am' mentality that infects discussions surrounding the subject area of this particular board like smallpox and which deserves to be responded to with nothing less than a sudden outburst of extreme violence.

So because someone is smart enough to take away an "a" from "agnostic", they must be some privately educated haughty snob?

No. It's more that if someone is stupid enough to think that doing so demonstrates how oh-so-f[inks]ing clever then they are more likely than not to be a privately educated snobbish idiot.

I missed the note at the bottom of the chart that reads "OMG I'm so [inks]ing clever".

The bit where it says, in italics, 'since it claims knowledge', is rather annoying. You must admit. And the whole 'not knowing what gnostic christianity actually is' is also rather annoying, though not in my opinion indicative of being privately educated, but rather of being some american guy running a site on 'religion and philosophy'. Hope this helps