Wikipedia can also be wrong on various topics so let's not get nitpicky. But, if you want to look up Gnosticism on Wikipedia, you'll see that being a gnostic means having knowledge.

So people can be either theists or atheists and at the same time gnostic or agnostic.

A gnostic theist would mean they believe and also know a god exists.

An angostic atheist doesn't believe and also doesn't know a god doesn't exists. That's most of us atheists.

So people can't be on the fence and say I'm agnostic, that doesn't tell anything about what they believe.

And when it comes to belief, you are either convinced or you're not. There's no middle ground.

Hope I cleared it up.

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think we're just entering semantics at this point. "Agnostic" has been used plenty of times as a position in itself separate from "Atheist": even Thomas H. Huxley, who created the term, saw it as a specifically distinct thing from atheism, and so did Darwin and Ross at the time.

You can indeed have middle ground on beliefs, and the term has been invented for that exact reason: Huxley didn't feel like he fit in any of the definitions that existed at the time.

[–] kalibri@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it is semantics.

I think most people don't realise that saying "I'm not sure a god exists" makes them atheists though and I was trying to make that point.

Good discussion nevertheless.