Why Agnostic?

[Rhizomorph13]

Your two questions are good for explaining to a 13 year old, but of course the phrasing can be done in many ways.

For instance the site that leo-rcc posted earlier (http://www.atheismtest.com/) phrases the second question "Do you claim to know either way?".

My personal way of phrasing the second question would be "Do you think you could prove either way?".

All questions deal with knowledge, and/or whether that knowledge can be shown. Of course, the question of whether it can be proven does not have to be objective. For instance a person who "saw" God in a vision might say that God proved its own existence to them, and that God can do the same to other people.

Other people only accept empirical proof, and would say that for various reasons, God could not be proved either way.

I've gone a bit beyond that; I hold that nothing can be proved absolutely (think the classic brain in the jar scenario). Every proof is rather subjective in my mind, but hey, that's just me.

Anyway, I've drifted, but yes, your questions are a good way of describing the atheist/theist agnostic/gnostic positions to a 13 year old.

Adrian,

I purposely phrased the second question the way I did so as to avoid the question of proof because gnosis does not require proof although proof would probably lead to gnosis. I really don't see how a person could be a gnostic atheist either because gnosis is personal knowledge of god. I see how it can be used, it just seems a silly position to hold.

Fr0d0,

What the hell man? There is no yes option along the proof metric? You serve up some tasty waffles when talking about proof, I've seen you swing in both directions and you have even gone so far as to make a post about evidence for God yet you claim there is no proof.

2. Have you proof?
A. No = gnostic (Butter)
B. No = agnostic (Maple syrup)

Rhizo