The "standard model" that I most often see, that we used in university and that most of the current discussion follows, puts theism and gnosticism on different axes.
A "theist" is someone who believes in one or more culturally postulated supernatural beings (to wit, "gods", but also includes anima, ancestor spirits, and other beings of supernatural reverence. "culturally postulated" is meant to exclude ghosts and UFOs and Michael Jackson.)
An "atheist" is an a-theist. A non-theist. One who does not believe in any supernatural beings
A "gnostic" is someone who believes either than the existence of supernatural beings is known or can be known. It really should be split into two words for the two different concepts but nobody ever does, and it rarely lacks for context.
An "agnostic" is a non-gnostic: Someone who believe either that the existence of supernatural beings is unknown, or cannot be known. See also: needs a two-word split.
Your position, then, could be anywhere along the two (or three) axes. Several positions are incoherent and cannot be reached reasonably - theism along with agnosticism, for example, necessarily involves a logical failure, most often special pleading, somewhere along the line.
Anyway. That's the standard model.
My personal position is atheist - I lack belief in any gods - but I reject the entire gnostic/agnostic axis as meaningless along the lines of your statement of ignosticism. The statement "nonbelief in god" is meaningless, and an attempt to repaint nonbelief as a positive statement necessarily leads into the first-year philosophy dropout's "but what if ANYTHING was true, and everything else was arranged to make it LOOK like it wasn't true? What if you're in the MATRIX, man?"
(This is most often formally stated as Chris Carter[1]'s Principle: Given a large enough conspiracy, nothing can be ruled out.)
The question itself *is meaningless*, and treating the question seriously in the first place incorrectly cedes the validity of the concept of "god" as more worthy of consideration than that of werewolves from space.
no subject
The "standard model" that I most often see, that we used in university and that most of the current discussion follows, puts theism and gnosticism on different axes.
A "theist" is someone who believes in one or more culturally postulated supernatural beings (to wit, "gods", but also includes anima, ancestor spirits, and other beings of supernatural reverence. "culturally postulated" is meant to exclude ghosts and UFOs and Michael Jackson.)
An "atheist" is an a-theist. A non-theist. One who does not believe in any supernatural beings
A "gnostic" is someone who believes either than the existence of supernatural beings is known or can be known. It really should be split into two words for the two different concepts but nobody ever does, and it rarely lacks for context.
An "agnostic" is a non-gnostic: Someone who believe either that the existence of supernatural beings is unknown, or cannot be known. See also: needs a two-word split.
Your position, then, could be anywhere along the two (or three) axes. Several positions are incoherent and cannot be reached reasonably - theism along with agnosticism, for example, necessarily involves a logical failure, most often special pleading, somewhere along the line.
Anyway. That's the standard model.
My personal position is atheist - I lack belief in any gods - but I reject the entire gnostic/agnostic axis as meaningless along the lines of your statement of ignosticism. The statement "nonbelief in god" is meaningless, and an attempt to repaint nonbelief as a positive statement necessarily leads into the first-year philosophy dropout's "but what if ANYTHING was true, and everything else was arranged to make it LOOK like it wasn't true? What if you're in the MATRIX, man?"
(This is most often formally stated as Chris Carter[1]'s Principle: Given a large enough conspiracy, nothing can be ruled out.)
The question itself *is meaningless*, and treating the question seriously in the first place incorrectly cedes the validity of the concept of "god" as more worthy of consideration than that of werewolves from space.
[1]: Creator of The X Files.