Defining Religious Positions

In reply to Cameron's post To Those Who Say I'll Burn In Hell:


Theism, deism, atheism and agnosticism are descriptions of beliefs; rationalism is only supposed to describe how someone tries to form those beliefs ie not by faith alone. This means that while many rationalists are also atheist or agnostic, there are also Christians who claim to be rationalists (eg Jesuits). I know a rationalist athiest who was quite happy to publicly debate a rationalist Catholic because they were debating on the same terms ie evidence etc.

As for the athiest vs agnostic position, sometimes it comes down to what one believes "for all intents and purposes" eg Bertrand Russell used both terms:


As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.


I, too, use both terms when I think them more appropriate but tend to use "athiest" more often because there is a preponderance of evidence against the existence of gods and I like to give that some weight -- to use the term "agnostic" suggests to some people that the evidence is equal both ways, which is not what I believe. I think many Christians would agree when it's the Homeric gods that are being questioned ie they are (for all intents and purposes) athiests about those gods, not agnostic.