I've thought about this for a while, so I thought I'd see what y'all think about my circuitous manner of thought.
OK, so an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power of some sort (god, if you will), and an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but not in the religious (theocratic) definition/pursuit of it. So, already we have a problem. The agnostic is actually anti-theocratic, but is not considered to be atheistic.
Further, since a gnostic is one who has knowledge of spirituality that is not religious in nature, but actually "logical/thinking" in nature (not intended to be a diss), an agnostic should have knowledge of spirituality that is religious in nature, but the agnostic does not believe in religious pursuits.
So, who the hell defines these things, and has anyone else bothered to think about this stuff?
OK, so an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a higher power of some sort (god, if you will), and an agnostic is someone who believes in a higher power but not in the religious (theocratic) definition/pursuit of it. So, already we have a problem. The agnostic is actually anti-theocratic, but is not considered to be atheistic.
Further, since a gnostic is one who has knowledge of spirituality that is not religious in nature, but actually "logical/thinking" in nature (not intended to be a diss), an agnostic should have knowledge of spirituality that is religious in nature, but the agnostic does not believe in religious pursuits.
So, who the hell defines these things, and has anyone else bothered to think about this stuff?