Despite the agreement among agnostics that there is no definite knowledge of God’s existence, the belief of God’s existence is what sets individual agnostics apart into two sub-groupings: theistic agnostics and atheistic agnostics. There is no such thing as a pure agnostic. Atheism and theism deal with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge, and when these two things are combined, a different religious experience is created. Belief and disbelief without knowledge can be both criticized and lauded, however their existence as the only forms of agnosticism is not a matter of either. While theistic and atheistic agnosticism connect logically to human nature and experiences, pure agnosticism does not, though this is not always clear due to preconceived …show more content…
Though “many people who adopt the label of agnostic assume that, in doing so, they also exclude themselves from the category of theist”, theistic agnosticism is in fact one of only two sects of the view (Cline). Because one who identifies as this this sect believes, they fall under the realm of human capacity. This line of thinking is common in day-to-day life, such as one believing that they have done well on a test without knowing their actual grade. A theistic agnostic may even feel as though there is some evidence of God’s existence but will not know for certain. Unlike a pure agnostic, a theistic agnostic would know which code of right and wrong to follow. Likely one would choose morals, the code of right and wrong that relates to religious practices, teachings and cultures. It would be much easier for this kind of person to make decisions about right and wrong. Also, a theistic agnostic is able to comment on and discuss religion beyond simply stating that they do not know but believe. Because they share a belief aspect with theists, and can relate to atheists through their not knowing, it places them in a situation that is much more open to discussion. Similarly, atheistic agnostics coincide well with human nature to pick a