I've got a little semantic point of contention that I'm gonna address to try and avoid confusion for folks:
Here's the usages for such words as I'm familiar with:Theist
: An individual with a positive belief
in a (certain) god or gods.Atheist
: An individual without
a positive belief
in a (certain) god or gods.Gnostic
: An individual with knowledge
in regards to a proposition (someone who knows
whether the proposition is true or false).Agnostic
: An individual without knowledge
in regards to a proposition (someone who does not know
whether the proposition is true or false).
Now, in most circles where there are debates or discussions on the topic of various beliefs (organized religion, spiritualism, etcetera), those four definitions I've put are the most common usages
of those words. Now, all these words have different usages depending on context, and I'm a little puzzled with the context you used for Agnostic
(and thus rather disagree with your definitions). As for Gnostic however, no disagreement there, as long as folks recognize you're employing a different usage
than the more commonly used term:
Gnostic is from the Ancient Greek "γνωστικός gnostikos" which means "having knowledge", which is from γνῶσις gnōsis, simply meaning "knowledge".
So what I'm trying to get at here is: you seem to be using the Ancient Greek translation for Atheist (does not believe in a god or gods)
, your definition for Agnostic is a bit questionable, and your definition for Gnostic is stepping away from the Ancient Greek meaning of the word, instead using in it's Ancient Religions context
. It's sort of like reading this:
Hot - Having a high degree of heat.
Warm - Of or at a fairly or comfortably high temperature.
Cool - Fashionably attractive or impressive.
Hope that makes a bit of sense. Otherwise, here's my semantic disagreement with your definitions.
An Agnostic, is a non-believer in the existence of God (but does believe in the existance of Satan)
Immediately the assumption has been made that an Agnostic is only used in relation to the Abrahamic religions, because not all religions feature Satan, thus making this definition of Agnostic very limited in scope (when its literal definition has a much wider and useful usage, "someone without absolute knowledge
An Atheist, does not believe in God or any other gods, but does believe in all things Scientific
First part agreeable, second part questionable. An Atheist is simply
, nothing more[/b], than someone who [i]does not believe in a god or gods
. An Atheist does not
need to "believe in all things Scientific
," in fact there are Atheists in the world today who are Evolution deniers
, which contradicts your definition. An Atheist is only
someone who does not believe in a god or gods. That's it!
Gnostic is a Gaelic Term (meaning all things mystical and spiritual), they believe in God as a Creator and may from time to time believe well almost anything, if it seems spiritual [...]
Looks good to me, until I looked it up and found some other descriptions on what Gnosticism is:
According to Google Definitions:
Gnosticism: a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.
Due to this much older origin of Gnosticism (though again, as the word translation I provided at the beginning was Ancient Greek, it makes sense this definition of Gnosticism is old), I'm puzzled with your use of "Gaelic" in describing Gnosticism, as Gaelic is of or relating to the Goidelic languages, particularly the Celtic language of Scotland, and the culture associated with speakers of these languages and their descendants (thanks again Google).
With all that typed, I don't know if it offers any insight into how much value certain goofballs like me place on accurate definitions and usages--but it's important stuff! The worst thing to do is take a word that already exists, and use it in a different context to the definitions and usages that have been used by the majority of others, because it muddles communication terribly.
As for the topic at hand, and the Wikipedia page you linked, I can quote from it directly:
Wikipedia, "Hollow Earth" Page:
"The scientific community has dismissed the notion since at least the late 18th century."
Sooo, until or unless some new evidence shows up that suggests a Hollow Earth is actually real, and demands renewed investigation, I'm gonna offer a tentative agnostic reply: "sounds like bullshit to me!"