Well, I think there is more at work in those terms that do make them 3 distinct positions, and probably opposing. Agnostics would not agree that their position is an opposing one though. I think it is very tempting to slap on relativistic meaning to all of this and therefore everyone's position is "right" for them, but in truth, it ultimately can't work that way.
I think adopted philosophy (world view) comes into play with all of this. What one believes at first (or instructed in, endoctrinated in) may result in the assembling of a philosophical world view, and then from that world view are formed contingent and compatible beliefs. It is a house of cards of sorts that is held in place by the core belief(s).
However, there is a chicken and egg kind of thing that I haven't entirely worked out yet.
For example, an atheist might therefore conclude materialism. Or is it that a materialist might therefore conclude atheism? Or is there something else altogether that both positions are derived from? Regardless, new information is processed through this world view and interpretted in a compatible manner. If enough new information is processed that is incompatible with the world view, then other actions might be in order.
Information >>>> Philosophy >>>> World View >>>> Contingent Belief
Something like that.
Anyway, that is the way I look at those terms. They aren't merely classification labels but rather the result of one's introspection on the matter and how the potential of gods is resolved in a compatible manner with one's world view.
Bookmarks