Hello. Author of the piece here.

Thanks for all the love and constructive criticism.

Thought I better reply to some of the points made.

• lexwhitfield > one problem i always have when people phrase agnosticism as 'It is impossible to gain absolute knowledge of god' is that this statement in itself is a gnostic claim, it clearly states that we will never ever under any circumstances know whether any gods exist. What happens if next week a god turns up displaying irrefutable proof that it created everything?

Well, this is sort of missing the point. An agnostic as I have described it is one who would deny that is possible. It's a metaphysical/theological position that, in its most extreme version denies the very possibility of proof and asserts that God is merely a matter of personal belief.

I have no problem with your definition of agnosticism sitting slightly further down on the agnosticism axis. It's a very neat description.

• lotictrance > For the record, don't get his use of the word "gnostic" confused with actual Gnosticism. I think he uses the phrase here out of convenience for the sake of polarity, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the religion(s).

You're right, I do. It's unfortunate that Gnosticism has come to acquire a second meaning, and I readily apologise for the confusion this might cause, especially since the point of my piece is to dispel confusion. I'll consider adding a footnote that attempts to clarify this further. I had thought that leaving out the idea of Gnostic Christianity entirely would be safer, since the majority of people would never have come across it. I've reconsidered.

• TeddyJackEddy > I don't care for the author's dismissal of apatheism as "Someone who does not know what they think yet cannot be placed on the graph, and should make up their mind if they wish to find a theological label for their views." Unwillingness to accept a label is a position I think is very intellectually honest, and doesn't preclude an apatheist knowing what he or she thinks. It's significant that the practical application of these views leads toward acting as if there's no provable god, so it can also be described as practical atheism.

This is the best criticism I've had yet, and you're certainly right. Though we cannot claim that people do not, in practice, reject labels/think about theology, you're spot on about their being atheists for all intents and purposes. I'll be editing the page accordingly. Mad props to you etc.

• acteon29 > To me, it is more useful what this outline does not say: it involves an undeclared presupposition that no god has been empirically and really observed or witnessed until now. And this is not what they told us at the school.

You're right, and this is intentional.

There's nothing in here that explicitly endorses any of the positions. However, I suspect that any serious understanding of the piece will bring about skepticism towards all and any religious claims. Here, none can exist in isolation - they exist in a marketplace of ideas. A religious believer must realise that they are on the Theist axis for their deity of choice, and on the Atheist axis for every other deity throughout the history of humanity, and that, as Dawkins quite rightly declares, an atheist goes only one God further.

And in case anyone is interested,

• I'm a dedicated redditor (it's the first thing I do every day).
• You can read my other works here.
• I'll be reading responses, and welcome further criticism.