Theos means gods in Greek and was popularized by the ancient Greek poet, Hesiod. He is considered a major source on Greek mythology due to his epic, Theogony, which describes the origins and genealogies of the Greek gods.

Greek gods are collectively called theos, and the term is a Title, not a Personal name.
Each theos had a person name i.e Zeus, Hera, Demeter, Hades, etc.

The transformation of theos into "god" which gave rise to English words like “theism” and “a-theism” can be traced back to the Christian New Testament, which was written in Greek, Theos was used for Yahweh in the book.
Also, The capitalization of "god" to "God" is the work of English orthography, which was dominated by early English-speaking Christians to refer to the God of the Israelites, Yahweh.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(word)#:~:text=The%20English%20word%20god%20comes,got%20(Old%20High%20German).



During ancient Greece, Theism served as the foundational belief system that upheld the legitimacy of the state. It was imperative to worship the gods, particularly those recognized by the state religion.

According to Greek beliefs, gods held dominion over all aspects of human life, encompassing health and disease. Any individual who refused to believe in state-sanctioned deities was charged with a-theism, considered a capital offense, and subsequently faced execution due to their rejection of these gods.


A-theist means "without gods," where the "a" in atheist is "without" and "theist" refers to gods (theos). Thus, an atheist is someone without Theos (Greek gods).

Although, The concept of theos in Greek mythology can be found in other cultures, but like Zeus and other greek theos they are still myths.

Scientists don't attempt to prove or disprove the feats of Zeus in a book called Theogony, so why do some people called “agnostics” wants scientists to prove or disprove the feats of yahweh in a book called Tanakh?

Agnostics are Theist sympathizers, Mostly Monotheist Sympathizers.
If you understand what “god/theos” means then you will know it doesn’t have the ABILITY to exist beyond the pages of the book they were written on.

Triplechoice

We all know that Romans are very religious, and they worship a pantheon of gods. The Greek word, pantheion, comes from pan- (all) and theos (god).

However, everything the Romans know about their gods comes from the Theogony book written by Hesiod, just like everything Christians, Muslims, or Hindus know about their various gods comes from a book.
In essence, what I am saying is that all the feats, characteristics, properties, or powers of any Greek god were given to them by this poet. All the "supernatural" power, omniscience, and omnipresent, etc, are just qualities that a poet was giving to his characters.

Now, you may say that Greek gods are considered mythologies today, but in Ancient Greece, these gods were worshipped as real, and “miracles” were performed in their name. Besides, Zeus and his pantheon have been worshipped more than any modern monotheistic god concept, i.e., Yahweh and Allah.
https://www.theoi.com/Text/HesiodTheogony.html

All mythologies, if you want to sugarcoat it, can also be referred to as "religion."
They all started as a Pantheon. There is no religion creation story that involves only one god creating everything from scratch.

According to Hesiod's book, chaos is the origin of everything - the creation of the universe.
"Verily at the first Chaos came to be,
but next wide-bosomed Earth,
the ever-sure foundation of all."
Chaos then gave birth to the first Greek gods.


The Jewish creation story shares similarities not only with Greek mythology but also with Egyptian, Mesopotamian, cannanites and almost all mythologies.
It involves an earth (not planet Earth) described as "formless and void," darkness, the deep (referred to as the primeval sea), and the spirit of Elohim.

Similarly, in Egyptian texts, four deities are often referred to as "the chaos gods":

Nu, known as the watery one and considered the father of the gods.
Huh, associated with infinity or boundlessness.
Kuk, representing darkness.
Amun, the god of wind, whose name signifies hiddenness.


Read Genesis 1:2-3 In this context.
Nun represents "the deep."
Huh represents "the earth that is formless and void."
Kuk represents "darkness."
Amun represents "spirit" or "wind."

Christians use concepts like "most high" and "almighty," but these terms merely imply a pantheon where their god is considered the highest or mightiest among other gods.

In Greek, "most high" is translated as "Hypsistos," which was used to refer to the head of a pantheon, such as Zeus.
"Almighty" in Greek means "Pantokrator," formed from the words "pan" meaning "all" and "kratos" meaning "strength," "might," or "power."
Yes that Kratos

In Ancient Greece, pankration was an unarmed combat sport introduced into the Greek Olympic Games. It was said that the heroes Heracles and Theseus invented pankration by combining wrestling and boxing in their confrontations with opponents.
The winner of this bloody contest is crowned the pantokrator, the god of war.

When agnostics wants to claim lack of knowledge, they should first learn what “god” means and know if it has the ability to exist beyond the books they were written on, the same way spiderman does not have the ability to exist beyond the comics.

Triplechoice and workch.

There is no religion creation story that involves only one god creating everything from scratch.

The concept of worshipping a thing started when proper burying of humans began, which eventually led to veneration of tumulus and barrows.
For extra references look up history of “wake keeping”.

The ancient Egyptians used the term "netjer" to describe beings known as gods. This term could also be applied to the Egyptian king, certain living animals, and deceased individuals or animals.

There were various ways to attain "netjer" (godship). In addition to the chaos gods mentioned earlier, another way was through rituals. These rituals fell into two categories: those who became netjers while still alive and those who attained netjer status after death.

In the first category were the king of Egypt and certain sacred animals. The second category included beings who underwent a ritual after death, transforming them into netjers. The funerary ritual had the effect of elevating every deceased Egyptian into an "akh,", who received offerings of food and drink from their family members. Particularly significant individuals might gain a prominent cult following after their deaths and receive offerings not only from their family but also from other people.

Theos is to Greek gods, Netjer is to Egyptian gods, Orisa is to Yoruba gods.

Atheism comes from Greek Atheos.
Theism from Theos.
Theos refers to Greek gods.
Theology, Theogony, Theosophy, Theophany, Theokotos etc.

In brief, "theoi" (gods) is ultimately derived from the verb "theo", it could mean or be related to:
-to run
-to shine
-to put, place, set

theos and deus are cognates and mean same thing


Triplechoice and Workch.

https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6379;jsessionid=8EB7459628295D53B10BBFB0839725D4

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/theo

Theogony— is the account of the origin and descent of the gods of Greece describing the beginnings of the universe and a violent pattern of divine intergenerational strife.
Theogony describes events leading to the kingship of Zeus and the reign of associated gods on Mount Olympos (or Olympus), this foundational Greek epic stemmed from myths of the Near East.

The works of Hesiod and Homer are the earliest surviving Greek texts, which means there are no other texts in the language with which to compare them. Moreover, the period of their composition, somewhere between 750 and 650 bce, is the seminal era in which elite societies acquired writing as a cultural resource, beginning to shift out of their status as a wholly oral culture. Around this time, the Greeks experienced increased contact with Semitic peoples in the Levant (eastern Mediterranean region), particularly in Phoenicia (a collection of city-states in today’s Syria and Lebanon). The contact was inspired by trade of goods, but cultural exchange occurred too. Around this time the Greek alphabet, an adaptation of the Phoenician script, first appeared in the form of abcederies (texts that teach the alphabet) and on engraved works of art.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/culture-magazines/theogony-birth-gods

The creation myth in Hesiod has long been held to have Eastern influences, such as the Hittite Song of Kumarbi and the Babylonian Enuma Elis.
As i said earlier, even the Greek alphabet is an adaptation of the Phoenician script.
This cultural crossover occurred in the eighth- and ninth-century.

Triplechoice, do you now know what “greek gods(theos)” mean?


Who are the Phoenicians?
It is essential to emphasize that Phoenicia, in Classical Greek terminology, denoted the region encompassing major Canaanite port towns. The Phoenicians, who lived from the Iron Age through the Roman period in the first millennium B.C.E., were descendants of the Canaanites from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age in the second millennium B.C.E.
While the Greeks referred to them as "Phoenicians," the people themselves identified as Canaanites or used the names of their principal cities.



What’s the connection between Isrealites, Arabs(Abrahamaic Religion) and Cannanites(Phoencians)?

The original pre-Israelite inhabitants were known as Canaanites. Recent DNA analysis of 93 bodies from archaeological sites in the southern Levant, the land of Canaan mentioned in the Bible, reveals that modern populations in the region are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Both most modern Jewish groups and Arabic-speaking groups from the area exhibit at least half of their ancestry as Canaanite.

According to modern archaeological findings, the Israelites and their culture emerged from the Canaanite(Phonecians) peoples and their cultures. This development led to a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centered around the national god Yahweh.

The DNA analysis not only confirms the ancestral connection between the ancient Israelites and the Canaanites but also highlights that the Canaanite people, spread across different city-states in the southern Levant, maintained genetic cohesiveness over a span of 1,500 years.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/jews-and-arabs-descended-from-canaanites/

Mythologies, such as Greek, Jewish, Arab, and Norse, have origins that trace back to the ancient Canaanites.

The term "myth" derives from Ancient Greek μυθολογία (muthología, “legend”) μυθολογέω (muthologéō, “I tell tales”), from μυθολόγος (muthológos, “legend”), from μῦθος (mûthos, “story”) +‎ λέγω (légō, “I say”).

Finnish folklorist Lauri Honko provides a widely-cited explanation of myth as a story of the gods, a religious account of the world's beginning, creation, and significant events. It showcases the exemplary deeds of the gods, leading to the formation of the world, nature, and culture with their respective order, which continues to endure. Myths also serve to express and uphold a society's religious values and norms, offer behavioral patterns to be followed, demonstrate the effectiveness of rituals in achieving practical goals, and establish the sanctity of cult practices.


The unquestioned validity of mythos can be contrasted with logos. The Greek word "logos" means "order," "word," and "reason."
It indicates a rational explanation in contrast to a mythological explanation.

The Stoics developed the notion of logos and conceived it as the principle that gave life and order to all beings in the universe. In their view, logos existed both in the human soul and the universe, and identified justice within the life of a man who lived according to this order of the universe.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Logos


Triplechoice, Workch.

The word “God" is a very dangerous word, especially as understood in the Western world.


"No one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in certain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of his being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. This is not the result of an individual intention, of a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any "ideal man," or "ideal happiness" or "ideal morality" with him, - it is absurd to wish him to be careering towards some sort of purpose. We invented the concept "purpose"; in reality purpose is altogether lacking. One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole, -there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare, and condemn our existence, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing and condemning the whole. But there is nothing outside the whole! The fact that no one shall any longer be made responsible, that the nature of existence may not be traced to a causa prima, that the world is an entity neither as a sensorium nor as a spirit-this alone is the great deliverance, -thus alone is the innocence of Becoming restored…... The concept "God" has been the greatest objection to existence hitherto.... We deny God, we deny responsibility in God: thus alone do we save the world. -" —Nietzsche, Twilight of the
Idols.

In modern usage, the term "pagan" often carries a connotation of ethnocentrism, where any religion outside the mainstream(Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) is labeled as pagan. However, it is essential to recognize that all religions have traditional roots. The word "pagan" seems to imply a negative association with false gods.

Local religions sometimes get defined in contrast to privileged "world religions," portraying them as the opposite of what those world religions represent, rather than appreciating them as independent subjects worthy of exploration.

The label "pagan" is applied to various religious and metaphysical ideas from diverse cultures that differ from the Abrahamic religions. It is crucial to approach these ideas with understanding and respect for their distinct cultural backgrounds.
Besides, Pagan comes from a Latin word paganus, meaning villager, rustic, civilian, and itself comes from a pāgus which refers to a small unit of land in a rural district. It was a demeaning Latin term (like the word hick), that originally lacked a religious significance.
When Christianity came on board in the Roman Empire, those who practiced the old ways came to be called pagans.


It is crucial to stress right from the start that until the 20th century, people did not call themselves pagans to describe the religion they practised. The notion of paganism, as it is generally understood today, was created by the early Christian Church. It was a label that Christians applied to others, one of the antitheses that were central to the process of Christian self-definition. As such, throughout history it was generally used in a derogatory sense. — Owen Davies, Paganism: A Very Short Introduction, 2011.


https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-pagan-120163

Just like our concept of heaven and hell..
Dante Alighieri - Inferno.

kkins25:
Just like our concept of heaven and hell..
Dante Alighieri - Inferno.

The Beatific Vision.

Can someone be agnostic about agnosticism?

Lordreed, workch, triplechoice, Wilgrea7, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix.

Maynman:
Can someone be agnostic about agnosticism?

Lordreed, workch, triplechoice, Wilgrea7, KnownUnknown, Jaephoenix.

Hmmm, that sounds to me like a path to a solipsistic blackhole. If you cannot be certain about your own state of mind how can you ever know anything?

LordReed:


Hmmm, that sounds to me like a path to a solipsistic blackhole.

I think Being agnostic about agnosticism involves holding a skeptical or uncertain view regarding the concept of agnosticism itself.

LordReed:


Hmmm, that sounds to me like a path to a solipsistic blackhole. If you cannot be certain about your own state of mind how can you ever know anything?

So because I'm not certain, I should make something up to fill the gap of knowledge?
Is that not what theists and atheists do?

Workch:
So because I'm not certain, I should make something up to fill the gap of knowledge?
Is that not what theists and atheists do?

There is no filling of “knowledge” in theism.
It deals with beliefs and faith.

Workch:
So because I'm not certain, I should make something up to fill the gap of knowledge?
Is that not what theists and atheists do?

LoLz. Read the question again.

Maynman:

I think Being agnostic about agnosticism involves holding a skeptical or uncertain view regarding the concept of agnosticism itself.

Agnosticism is describing a state of mind is it not?

LordReed:


Agnosticism is describing a state of mind is it not?

That’s right but it’s more like an established position about the nature of knowledge and the limits of human understanding, particularly in matters related to the existence of deities.

Maynman:

That’s right but it’s more like an established position about the nature of knowledge and the limits of human understanding, particularly in matters related to the existence of deities.

Good so a person being agnostic about their agnosticism would be declaring that they don't know thier own state of mind.

LordReed:


Good so a person being agnostic about their agnosticism would be declaring that they don't know thier own state of mind.

I think i worded it wrongly.
What i meant was if someone also questions or critically examines the principles of agnosticism itself.
“Being agnostic about agnosticism”.

Maynman:

I think i worded it wrongly.
What i meant was if someone also questions or critically examines the principles of agnosticism itself.
“Being agnostic about agnosticism”.

Oh ok. In that case I am not sure that it would be a thing since the principles themselves are already steeped in skepticism already. What would be the point of being skeptical about skepticism?

It's difficult for the theist and atheist to understand right off the bat the agnostic neutral stand .

Both struggle to reconcile agnosticism with the extreme position they have both taken on the matter.

And what is the issue under contention?
It's simply this ;

What is responsible for the world we currently live in, or how did it come about?

Creation by a God,gods, chance or what else we cannot even imagine?

Some theists are certain a God or gods are responsible .

Atheists ,who on the other hand, are opposed this, have not come up with any definite answer to this question , but only relying on the arguments put forward by theist to arrive at their own conclusion.

In the midst of this uncertainty and lack of accurate knowledge to answer the question correctly, the agnostic has decided to remain neutral and not say anything until there's enough evidence to be sure .That's it.

And who can tell ? It's possible the world was "created" by "something" we cannot even fathom at this point in time ,and if that's the case , then theists who are insisting on God or gods may be closer to the truth than the rest of us think.

If it's not ,then they are completely wrong.

But how can we know the truth and end all arguments?

It's only when we can begin to investigate it scientifically, but at the moment we are very far from doing so . No enough data to work with or current methods in the sciences may not be suited for such a task.

We are yet to understand much about the world we collectively share ,not to talk of "something" that may be beyond it .

triplechoice:

It's difficult for the theist and atheist to understand right off the bat the agnostic neutral stand .

Both struggle to reconcile agnosticism with the extreme position they have both taken on the matter.

And what is the issue under contention?
It's simply this ;

What is responsible for the world we currently live in, or how did it come about?

Creation by a God,gods, chance or what else we cannot even imagine?

Some theists are certain a God or gods are responsible .

Atheists ,who on the other hand, are opposed this, have not come up with any definite answer to this question , but only relying on the arguments put forward by theist to arrive at their own conclusion.

In the midst of this uncertainty and lack of accurate knowledge to answer the question correctly, the agnostic has decided to remain neutral and not say anything until there's enough evidence to be sure .That's it.

And who can tell ? It's possible the world was "created" by "something" we cannot even fathom at this point in time ,and if that's the case , then theists who are insisting on God or gods may be closer to the truth than the rest of us think.

If it's not ,then they are completely wrong.

But how can we know the truth and end all arguments?

It's only when we can begin to investigate it scientifically, but at the moment we are very far from doing so . No enough data to work with or current methods in the sciences may not be suited for such a task.

We are yet to understand much about the world we collectively share ,not to talk of "something" that may be beyond it .

I don’t think you understand what theism and atheism is.

Whatever is the creator of the world is it a must for it to be termed “god”?

If you want to be neutral about a topic, you should have knowledge on what you are neutral about.
It’s kinda hypocritical.


In Revelation 3:15-16, it says:

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Maynman:

I think i worded it wrongly.
What i meant was if someone also questions or critically examines the principles of agnosticism itself.
“Being agnostic about agnosticism”.

The problem is you dont yet understand it.

How can one be agnostic about agnosticism?

Very funny question

I said so before ,Whenever you get stuck the next thing is to come up with nonsensical arguments or to turn logic on its head to wriggle yourself out .

You just proved me right

LordReed:


Oh ok. In that case I am not sure that it would be a thing since the principles themselves are already steeped in skepticism already. What would be the point of being skeptical about skepticism?

If they say something is unknowable is that not a claim already?
Because if something is unknowable you won’t even know it is unknowable, so putting a name on this “unknowable” already defeats the principle.

triplechoice:


The problem is you dont yet understand it.

How can one be agnostic about agnosticism?

Very funny question

The problem is you don’t understand what “god” mean.

All these are greek words that took religious meaning due to Christianity..

Before, “Agnostic” has nothing to do with religious connotation.

Maynman:

The problem is you don’t understand what “god” mean.

All these are greek words that took religious meaning due to Christianity..

Before, “Agnostic” has nothing to do with religious connotation.

It's not about god, but what is agnosticism.
You don't know that

Focus on the present moment. You mind is stuck in the past

What is god?

Tell ne. I don't know