Most people here, such as me, are acting like idiots (Note how I included myself). In our current society, we should have enough understanding of our differences that we are capable to get along. But instead, we babble on without regard of what is actually important. There are greater matters to attend to than religion. Surely we can just accept that we have differing opinions and move on? It's not like in our current day and age that religion plays a great role in our lives (for most of us). If you feel like choosing a "side", then do so. It is none of my business, or anyone else's. In a world where freedom of speech is thought to exist, we should not have to badger one another over whom's opinion is dominant.
Agnosticism is essentially the logical standpoint of ''I think it's silly to rule out the possibility of a god existing/not existing (delete as appropriate)''. It applies to all religions. If you believe in one god and not another form of god, that doesn't make you an atheist, you've just made an affirmed choice as to which god you think is real. You'd just be an agnostic theist.
Gnostic is claiming knowledge of spiritual things. Agnostic (using the same prefix here as atheist) is the opposite, claiming not to have such knowledge. So you could be gnostic or agnostic depending on which spiritual matter it is. Unlike belief where atheism deals with no belief and theism deals with some form of belief.
However, even theories such as what you are talking about that can still be taken down by other theories and hypotheses.
Yes that's how the process works. it's not so much the theory being taken down is wrong but rather a truer theory that more precisely explains things is put in it's place.
The theory is we can count to three let's test it, 1 2 3. It holds true. But now we have new evidence fractions. So again can we try to count to three 1.01 1.02 1.03... No we can't, so the new theory replacing the old states we can't. But we can't just throw out a supported theory so we need to refine it what we have. Well 1 2 and 3 aren't fractions so the the new theory states counting whole numbers you can count to three but counting fractions you can't.
It's not that our first theory (you can count to three) was wrong. It's just our third theory was truer.
Scientific laws are phenomenon that can be proven and shown beyond a shadow of doubt.
Thinking about it on the gnostic/agnostic point, let me see if I can explain. I will use DeistPaladin, Ray Comfort, and myself as examples.
Now Deist claims that God created the universe then just stepped back and left it alone. He makes no claim of having knowledge of this god he believes in. As such he is a agnostic theist, no knowledge of this god but believes in it. But he claims knowledge of the Christian god. So when it comes to that God he is a gnostic theist, claiming knowledge but still holds some form of belief.
Mr.Comfort claims to know the God he believes in. So he is a gnostic theist. Though I doubt he has any knowledge of the God Deist believes in and doesn't believe in that god, but still hold a belief in his own. So to Deists god Mr.Comfort is an agnostic theist.
I don't claim to believe there is a god and I have no idea what Deists god is like. So to that god I am an agnostic atheist. But I do claim to have knowledge of the Christian god, but I still think it's fantasy. So to Mr.Comfort's God I am a gnostic atheist. Saying I could possibly be wrong about X god not being real doesn't change that I have knowledge or lack of knowledge of that god any.
This is a debate fourm, not school were everyone has to get along. If you don't know by now I am an Atheist but I work with people that are Christians and we get along just fine because we usually don't talk about it at work. There is a time and a place to talk about something.
For instance one could be a gnostic atheist about the Christian god and an agnostic atheist about the deistic god.
If you don't believe in the existence of any god you are an atheist. If you believe in a deistic god, then you cannot be an atheist. By that logic muslims are atheists because they don't believe in jesus. Patently untrue.
If you don't believe in the existence of any god you are an atheist. If you believe in a deistic god, then you cannot be an atheist.
I didn't say someone who believes in the deistic god was an atheist. That would be a theist. As I said gnostic and agnostic doesn't deal with belief but the knowledge of such things. You can have knowledge of a specific god/s and still believe them to be real or not real.
Believe in a god= theist Don't believe in a god= atheist have knowledge of X god= gnostic have no knowledge of X god= agnostic
Clear enough?
Well, There are believers, non-believers, and the others in the middle.
As I've been trying to get across this is a something of a false dichotomy. Agnostic has no place in the belief column because it doesn't deal with belief.
The only answer a theist can to "do you believe there is a god/s" is yes. Otherwise your not claiming a belief in a god/s which would mean you are without a belief, saying "I don't know" isn't belief in a god/s i.e. atheist.
I didn't say someone who believes in the deistic god was an atheist.
Let me just clarify, and go back through your posts:
I don't claim to believe there is a god and I have no idea what Deists god is like. So to that god I am an agnostic atheist. But I do claim to have knowledge of the Christian god, but I still think it's fantasy. So to Mr.Comfort's God I am a gnostic atheist. Saying I could possibly be wrong about X god not being real doesn't change that I have knowledge or lack of knowledge of that god any.
This is an untenable position to take with regards to your earlier statement:
For instance one could be a gnostic atheist about the Christian god and an agnostic atheist about the deistic god.
And here's why.
1) Gnosticism depends on knowledge of spiritual matter. This is simply irreconcilable with the definition of the term knowledge. Really an epestomologist would be handy here, but claiming knowledge of the Abrahamic god and but pleading ignorance about a deistic god simply doesn't make sense, since acquiring true 'knowledge' as far as the definition is concerned is impossible.
2) If you claim knowledge of the Christian god, you automatically deny the existence of a deistic god. You cannot believe in one, but keep your options open about the other. You are simply a gnostic theist. Gnostic deism implies a positive assertion of the existence of a desitic god. However even for plain theists, let alone gnostic theists who claim actual knowledge of a Christian god, to believe in any other god than the Abrahamic one as depicted in the Christian Bible is simply logically unnacetpable. If you claim to have knowledge of the Christian god, there is no room for, ''I could be wrong, some free flowing subjective notion of god is also possible''. If you have knowledge, there is no reason for doubt.
Clear enough?
Not really. In fact, I'm even less convinced that before. I don't deny the existence of these belief systems, but I reject your view that they are interchangeable depending on the type of god.
2) If you claim knowledge of the Christian god, you automatically deny the existence of a deistic god.
I know the parameters that define the Abarhamic God. But beyond "he did it and walked away" I have no definitive parameter of what the Deistic god is like. So I can claim knowledge of the Abarhamic God but not the deistic one because they are different concepts of what god is. It's like claiming knowledge of Zeus but not Ra or Odin, there different concepts. So based on the parameters that define what that god is I can claim to have or not have knowledge of that specific god.
So I can claim knowledge of the Abarhamic God but not the deistic one because they are different concepts of what god is.
If you claim knowledge of the Christian god, you would believe in the Christian god and reject the notion of a deistic god. How can you reconcile using an objective concept of god like Jesus and a free flowing subjective concept of god as found in deism?
If you claim knowledge of the Christian god, you would believe in the Christian god and reject the notion of a deistic god.
Not necessarily. For example I know what Vulcans are. They have pointed ears, green blood, a second inner eyelid, repress there emotions in favor of logic, and come from the planet also named Vulcan, but I don't believe they're real. So even though I claim knowledge of Vulcans I don't claim belief in them.
I can do the same thing with the Christian God. I claim to know what the god is suppose to be capable of, what the claims state he has done, how this god behaves and I can compare this information to facts of reality and determine if this god is probable or not. I have determined this god not to be a probable one as such I don't believe he exists. The deistic god on the other hand all I know of this god is he kick started the universe and left it alone. So I have no knowledge of this god beyond that. Based on our current track record on god did X then finding out if god did X he wasn't needed for X to happen. I find it likely that there is no god. However I don't completely rule out the possibility.
How can you reconcile using an objective concept of god like Jesus and a free flowing subjective concept of god as found in deism?
I was using the deistic god for a comparison since that god by definition is not knowable.
Not necessarily. For example I know what Vulcans are. They have pointed ears, green blood, a second inner eyelid, repress there emotions in favor of logic, and come from the planet also named Vulcan, but I don't believe they're real. So even though I claim knowledge of Vulcans I don't claim belief in them.
That's where your definition of knowledge is flawed, especially in this philosophical context. If we take the Platonic view, knowledge must be justified, true and believed. Claiming knowledge in a Christian god rules out knowledge in any other form of god. If your belief in jesus is justified and true in your eyes, that means you've looked at the archaeological evidence, studied the bible and found it to be concurrent with reality. If this process of study leads you to believe in jesus then you are a gnostic theist.
If you claim to be a gnostic theist, that's all you are. You cannot maintain another claim of knowledge by those parameters, since as in your Vulcan example, it would be patently untrue, or as for any other deity like Ra or Odin, you would not believe it, or for a deistic god, it would not be justified since there is nothing to justify it.
That's where your definition of knowledge is flawed, especially in this philosophical context. If we take the Platonic view, knowledge must be justified, true and believed.
Here is the definitions from two sources now point to me where it says something has to be believed to have knowledge of it. It does say in some definitions it has to be true but I can have true knowledge of fictional things because that is how that fictional thing is defined.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge "1 obsolete : cognizance 2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge> 3 archaic : sexual intercourse 4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge "1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things. 2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job. 3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature. 4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension. 5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune. 6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities. 7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time. 8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited. 9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge."
It does say in some definitions it has to be true but I can have true knowledge of fictional things because that is how that fictional thing is defined.
In the context of atheism and agnosticism, that concept of knowledge doesn't apply, since the very fact it is fictional would indicate you do not believe in it, one of the main criteria for knowledge, and the key criterion for whether or not you believe in something. Why would you believe in a god you knew was fictional, much less claim knowledge on it?
In the context of atheism and agnosticism, that concept of knowledge doesn't apply,
The concept of knowledge doesn't apply to atheism and theism, it does apply to agnosticism.
Why would you believe in a god you knew was fictional, much less claim knowledge on it?
I wouldn't believe in a god I believed to be fictional but I can claim knowledge of that god in the same way I can claim knowledge of any other fictional being.
