What does ''agnostic atheist'' mean?

[ArtieE]

Nonsense. Both terms are needed to address the dilemma YOU indicated.

What dilemma?

 

[prometheus11]

What dilemma?

Sorry. Quoted the wrong person. Not you. [emoji106]

 

[prometheus11]

Both terms aren't needed. Belief is expressing a position of adherence, and since that adherence can be formulated from any variety of 'knowing' this or that, or lack of it, it is a different context from when you write ''agnostic'', or ''gnostic''. It's essentially apples and oranges.

Fail.

You just explained why two terms are required.

One refers to belief, the other refers to knowledge.

As YOU STATE "different context...apples and oranges."

We have different terms for apples and oranges and for belief versus knowledge.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sure, you can say anything you want; however, since theism, does not indicate a position of what, how, etc., one considers to 'know' something, it's pretty much irrelevant without further context.

Theism claims to "know" by faith, blind faith, since they can't point to anything but hearsay.

People have different methodology for determining what they ''know'' etc, as well, that is why it is recognized, that for communication purposes, everyone is expressing a belief.

Yeah, whatever else "belief" is, it's something short of knowledge and thus certainty, no matter how certain they may "feel". Feelings are just another word for emotions.

Then if they want, they can argue evidence for said belief /or not/, etc. This is also why 'belief', in the religious context, is not a counterpoint or differential to 'know'.

Are you saying belief isn't different than knowledge?

Both terms aren't needed. Belief is expressing a position of adherence, and since that adherence can be formulated from any variety of 'knowing' this or that, or lack of it, it is a different context from when you write ''agnostic'', or ''gnostic''.

There is only one valid form of knowing (i.e. knowledge), and that's possessing objective, universal Truth. There are subjective truths (justice, love and beauty/art), but knowledge is pure objective Truth, the object of science.

"An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods....

,

True.

....or might have been persuaded by life experiences."

A nebulous, catch-all phrase which means whatever you want it to mean. Knowledge doesn't persuade, it is Truth by definition. And you can't be persuaded to objective Truth, it must be proven to you. If you were persuaded to objective Truth, that only means you removed your biases in order to see the evidence/proof objectively. There is no rational, objective basis to believe the universe came into being spontaneously, but that doesn't stop some ("gnostic") atheists from declaring that it was without evidence/proof.

"Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist."
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm

That's exactly the same as saying theism is a belief in God while being certain that God exists. You're equating belief with certainty. Look at your own second chart, that gets it right.

 

[ArtieE]

That's exactly the same as saying theism is a belief in God while being certain that God exists. You're equating belief with certainty. Look at your own second chart, that gets it right.

I have found a site that formulates the definitions so they should be easier for you to understand.

1. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know whether this is actually true
2. Gnostic-Atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. Agnostic-Theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic-Theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have found a site that formulates the definitions so they should be easier for you to understand.

1. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know whether this is actually true
2. Gnostic-Atheist: believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true
3. Agnostic-Theist: believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true
4. Gnostic-Theist: believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

I agree with that, you keep switching.
I'm done.

 

[ArtieE]

I agree with that, you keep switching.
I'm done.

I'm not switching anything. I'm just trying out different ways of saying the same thing. I'm glad you finally got it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Fail.

You just explained why two terms are required.

One refers to belief, the other refers to knowledge.

As YOU STATE "different context...apples and oranges."

We have different terms for apples and oranges and for belief versus knowledge.

Wrong. the terms are not used for a differential between ''belief and knowledge''. They are apples and oranges, but not because they are 'opposite', or counterpoint, ideas. 'Belief', can be formulated from any type of ''knowledge'', or not. It is not indicating any position on ''knowledge'', at all, as a description of adherence.

 

[prometheus11]

Wrong. the terms are not used for a differential between ''belief and knowledge''. They are apples and oranges, but not because they are 'opposite', or counterpoint, ideas. 'Belief', can be formulated from any type of ''knowledge'', or not. It is not indicating any position on ''knowledge'', at all, as a description of adherence.

Wrong.

They express different idea like the terms apples and oranges refer to two different fruits.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with beliefs.

As to my cat being a dog, I am both "agnostic" and "atheist." I know my cat is not a dog and I believe he is not a dog.

As to him arriving like a fat a55 grey bullet to his food bowl, I am "agnostic" but "theistic." I don't KNOW his fat a55 will come screaming into the room like an ungainly, ugly rocket, but I BELIEVE he will, because somehow his fat a55 can move at near-light speeds when he hears his kibble rattle in the bag.

 

[Willamena]

Wrong.

They express different idea like the terms apples and oranges refer to two different fruits.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with beliefs.

As to my cat being a dog, I am both "agnostic" and "atheist." I know my cat is not a dog and I believe he is not a dog.

As to him arriving like a fat a55 grey bullet to his food bowl, I am "agnostic" but "theistic." I don't KNOW his fat a55 will come screaming into the room like an ungainly, ugly rocket, but I BELIEVE he will, because somehow his fat a55 can move at near-light speeds when he hears his kibble rattle in the bag.

It depends on how you define knowledge. Some define it in terms of belief. For instance, in knowing your dog is not a cat, you also believe that. You could not believe otherwise.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wrong.

They express different idea like the terms apples and oranges refer to two different fruits.

Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with beliefs.

As to my cat being a dog, I am both "agnostic" and "atheist." I know my cat is not a dog and I believe he is not a dog.

As to him arriving like a fat a55 grey bullet to his food bowl, I am "agnostic" but "theistic." I don't KNOW his fat a55 will come screaming into the room like an ungainly, ugly rocket, but I BELIEVE he will, because somehow his fat a55 can move at near-light speeds when he hears his kibble rattle in the bag.

No, the 'belief' part , in theism, is not meaning, or expressing, that one does not think they have ''knowledge'' of said theism. That is what you continually are not understanding. When one says they ''Believe in Jesus'', for example, this can mean, they believe that have no knowledge to inform their belief, or, it could mean that they do believe that they have knowledge to inform their belief; or any variation thereof, and to their parameters, of what they consider 'knowledge', etc. The reason why these terms are apples and oranges, is because they are referencing different concepts, not because they are 'opposites', or counterpoints to another.

 

[prometheus11]

It depends on how you define knowledge. Some define it in terms of belief. For instance, in knowing your dog is not a cat, you also believe that. You could not believe otherwise.

The two terms have different meanings. You might believe my house has a red roof, but until you observed it, you don't know it.

 

[prometheus11]

No, the 'belief' part , in theism, is not meaning, or expressing, that one does not think they have ''knowledge'' of said theism. That is what you continually are not understanding. When one says they ''Believe in Jesus'', for example, this can mean, they believe that have no knowledge to inform their belief, or, it could mean that they do believe that they have knowledge to inform their belief; or any variation thereof, and to their parameters, of what they consider 'knowledge', etc. The reason why these terms are apples and oranges, is because they are referencing different concepts, not because they are 'opposites', or counterpoints to another.

See my post to Wilimena. We have two terms for two different concepts. You can believe anything. What you know is a different thing. Apples and oranges.

 

[Willamena]

The two terms have different meanings. You might believe my house has a red roof, but until you observed it, you don't know it.

But after I know it, I cannot but believe it.

 

[prometheus11]

But after I know it, I cannot but believe it.

And?

If my arm is removed, I can't pick my nose or hold a brush, but that doesn't mean those aren't different actions.

 

[Willamena]

And?

And?

 

[prometheus11]

And?

I edited.

 

[Willamena]

And?

If my arm is removed, I can't pick my nose or hold a brush, but that doesn't mean those aren't different actions.

How do belief and knowledge differ in the case of your red roof? (The amputation analogy eludes me.)

I came over, I saw it with my own two eyes. What changed?

 

[prometheus11]

At one point you believe me, but you don't have direct knowledge. (You might be wrong).

Once you see the roof, you know, instead of merely believing.

 

[Willamena]

How do belief and knowledge differ in the case of your red roof? (The amputation analogy eludes me.)

I came over, I saw it with my own two eyes. What changed?

Okay, I'll tell you the answer. It's not evidence alone, because it was evidence, in the form of gossiping with your neighbours, that lead me to believe your roof was red in the first place. What changed, when I saw your roof with my own eyes, is a truth value. Truth as the evidence of the senses.

For those people with the empiricist bend, for whom the evidences of the senses provide them with the only accurate picture of the real world, belief is just a spring-board for knowledge. It provides a means of formulating a hypothesis, which suggests a test of itself and a probability for investing in the outcome.

For such people, the only difference between belief and knowledge is that degree of probability.