We've been over this and I've explained the use of those terms to you.
We haven't been over how you arrived at your conclusion in OP. Please update that, if you will. I will restate it here so you can speak directly to the point that LEAD TO YOUR CONCLUSION.
The word Gnostic comes from the Greek gnostikos and means to know, and likewise the connotation Agnostic means not to know. Therefore someone who considers themselves to be a Gnostic implies that they are absolutely certain about the subject at hand, while someone who uses the term Agnostic implies that they are not certain. This leads to the conclusion that no-one is just an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject.
The underline part is where I feel, up to now, you are being intellectually dishonest in how you've spun the argument so far.
This implication is on you, not the dictionary. Are you arguing that "absolute certainty" is what gnostic and/or knowledge means? If not, what are you saying about "knowing?" Please spell that out, and if you truly believe you have, please reference that post in this thread. Because, as I am saying, "Gnostic Theist" and (particularly) "Gnostic Atheist" are non-sensical in the way you originally defined the term (implied meaning). If going with what you have since stated, it is more sensible, but not in line with what I think you and most rational atheists believe (about your views). It would be saying, if you are Gnostic Atheist, that you know there is no God or gods. And if that is the case, this goes back to opening argument in OP. Whereby, you are supporting that position. Again, if you feel otherwise, try to walk through it more clearly, because so far, it is nonsensical or irrational. And is akin to claiming one of the points on the scale is "Christian Atheist."
As mentioned I've explained everything relevant to the topic of this tread.
You have not. I have clearly pointed out where you have not and have again provided you opportunity to clarify.
In addition I've refused to take seriously your notions that observed reality is not real as that is a nonsensical and futile argument.
If you call that being intellectually dishonest, then so be it.
So be it. But this is sidepoint to the whole discussion. It is relevant, and need not be brought up, at least initially, while you clarify misconceptions you gave in OP, and hopefully clarify how you arrived at your conclusion. That no one is "just" a gnostic or agnostic. Agnostic appears to coincide, nearly perfectly with 1/2 of your conclusion, and the half that makes remote sense.
Well, if that's what you need to get you through the day, then have at it.
Me, I don't see how I've lost anything here.
You haven't lost anything real (nor can you). But in relative gamesmanship of debate, I believe you have lost. You can still "win." I hope you do. But it will take some mental gymnastics and/or intellectual honesty.
I somewhat wish third party was reading this and would chime in. If they share your bias and can't see anyway in which you 'lost the debate,' then I'm not wanting them to chime in. LOL. But if someone is neither (strong) theist, nor strong (atheist) and they are following along what is being purported, I would like them to chime in. It would greatly surprise me if they didn't reach similar conclusions about where you went drastically wrong in OP and how that has lead to faulty conclusion you arrived at.
Also, my conclusion was explained long time ago.
I see no point in rehashing that.
Your conclusion is: no-one is just an Atheist or a Theist, and similarly that no-one is just an Agnostic or a Gnostic, at least in relation to this subject
How you got there is what I've been debating. But let's say you didn't show how you got there and just started with idea that "no one is just one of these labels." Instead, they are "either an Agnostic Atheist, a Gnostic Atheist, an Agnostic Theist or a Gnostic Theist. The first word implies the certainty with which you hold your position and the second implies the position itself."
Well this too is debatable. Cause the first word you have chosen may imply certainty to you, but is not how dictionary.com uses that word. So, then we are really (really really) back to assertion you made in OP that says:
"On both sides of the fence, this sort of argumentation stems from a misunderstanding of what the words actually mean."
Gnostic and agnostic do not mean certainty or lack of certainty. You feel that is implied. Cool beans. You are on record as saying Gnostic implies absolute certainty, which we've shot down, you've backed off from. The intellectual dishonest part comes up where after that above quote, you said:
"Notice: I am using the Oxford Online English Dictionary for all word definitions. "
Nope.
Nada.
Not all word definitions.
Not the one that has to do with 2/4ths of your concluding assertion.
You are free to go back to dictionary.com (as I already have) and use that to define gnostic as well as agnostic. You will not find "absolute certainty" being mentioned. Try as you might. You also won't really find "certainty." But that implication is there for you. And so, are we not back to:
"On both sides of the fence, this sort of argumentation stems from a misunderstanding of what the words actually mean."
It was only about what certain terms mean.
And then it became about what implication you see in terms, that is not found in the dictionary and dictionary.com.
I can say Christian means compassionate. It is implied in that word. I know it. You know it. We all know it. Therefore "Christian Atheist" is a type of Christian that exists in this world. In fact, it is what all Atheists are, because I've defined the terms clearly and now we all know what being an Atheist means.
...is logic you've employed.
Cool. I got last word.
Feels good.
Take care.
