But as I said previously: "unlikely" (regardless to which degree) and "proven false" are two different things.
Proof exists in math and in alcohol. Don't expect it anywhere else.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But as I said previously: "unlikely" (regardless to which degree) and "proven false" are two different things.
Which of those definitions did you have in mind?
- The first one wouldn't make sense in the context you used the term.
- The second refers to the Gnostics in a figurative sense.
- The third refers to the Gnostics in a literal sense.
The only people who use the phrase "gnostic atheist" are a small subset of internet atheists. You're trying to force a change in language, but it's just not taking.The second one: possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
A gnostic theist believes they have knowledge. An agnostic theist holds the position that they can't have absolute knowledge.
The only people who use the phrase "gnostic atheist" are a small subset of internet atheists. You're trying to force a change in language, but it's just not taking.
Oh, that has issues, too. For starters, why would an atheist who doesn't believe in any gods at all frame atheism in terms of their attitudes toward a single monotheistic god-concept?Language is always changing. In any case, stop quibbling over the words I am using and pay more attention to the MEANING of the words.
Why would I replace invented terms that you're trying to shoehorn into the language with new invented terms?You don't like the word "gnostic" used in this sentence? Find. Please feel free to substitute the words Flugely and non-flugely.
A flugely atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God and also holds that they can KNOW that God does not exist.
A non-Flugely atheist lacks belief in God, but does not claim to know for certain.
Is that better?
Dude... this tangent is on you. I said that I didn't like something that you're doing, and you couldn't let that just sit.Maybe now you can stop quibbling over wordplay and get to the point.
Oh, that has issues, too. For starters, why would an atheist who doesn't believe in any gods at all frame atheism in terms of their attitudes toward a single monotheistic god-concept?
Why would I replace invented terms that you're trying to shoehorn into the language with new invented terms?
Dude... this tangent is on you. I said that I didn't like something that you're doing, and you couldn't let that just sit.
The first time? The second sentence of your first post in the thread:At what point did I say my position only applied to monotheistic god concepts?
"God," not "gods," and "God" with a capital G, not the general "god."The scale goes from Atheist to Theist, where atheist is having no belief in God and theist is having a belief in God.
I never said that you can't use the term the way you are; I just pointed out the agenda behind it and that your usage isn't accepted - or even understood - beyond a narrow subset of internet atheists.Because you were whining about the previous terms and saying they already had meanings that you claimed meant they couldn't be applied in the way I was using them. So I came up with different words so your complaint WOULDN'T apply, and yet you're still complaining!
Yes. I was venting.So your point was just to complain, was it?
The first time? The second sentence of your first post in the thread:
"God," not "gods," and "God" with a capital G, not the general "god."
Also the idea of a single scale with "theist" at one end and "atheist" at the other is incoherent with multiple gods.
I never said that you can't use the term the way you are; I just pointed out the agenda behind it and that your usage isn't accepted - or even understood - beyond a narrow subset of internet atheists.
Every subculture has its jargon and shibboleths, so if you want to use terms that aren't widely understood, go right ahead... but assuming that the wider world will understand and agree with the way your subculture's special turns of phrase just shows a lack of self-awareness.
Yes. I was venting.
Edit: and also making it known that the usage isn't universally accepted, even among atheists.
The first time? The second sentence of your first post in the thread:
"God," not "gods," and "God" with a capital G, not the general "god."
Also the idea of a single scale with "theist" at one end and "atheist" at the other is incoherent with multiple gods.
I never said that you can't use the term the way you are; I just pointed out the agenda behind it and that your usage isn't accepted - or even understood - beyond a narrow subset of internet atheists.
Every subculture has its jargon and shibboleths, so if you want to use terms that aren't widely understood, go right ahead... but assuming that the wider world will understand and agree with your subculture's special turns of phrase just shows a lack of self-awareness.
Yes. I was venting.
Edit: and also making it known that the usage isn't universally accepted, even among atheists.