(August 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm)Locke Wrote: Again, you're doing extra. Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and Theist encompasses everything necessary. There is no need to insert sub-categories.
The sub-categorization comes from the false dichotomy that faith and knowledge are in opposition to each other, when in reality they compliment one another. Faith is the confidence we have in something (be it God, or otherwise) that comes from a knowledge of that thing. As knowledge increases, evidence emerges and either increases or decreases faith in that subject. If it increases faith, then faith in turn motivates us to seek out more knowledge.

The extra is necessary for such a nuanced position. We use the extra labels to demonstrate that nuance.

No one said that knowledge and faith must be wholly separate. That is why someone who is agnostic(does not take a position of certainty) can be an atheist or a theist. Also, you are equating knowledge, body of information possessed, with knowledge, knowing your beliefs are correct based on the body of information possessed. The latter is what the agnostic/gnostic variable describes. One can have all of the faith in the world but still not take the position that one knows their beliefs are correct.

(August 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm)Locke Wrote: If you see someone with faith blatently denying the facts, then what you are witnessing is not faith, but ignorance.
And ignorance is, after all, the opposite of knowledge.

I agree, the denial of facts is not faith. Faith is a conclusion derived from evidence that does not conclusively support it. When one derives certainty from faith, that makes them gnostic. Otherwise, they are agnostic.

(August 8, 2013 at 11:27 am)Locke Wrote: In that case an agnostic atheist is exactly the same as an agnostic - you simply added an extra category. As far as division of belief I don't see the point. If you're classsfying Atheist as a social group I guess its necessary, but thats not really helping answer the question. The word 'Atheist' comes from the Greek a- not, and theos- God. It is the belief that there is no God. This isn't complicated stuff..

Gad, this is going to be tough. Okay then, by your definitions many of us here are agnostics. But how shall we answer the question of whether we believe in gods/God? If we find we have no belief in gods, what would you like to call that? Don't say agnostic because that is a term referencing knowledge, and we've already copped to that. Now we're addressing the question of belief in gods. Most of us find we have none (though some agnostics do believe in God) so what term would you like to employ to signify that if not "atheist"?

(August 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 10:50 am)bennyboy Wrote: And remember, Locke, my beagle is an atheist, too, because he lacks a belief in any God/gods. Thank God for that, because if God is real, poor Victor is going to hell for what he was doing to my pillow this morning!

Actually, the suffix (-ist) denotes a person. Plus, everyone knows that all dogs go to heaven anyway.

---

-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

Dictionary.com

"atheist" is actually a ternary form, and is ambiguous: a + the(os) + ist

1) a + theist (not a person who ascribes to the idea of "God")
2) athe(os) + ist (one who ascribes to the idea of "not God")

(1) is often referred to as soft atheism, and (2) as hard atheism. Most atheists these days, I think, are soft atheists, because why bother trying to prove a negative position when it's easier to make the guy telling fairy tales take the BOP?

(August 8, 2013 at 2:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Actually, the suffix (-ist) denotes a person. Plus, everyone knows that all dogs go to heaven anyway.

---

-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

Dictionary.com

"atheist" is actually a ternary form, and is ambiguous: a + the(os) + ist

1) a + theist (not a person who ascribes to the idea of "God")
2) athe(os) + ist (one who ascribes to the idea of "not God")

(1) is often referred to as soft atheism, and (2) as hard atheism. Most atheists these days, I think, are soft atheists, because why bother trying to prove a negative position when it's easier to make the guy telling fairy tales take the BOP?

Bless your heart for trying, but It doesn't matter how you slice these terms. This person is convinced that their understanding of Atheism prevents our opinions of Theistic propositions from being valid, and does not appear interested in learning about our ACTUAL position. Whateverist posed the perfect question. Until it is answered, we cannot know how to proceed.

(August 8, 2013 at 2:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Actually, the suffix (-ist) denotes a person. Plus, everyone knows that all dogs go to heaven anyway.

---

-ist
a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

Dictionary.com

"atheist" is actually a ternary form, and is ambiguous: a + the(os) + ist

1) a + theist (not a person who ascribes to the idea of "God")
2) athe(os) + ist (one who ascribes to the idea of "not God")

(1) is often referred to as soft atheism, and (2) as hard atheism. Most atheists these days, I think, are soft atheists, because why bother trying to prove a negative position when it's easier to make the guy telling fairy tales take the BOP?

I don't understand why they get the "Bind on Pickup" item . What if I need it more?

I'm beginning to think Locke would rather attack the position no one here wants to defend. Oh well, I'm still an atheist in regard to the belief question whether he chooses to believe it or not. Seems kind of young to me. Think I'll leave him to marinate on it a while. Go get that windmill, Locke! No one who professes to know what the hell a god is and refuses to believe in them anyway can stand before your logic.

Hmmm .. wonder if I need to really think about whether I'm just confirming what I believe, attacking poor Locke's position or really, really, really out to know the truth? I'd like to think I was after the truth but the truth about gods isn't the sort of truth that tempts me. I prefer to understand things I actually experience or ponder things which are at least properly defined. Gods don't qualify.

(August 8, 2013 at 4:23 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 4:22 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The evidence is already there.

Simply stating it and believing it with all your heart does not make it thus.

Well stating that the bible exists might not be true to you.

And then stating that nothing around you exists either might also be true.

Certainly no one is asking you to believe anything without proof, so kudos to you for your vigilance

Frodo, to you, God is real, in the sense that you can utter the word and buy into the concept. Because you are willing to accept this on an assumption, you feel comfortable pointing at anything that you think to be beyond human understanding, and attributing it to the God that quenches your ignorance. Your idea of what constitutes as evidence for the question-Does God exist?- seems to be evidence better suited for hypothetical conjecture such as-If God exists then (blank)-Then you begin to jam (blank) with everything you're personally ok with believing. That is not evidence. You have to prove a God first, then you can take on the burden of ascribing it attributes. You're continuously putting the cart before the horse.

(August 8, 2013 at 1:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm)Locke Wrote: Again, you're doing extra. Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and Theist encompasses everything necessary. There is no need to insert sub-categories.
The sub-categorization comes from the false dichotomy that faith and knowledge are in opposition to each other, when in reality they compliment one another. Faith is the confidence we have in something (be it God, or otherwise) that comes from a knowledge of that thing. As knowledge increases, evidence emerges and either increases or decreases faith in that subject. If it increases faith, then faith in turn motivates us to seek out more knowledge.

The extra is necessary for such a nuanced position. We use the extra labels to demonstrate that nuance.

No one said that knowledge and faith must be wholly separate. That is why someone who is agnostic(does not take a position of certainty) can be an atheist or a theist. Also, you are equating knowledge, body of information possessed, with knowledge, knowing your beliefs are correct based on the body of information possessed. The latter is what the agnostic/gnostic variable describes. One can have all of the faith in the world but still not take the position that one knows their beliefs are correct.

(August 8, 2013 at 12:53 pm)Locke Wrote: If you see someone with faith blatently denying the facts, then what you are witnessing is not faith, but ignorance.
And ignorance is, after all, the opposite of knowledge.

I agree, the denial of facts is not faith. Faith is a conclusion derived from evidence that does not conclusively support it. When one derives certainty from faith, that makes them gnostic. Otherwise, they are agnostic.

Wow dude.. That was a seriously good explanation. Thanks, it makes more sense to me now. So I think I understand the necessity for the extra categories, I just want to clarify and make sure I've got it right (I want to have an active understanding of it):

Gnostic Theists - Believe in God and have knowledge (or claim to have knowledge) to back it up

Agnostic Theists - Believe in God without any knowledge of God

Gnostic Agnostics - Believe God cannot be proven, and have knowledge (or claim to have knowledge) to back it up

Agnostic Agnostics - Just have no idea

Gnostic Atheists - Believe God does not exist, and have knowledge (or claim to have knowledge) to back it up

Agnostic Atheists - Believe God does not exist, without any knowledge of God

Granted, I also agree with ITChick that it probly doesn't matter that much in the end, since anyone can claim to have knowledge, and grouping people doesn't accomplish too much.. But certainly good to know.