[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[Belacqua]

Let's try a different angle, what do you think of an agnostic theist?

I assume you're using the word "agnostic" here to refer to someone who thinks that the true nature of God is not or cannot be known. So an agnostic theist would be someone who believes there is a God (for whatever reason) while acknowledging that we can't know what that God is exactly. 

Is that what you mean? 

Such people are common in the history of Christianity. All the negative and apophatic theologians meet this description. 

Obviously, the way David Mitchell was using the word "agnostic" was different.

[The Grand Nudger]

An agnostic theist is someone who believes in god but doesn't know -that- god is.
-just like an agnostic atheist is a person who doesn't believe in god but doesn't know -that- god isn't.

No knowledge, with belief.
No knowledge, without belief.

The idea that we can't know -what- god is (even if it is)...not just what they know or can know or do or don't know, is ignosticism. We can't know, knowledge is impossible - because the word is either ambiguous or meaningless.

More terms, more clear definitions, each provide additional specificity.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

Yes, as has been pointed out multiple times to you and to prof, the majority of atheists are agnostics.  It's not an either/or scenario.  Not for theists, or deists, or supernaturalists either.  

It's the simple difference between what we believe, and what we know.  If someone asked you what you had for dinner, and you answered "tuesday!" would you spend this much time arguing to those people that you totally did-too answer their question?  The same is true of the question of whether or not a person believes in god.

They either do or they don't, regardless of whether they think that they know a god exists or doesn't, or doubt that the question -of whether god exists- is answerable.

The only interest you appear to have in this discussion is the maintenance of a doa argument that amounts to the claim that I and others like me simply don't exist.  That the vast majority of everyone..believer and non believer alike, simply can't exist.

Now, according to you, atheists will have to clarify their alignment with agnosticism - right??? Something to that effect - right?

Why?

Because "atheism," is inaccurately defined as simply lack of belief.

The inanimate objects can be atheists, but they cannot be agnostic atheists, like most of the atheists here at AF - right? 
And, we are not sure about the agnostic alignment of the plants and animals.

[Mr Greene]

Yes we frequently have to make that clarification because Theists falsely assume we are Gnostic Atheists, and thus making a positive statement.
Are you unfamiliar with the running themes of being an atheist in a theistic culture?

[Mr.wizard]

Let's try a different angle, what do you think of an agnostic theist?

I assume you're using the word "agnostic" here to refer to someone who thinks that the true nature of God is not or cannot be known. So an agnostic theist would be someone who believes there is a God (for whatever reason) while acknowledging that we can't know what that God is exactly. 

Is that what you mean? 

Such people are common in the history of Christianity. All the negative and apophatic theologians meet this description. 

Obviously, the way David Mitchell was using the word "agnostic" was different.

No, an agnostic theist is someone who believes there is a god but acknowledges that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. What god's nature is or what god is, is a separate question all together. You are trying to make Agnosticism synonymous with Atheism, if that were the case then having an agnostic theist would not be possible, because that person would be saying they believe and don't believe in a god at the same time.

[Prof.Lunaphiles]

think there may be an ideological motivation to the view that bicycles and lizards should be called atheist.

Their isn't 

Some people here seem to think that there is a natural and normal way to see the world, and religion is added over this as some kind of distorting overlay. If people weren't indoctrinated, we would all see the world as a good scientist does.

Nope 

I don't think this is correct. Babies are born without beliefs, then they learn explanations for how the world works. They can learn religious explanations, or they can learn scientific ones. Or a mixture. Or they can learn one and later change. Both are taught, and we use the word "indoctrinated" for the one we disapprove of, and "taught" for the one we prefer.

Nope

Calling bicycles and lizards, and all the vast reaches of space where no people are, "atheist" reinforces this interpretation that the natural default condition of the universe is atheism. But it doesn't tell us what really happens in people's minds.

We have never argued that

Just more evidence your atheism is a facade

If there is a litmus test beyond the disbelief of gods, then atheism is bigger than what you think, and is approaching my definition that it is a political doctrine that opposes the use of theist doctrine for the basis of public policy.

[Mr.wizard]

Their isn't Nope NopeWe have never argued that

Just more evidence your atheism is a facade

If there is a litmus test beyond the disbelief of gods, then atheism is bigger than what you think, and is approaching my definition that it is a political doctrine that opposes the use of theist doctrine for the basis of public policy.

No idiot, he is saying he doesn't believe you are really an atheist, he thinks you are a theist posing as an atheist. 

I think you are a POE too.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If there is a litmus test beyond the disbelief of gods, then atheism is bigger than what you think and is approaching my definition that it is a political doctrine that opposes the use of theist doctrine for the basis of public policy.

I never said their was a  litmus test an you be any more dishonest? No it's not bigger .Well then your definition is adding a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with atheism.

[Belacqua]

No, an agnostic theist is someone who believes there is a god but acknowledges that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable.

OK, that's fine. 

 What god's nature is or what god is, is a separate question all together. 

Well, knowing about God's nature would probably include whether it exists or not, but OK. You're talking merely about existence. 

You are trying to make Agnosticism synonymous with Atheism, if that were the case then having an agnostic theist would not be possible, because that person would be saying they believe and don't believe in a god at the same time.

Please stop telling me that I'm a liar, that I'm trying to do something, etc. I don't know how we can talk about these things if you're doing your mind-reading act. 

I am not trying to do anything, other than to say that some people use the word "agnostic" to mean that they don't know, haven't made up their mind, aren't committed. You apparently only want it to be used to mean that the existence of God is unknowable. If you want to use it that way, cool. You can't make everybody obey you, however. 

In the sense you're using the words, agnostic atheism is possible. 

In the sense other people use the words, an agnostic hasn't made up his mind. 

Maybe the world would be a better place if everyone used language the way you do. Prof. Lunaphiles seems to think the world would be better if we used it the way he does. Oh well.

[The Architect Of Fate]

If there is a litmus test beyond the disbelief of gods, then atheism is bigger than what you think, and is approaching my definition that it is a political doctrine that opposes the use of theist doctrine for the basis of public policy.

No idiot, he is saying he doesn't believe you are really an atheist, he thinks you are a theist posing as an atheist. 

I think you are a POE too.

Actually i was referring to Bel .Due to the fact he constantly uses Apologist rhetoric .