A Wild Elles Appeared!

[fr0d0]

Welcome Elles

Atheist technically gnostic atheist apart from some logically false definitions flying around

[Edwardo Piet]

If you aren't gnostic about it... then you're not gnostic...right???

Did I miss a meeting fr0d0??????

EvF

[Tiberius]

Down fellas, she's a TEENager. Not of legal consent. Jailbait.

Actually, she's legal in her state, as well as in my country. We worked this out over many skype calls.

[fr0d0]

If you aren't gnostic about it... then you're not gnostic...right???

Did I miss a meeting fr0d0??????

EvF

Yes sorry I shouldda linked it...

Starting here (I think)

"4. Gnostic (Strong) Atheists:
Those who view the world (a) as though God does not exist, and argue that his non-existence (b) can be conclusively established.

* NOTE: "Conclusively" here is meant in a logical sense, not an absolute sense. Something is proven conclusively in the logical sense when the argument is formally valid and coherent, with premises that are more probable than their denials. "Certainty" was too equivocal a term to bother with, and impossible to subdivide in a non-arbitrary way (e.g., what substantive difference is there between one who is 98% and another who is 100% certain)."


and from here:

"because a "conclusive" argument is not necessarily one that is somehow universally convincing. Rather, to establish something conclusively is to adequately settle the question. If someone holds that theistic arguments don't adequately settle the question (i.e., not conclusive), then they belong to the agnostic theist category."

[Tiberius]

And we've explained to you why you are talking complete bullshit. You said:

No one can 'know' so it doesn't work.

but this contradicts what you later said:

You are all gnostic atheists and I'm a gnostic theist. We have conclusively established existence or non existence.

If no one can know, then we are agnostic. If we can know, we are gnostic. That no-one can know is your opinion, and thus exposes you as an agnostic. It isn't about whether we can know or not (just as belief in god doesn't take into account whether it actually exists or not), it's about whether we think it can be known. People who claim to have knowledge of God may just be delusional, but if they argue that they know, they are gnostic.

None of us here have conclusively established non-existence. That would be proving a negative for me, something I don't think can be done. I'm fully aware my beliefs may be wrong, and that God may in fact exist.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Welcome to the forum Elles,

Kyu

[fr0d0]

And we've explained to you why you are talking complete bullshit. You said:

No one can 'know' so it doesn't work.

but this contradicts what you later said:

You are all gnostic atheists and I'm a gnostic theist. We have conclusively established existence or non existence.

If no one can know, then we are agnostic. If we can know, we are gnostic. That no-one can know is your opinion, and thus exposes you as an agnostic. It isn't about whether we can know or not (just as belief in god doesn't take into account whether it actually exists or not), it's about whether we think it can be known. People who claim to have knowledge of God may just be delusional, but if they argue that they know, they are gnostic.

None of us here have conclusively established non-existence. That would be proving a negative for me, something I don't think can be done. I'm fully aware my beliefs may be wrong, and that God may in fact exist.

Slow down cowboy! No one explained to me why they think I'm talking total bullshit. For a start - this is Arcanus's point, and not mine. I considered it and agreed he was right... therefore: Of course you can find opposing statements of mine!

Like a few others have pointed out to you, your choice of the word 'certain' is too innacurate. The scale Dawkins uses is illogical because it contains first and last logical fallacies. Christians, like Arcanus has suggested, can be gnostic yet consistently do not claim empirical proof. This contradicts your statement. Arcanus's suggestion is perfectly right. Both Atheists and Theists have conclusively established (go read Arcanus's explanation of the logic linked above) the non existence and existence of God. No need for a jelly livered agnostic stance. You are an gnostic atheist.

[Rhizomorph13]

Welcome Elles

Atheist technically gnostic atheist apart from some logically false definitions flying around

This is pure jackassery. It is for Elles to classify Elles.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

It's not changing the classification.. just the label

[Rhizomorph13]

It's not changing the classification.. just the label

Oh in that case... NOPE still jackassery. Labels are used to classify so if I were to say I was agnostic and you tell me I am gnostic that changes the classification.

I bet you have reasoning to the opposite that you just can't quite put into words...

Rhizo