RE: Agnosticism Vs. Atheism
December 17, 2009 at 10:21 pm
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2009 at 10:39 pm by fr0d0.)
Well that's an unfounded definition of Gnosticism. I know what Agnosticism is, invented by Huxley. What is a "Gnostic theist"? ...is it a slight on the theist saying that "this fool is asserting absolute knowledge of existence" when this is never the case? If you study Ray Comfort accurately (*shudders at the thought*) you'll find that he never asserts absolute knowledge of God's existence only as is classically Christian (as you've said on your blog): asserting confidence through faith - a very different thing.
Whether it is your intention or not, I think it's entirely unclear and weak. It's weak language. You are an Agnostic and an Atheist. You are not an agnostic Atheist. An "English Atheist" would attract some connotations I wouldn't doubt ... I might think of the secular influence as opposed to an American Atheist who'd have superficially non secular influence (*unintentionally throws rocks around*
) for example.
You clearly use the term agnostic as a descriptive adjunct rather than a separate and additional qualification. How would anyone be militantly agnostic? "Damn!.. I'm militant about not knowing" ...sounds amusing
No... you're saying you're a militant atheist who cannot know that God exists.
The agnostic scale is a purely Huxleyan scale. Atheism is simply not theism. It doesn't need the scale. What information does it add? That you're not in the theoretically absurd/ mentally delusional % of people who actually know for sure that God does or doesn't exist. It seems a nonsense & superfluous qualification to me. 'atheist' (small 'a') covers the atheist by default/ apathetic.
Whether it is your intention or not, I think it's entirely unclear and weak. It's weak language. You are an Agnostic and an Atheist. You are not an agnostic Atheist. An "English Atheist" would attract some connotations I wouldn't doubt ... I might think of the secular influence as opposed to an American Atheist who'd have superficially non secular influence (*unintentionally throws rocks around*
) for example. You clearly use the term agnostic as a descriptive adjunct rather than a separate and additional qualification. How would anyone be militantly agnostic? "Damn!.. I'm militant about not knowing" ...sounds amusing
No... you're saying you're a militant atheist who cannot know that God exists.
The agnostic scale is a purely Huxleyan scale. Atheism is simply not theism. It doesn't need the scale. What information does it add? That you're not in the theoretically absurd/ mentally delusional % of people who actually know for sure that God does or doesn't exist. It seems a nonsense & superfluous qualification to me. 'atheist' (small 'a') covers the atheist by default/ apathetic.
