" But I would err on the side of 100% certainty when it comes to this issue. If you're not 100% certain, then you are agnostic."
Hmmm, this doesn't make much sense to me. I can't be 100% certain the floor is not made of lava, but I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about it.
IMO, gnostic atheist is an odd term that always makes me think of Gnosticism the Christian sect.
Maybe framing the issue from the point of view of Dawkins' spectrum would be helpful.
Hmmm, this doesn't make much sense to me. I can't be 100% certain the floor is not made of lava, but I wouldn't say I'm agnostic about it.
IMO, gnostic atheist is an odd term that always makes me think of Gnosticism the Christian sect.
Maybe framing the issue from the point of view of Dawkins' spectrum would be helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of...gnosticism Wrote:Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him 'Philo') describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully.[1]
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
