Nature's Laws

[YGninja]

So the idea that words might have multiple, context-dependent meanings just kinda blows your mind, does it?     ---1---





You're making the mistake of thinking that your god is the only possible god, so therefore mocking your specific conception of god is denial of all gods. ---2--- But the christian god is not the only god concept in existence, in fact there are as many god concepts as there are shades of differentiation within each characteristic of god. Mocking a specific conception of god only entails that we find that specific collection of characteristics to be worthy of mockery; you can, for example, mock a particularly poorly designed model of car without denying the existence of all cars everywhere. Joking that a thing would be as useful as a square wheeled car does not mean I think that square wheeled cars would be impossible to make, just that I find them useless. Similarly, I can find the collection of characteristics and historical claims regarding any specific god to be impossible, without outright denying the existence of all gods; finding one impossible does not extrapolate out to finding all of the set that one belongs to impossible. By arguing this way you're just showing off the extreme theistic myopia with which you're viewing the atheist position; your god ain't the only one in discussion, dude.

Not to mention the extreme arrogance of dictating our position to us, but I've come to expect that from theists.   ---3---





Yeah, because if anyone is qualified to tell atheists what they believe, it's theists!

Are you really so afraid of honest discussion that you'll only engage when you can dictate your opponent's position as well as your own? ---3---





It's actually the other way around: theism and atheism refer to belief, gnosticism and agnosticism refer to knowledge, hence the root word "gnossis," which means knowledge. Agnostic is a modifier that can be applied to both atheists and theists, depending on the degree of certainty that they place on their beliefs, which are dictated by the first label. An agnostic atheist believes in no gods, without claim to knowledge. A gnostic theist believes in a god and claims to know that one exists, and vice versa. ---4---

Do you really want to play sophistic little word games instead of discussing the actual positions?

1: You'll have to elaborate.
2: I've not mentioned my God, or whether i even have one. I spoke about atheists ridiculing the "the concept of God", which is pretty well understood unless you are determined to be facetious: An all powerful prime-mover of all things.
3: I'm not dictating my opponents position, (and why is he necessarily an opponent?) i am objecting against the miss-classification of his position.
4: Agnosticism, since its first use and always since unless used in a non-standard, metaphorical kind of sense, has always pertained to belief of Gods existence. Lack of knowledge being the reason for having no belief, as no belief is only possible when there is a lack of knowledge. "An agnostic atheist believes in no gods, without claim to knowledge. A gnostic theist believes in a god and claims to know that one exists". You cannot believe in no Gods without a claim to knowledge, you cannot believe in anything without first assuming to be in possession of relevant truths. Those "relevant truths", might not be enough to ground a certainty, but they constitute knowledge and hence become the grounds for the belief. This is why agnostic atheism is fundamentally incoherent, and the agnostic prefix is only ever used by atheists  (you never hear about agnostic theists) who want to wear the atheist label because of the perceived intellectual 'go faster' stripes, without actually inheriting any burden of proof requiring them to have a clue what they're talking about. 

If i believe in God only on the grounds of a pretty rainbow, i have to assume knowledge in order to relate that rainbow back to the idea of God. If an atheist believes there are no Gods because it rains on him one too many times, he must assume knowledge to be able to relate the rain back to the question of God, namely, the assumed truth that "if there was a God, he wouldn't let it rain on me so often". Even the weakest belief necessitates knowledge, hence is not compatible with agnosticism. That you aren't certain of Gods existence or not is irrelevant, and not grounds for claiming agnosticism.


Sorry for my formatting i've been away for a few months and the entire thing changed. Don't have time to fiddle about tonight.