Nature's Laws

[Esquilax]

1: You'll have to elaborate.

It's simple: you say every law has a lawmaker, but in doing so you're ignoring that the word has two definitions, and that we have only ever observed laws of the first type having lawmakers. Laws of the second type, statements of facts deduced from observation, have never been observed to be made, and hence of course have no lawmaker. In fact, given that that type of law refers exclusively to the product of observations, the idea that it might have a maker is entirely nonsensical.

There is no special pleading involved, just a recognition that the word has two meanings, where theists sometimes want to pretend that everyone is using the first meaning all the time, even when they're clearly not.

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.

I don't know that I've ever seen an atheist mock "an all powerful prime mover," mainly because that claim is so devoid of characteristics that it would be near impossible to make fun of, period. I've seen plenty of atheists make fun of specific gods, or point out that we simply have no evidence for a prime mover of any stripe, but it is not my position, nor is it the position of any atheist I've come into contact with, that the generic deistic prime mover could be categorically ruled out as a possibility. So appeals to some group of atheists that isn't this one, or nebulous mocking of the concept of god, doesn't particularly hold much water here.

Nor, I might add, does this claim you have that making fun of a thing denotes a denial of its existence, either, because that's patently absurd on the face of it. Comedians build their careers making fun of things that definitely exist, after all, so the idea that mockery denotes denial is falsified. You can mock things without denying they exist, and hence simply pointing to mockery from atheists, even if you were actually capable of doing so, does not prove the point you're trying to make.

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.

When somebody says that they disbelieve in god, and you say that no, actually they believe there are no gods, then you are dictating their position to them. Doesn't matter what you appeal to as justification, that's factually what you are doing; they are stating one thing, and you are asserting that you know better, for X reason.

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.

Laughably, easily disproven: the term was first coined by Thomas Huxley, who had this to say on the subject:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

"In matters of intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated." That's referencing claims to knowledge, not belief.

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.

Why? Because you say so?

Those "relevant truths", might not be enough to ground a certainty, but they constitute knowledge and hence become the grounds for the belief.

And if the claim to knowledge that grounds my atheism is knowledge that theists have not provided sufficient evidence to justify belief in any gods? Then what?

See, it's possible to do that, you know. Knowledge works in more ways than the two that are convenient for your argument.

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.

Incoherent in false dichotomy land, surely. Thankfully, I live in the real world.

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.

My knowledge claim is this: it is unwise to believe in things without sufficient evidence, and theists have not provided sufficient evidence in favor of gods. This knowledge claim is sufficient itself to not believe in any gods, without outright rejecting them, as the first part of the knowledge claim allows for one changing their other beliefs as new evidence arises.

Put short, you don't get to tell me what my knowledge claims are, nor should you mistake the two you're able to think up in the moment for convenience, for the only two in existence.