Nature's Laws

[YGninja]

First i'd like to point out that you've dropped/ignored the argument concerning the origins of your definition of atheism. If you allow that your definition was only imagined a couple of decades ago, brought into existence as part of a social engineering agenda to redefine atheism so as to make it a default position, with no other historical or logical grounding, then any later defense of that definition without first addressing its origin is specious and intellectually bankrupt.

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.

The definitions are only distinct arbitrarily, by what is man made and what is unknown, which i have already covered.
A law is a standard of expected behaviour, it is the same whether we are talking about legal or natural law, you are making a distinction without a difference.

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.

Your original claim was "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.", which i'd like to point out you've dropped and this entire section is just a red herring. What you claim to have seen is really irrelevant. I've already given you quotes: "We're all atheists here. We're convinced, and rightfully so, that there is no god."
There is no specificity here. Whats more is their use of small g god denotes that they are not specifying, rather talking about the very concept already outlined (to which you can add other generally accepted characteristics such as all-good, conscious, eternal. )
About comedians, i never said that you must believe something doesn't exist to mock it. Atheists mock the concept or belief in an existing God, this mockery denotes their contrary belief. Comedians mock the nature of things already accepted to exist, the two are completely different.

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.

Nobody said that they disbelieve in God, and i certainly didn't tell them what they believe. I said "Well its really simple, if you don't believe either way or don't care enough about the question to bother, you are an agnostic. If you believe to any degree of certainty that there is no God, you are an atheist." I am advising how they should refer to themselves depending on what their position is, i am not telling them their 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.

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.

More relevantly he had this to say on the subject:
"So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took." - Huxley

This pretty much covers everything. My initial statement concerning its first use stands. As for its general use, even wikipedia agrees;

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3] According to the philosopher William L. Rowe: "In the popular sense of the term, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, while a theist believes that God exists, an atheist disbelieves in God".

And the primary definition in dictionaries

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/agnostic

Aswell as philosophical dictionaries:
"The term is used especially in reference to our lack of knowledge of the existence of god. In this, the agnostic, who holds that we cannot know whether or not god exists, differs from the atheist, who denies that god exists."

What you are trying to argue is plainly false; the term agnostic has always pertained to the existence of God, other uses are secondary and practically metaphorical, irrespective of the etymology of its constituent parts.

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?

Is that your argument? Can you demonstrate how a belief comes into existence in the absence of any knowledge or assumed truth (same thing) pertaining to the subject of the belief?

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.

We're talking about grounding beliefs. You are defending having a nonbelief, which is defence of agnosticism. Your calling it atheism is just a word-game, unless you believe that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

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.

Incoherent.

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.

This is your earlier statement:

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. "

So we are examining the coherency of having a belief that there are no Gods, in the absence of any knowledge: "agnostic atheism". My position is that it is incoherent because you cannot have a belief without assuming to be in possession of relevant knowledge. Your defence is insubstantial: "it is unwise to believe in things without sufficient evidence, and theists have not provided sufficient evidence in favor of gods. ", as you are not defending a belief, only a non belief, and playing a word game by calling it atheism. You need to demonstrate how a belief can exist in absence of any knowledge pertaining to the subject of the belief, to have any grounds for asserting the coherency of "agnostic atheism". All you've done is rationalise why you have a non-belief, and arbitrarily called it atheism, even though you acknowledge twice above that atheism refers to belief.