Agnosticism Vs. Atheism

[fr0d0]

Ray Comforts 'know' is very different to scientific 'know'.. and you know it!

I have 'absolute knowledge' of my own belief. What you're continuously doing is superimposing 'evidence' where it's never invoked. Atheism isn't the disbelief in the existence of deities, just the lack of belief in deities. (c'mon I deserve a +1 for that! )

Perhaps I should change my religious views to "Militant Theist: I can't know and neither can you."

And isn't that the same as saying "I'm militant about not knowing"? What's wrong with the strength of that position?

I did notice that you capitalize Agnostic and am prepared to grant you that.

[Eilonnwy]

Ray Comforts 'know' is very different to scientific 'know'.. and you know it!

I have 'absolute knowledge' of my own belief. What you're continuously doing is superimposing 'evidence' where it's never invoked. Atheism isn't the disbelief in the existence of deities, just the lack of belief in deities. (c'mon I deserve a +1 for that! )

Perhaps I should change my religious views to "Militant Theist: I can't know and neither can you."

And isn't that the same as saying "I'm militant about not knowing"? What's wrong with the strength of that position?

I did notice that you capitalize Agnostic and am prepared to grant you that.

Saying you're gnostic about about the fact that you believe is meaningless. Of course people know what they believe. It's about being intellectual honest and stating that you claim to have knowledge about what you believe or not.

[Tiberius]

Ray Comforts 'know' is very different to scientific 'know'.. and you know it!

*oh lord, give me strength*

Ok, so I can now deduce you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the first place. Huxley never said scientific knowledge, he never meant it. Agnosticism isn't related to science, it's a position of philosophy. It doesn't embrace empiricism anymore than it embraces spiritualism. It is a freakin' position on whether something can be known or not.

Jebus...moving on...

I have 'absolute knowledge' of my own belief. What you're continuously doing is superimposing 'evidence' where it's never invoked. Atheism isn't the disbelief in the existence of deities, just the lack of belief in deities. (c'mon I deserve a +1 for that! )

I would argue that nobody has absolute knowledge of anything, but I don't want to skew this discussion anymore off course than it already is.

Ok, some basic English class now fr0d0:

Disbelieve = To have no belief in.
Lack = To be without.

Lack of belief = To be without belief.

"To be without belief" vs "To have no belief in". To be honest, I don't see a fucking difference. Both statements imply the absence of belief, just with different words. You are now simply arguing semantics to a stupid level.

Perhaps I should change my religious views to "Militant Theist: I can't know and neither can you."

That would be a militant agnostic theist then. Theism is a belief in the existence of a deity. Like I've said before, it says nothing about your position on whether the existence can be known.

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods (dictionary.com)

The phrase I use at the end of my statement "I can't know and neither can you" is in reference to the agnostic part, not the atheist part (since such a statement doesn't say anything about whether I believe or not). An agnostic theist could use the same statement just as easily, but it is in reference to agnosticism, not theism.

And isn't that the same as saying "I'm militant about not knowing"? What's wrong with the strength of that position?

Being militant about not knowing is a stupid position (as you pointed out last time). You can go around pushing on people that you "don't know", but what would be the point? You aren't exactly affecting anyone. Militant theism and atheism is the pushing of one state of mind over another, militant agnosticism is the pushing of the philosophy that such things simply cannot be known (no matter how hard some theists and atheists want it).

I did notice that you capitalize Agnostic and am prepared to grant you that.

If I did it was for a title or by mistake. In my religious views, I capitalize it because it's a title. Otherwise (unless it's at the beginning of a sentence) it should be lowercase, as with theism and atheism. In cases I have not done this, it was a typo.

[Violet]

I say that one should maintain no X... at least until one sees enough reason to believe X to be true.

I find the poll lacking in options

[fr0d0]

Blimey Hayter reel in those hormones!

"It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. " - Huxley

Huxley's point is irrelevant as you've shown. No one can 'know' (using evidence or any other method) - so what separates you and me is belief. Agnosticism applies equally to both of us.

Yes I thought the same about absolute knowledge and refrained from mentioning it. 'Disbelieve' could be taken as 'don't believe'. It was a freakin joke mr serious face.

[littlegrimlin1]

This is all really useful and interesting...

The people maintaining the website atheists.org seem to be positive (strong) atheists, which say that god(s) do not exist. They are Gnostic Atheists for this, they claim to have the knowledge behind their athiesm (that god does not exist)... does that make sense? This is how I've always taken it, and is why I go with Agnostic Atheism...

On the other side of the coin, there are some theists I've met and labeled 'agnostic theists' because they believe in a god but claim that he may or may not exist... and some 'gnostic theists' that say the know that he is there (by illogical means, just as gnostic atheism)

I wouldn't think that we are talking about knowing that we are atheists/theists or not...
I used to think of just agnosticism as being undecided of any religion... while any type of atheism being decided to have no religion.