I have some questions for the posters here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, several people here, and an alluded to mountain of decades of internet experience, all of it converging on a single apprehension as told by a single apprehender.

Perhaps the explanation for that lies in the one describing their apprehensions?  Right on the surface, that seems to be the common thread.  Similarly, I could have misunderstood you, everyone else here could have misunderstood you.  We all could have misunderstood you, here and elsewhere, for twenty years.  Or it could just be you.

So, let's work on your delivery.

"Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist who doesn't quite understand gnostic atheists, help me out guys" - something like that?

You'll get the same answer I've already given you, and I'll have all the same questions I already asked in return.

Do not know what you are talking about...but you seem exercised.

I have had lots of Internet experience...been posting in forums since the late 1990's...starting with the New York Times/Boston Globe forum Abuzz. I've been in a dozen other fora since, including the Salon forum.

I've made friends with many atheists in some of those fora. We have a group that used to meet regularly (some of us still meet) in New York City for a few brewskis and some food. Just about every one of the other people are atheists. We get along famously. Lots of ball breaking goes on...but that is to be expected. I play golf 4 days a week...and ball breaking is a MUST when playing golf.

Met up with people (now good friends as well as cyber-friends) from  two different forums in The City. Still do. Probably will have a meet sometime during the next two weeks.

So what is your point?

I think we've reached the point where the question is more your own point than anyone else's.  What you wanted to discuss was not atheism, but, given the opportunity to discuss that thing, the thing you wanted to discuss..instead.... you suddenly have nothing to say, can't remember what you posted, don't understand plain english, and wonder about the point of it all.

[Frank Apisa]

Do not know what you are talking about...but you seem exercised.

I have had lots of Internet experience...been posting in forums since the late 1990's...starting with the New York Times/Boston Globe forum Abuzz. I've been in a dozen other fora since, including the Salon forum.

I've made friends with many atheists in some of those fora. We have a group that used to meet regularly (some of us still meet) in New York City for a few brewskis and some food. Just about every one of the other people are atheists. We get along famously. Lots of ball breaking goes on...but that is to be expected. I play golf 4 days a week...and ball breaking is a MUST when playing golf.

Met up with people (now good friends as well as cyber-friends) from  two different forums in The City. Still do. Probably will have a meet sometime during the next two weeks.

So what is your point?

I think we've reached the point where the question is more your own point than anyone else's.  What you wanted to discuss was not atheism, but, given the opportunity to discuss that thing, the thing you wanted to discuss..instead.... you suddenly have nothing to say, can't remember what you posted, don't understand plain english, and wonder about the point of it all.

Nudger, you are wandering all over the place here.

If you have a question of me...ask it and I will attempt to answer it.

[vulcanlogician]

IDK what SSD means. But are you sure he's a troll? 

I'm naive about this shit, but (in my breezing of a few pages of this thread) I don't see it.

SSDD is the usual for same shit different day.  I just changed it up a bit.

Frankly Scooter is here to tell us what atheists are/believe in because we don't know.

Ahhhhhh gotcha.

"Same shit different troll"... must be some kinda moderator lingo

[The Grand Nudger]

You could explain what you think a gnostic atheist is being unreasonable about, or in what specific way they're gullible, Frank. We could just use gnostics in general, as I wondered earlier. Do you doubt knowledge claims in general, or just knowledge claims about this particular thing? It seems like it would have to be the latter, since we agreed almost immediately that there was such a thing as a fact...but, ofc, clarity is always appreciated.

[vulcanlogician]

IDK what SSD means. But are you sure he's a troll? 

I'm naive about this shit, but (in my breezing of a few pages of this thread) I don't see it.

I am not a troll, V. Not in any way. I also do not know what SSD means.

I do have a position I want to put forward, but I can do it without all the nonsense coming my way. In the meantime, I have asked questions of people who declare themselves to be atheists...so that I knw what they are talking about as the discussion moves forward. (If it ever does.)

A nonbelief in god(s). That's what most folks here mean by atheist.

So, lemmie ask, if you have no knowledge of gods (as per the OP), then isn't nonbelief the most reasonable option?

[Frank Apisa]

I am not a troll, V. Not in any way. I also do not know what SSD means.

I do have a position I want to put forward, but I can do it without all the nonsense coming my way. In the meantime, I have asked questions of people who declare themselves to be atheists...so that I knw what they are talking about as the discussion moves forward. (If it ever does.)

A nonbelief in god(s). That's what most folks here mean by atheist.

So, lemmie ask, if you have no knowledge of gods (as per the OP), then isn't nonbelief the most reasonable option?

Yup. Non-belief is where I am at, V. 

I do not "believe" any gods exist. But that does not make me an atheist any more than the fact that I also do not "believe" that there are no gods makes me a theist.

The fact that I do not "believe" that any gods exist...DOES NOT mean that I "believe" no gods exist.

Some people "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of those people.

Some people "believe" that at least one god exists. I am not one of those people either.

On the question of whether gods exist or not...I do not "believe" in either direction.

---

You could explain what you think a gnostic atheist is being unreasonable about, or in what specific way they're gullible, Frank.  We could just use gnostics in general, as I wondered earlier.  Do you doubt knowledge claims in general, or just knowledge claims about this particular thing?  It seems like it would have to be the latter, since we agreed almost immediately that there was such a thing as a fact...but, ofc, clarity is always appreciated.

I do not think atheists of any stripe are being unreasonable about anything. I also do not think theists of any stripe are being unreasonable either.

It is my opinion that anyone who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...is not doing so because of just a lack of "belief" in any gods. I think the reason they do it is because the think there are no gods...or they think it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is.

I do not take that stance. 

I am not an atheist.

[vulcanlogician]

I do not "believe" any gods exist. 

Same here. That's what most here (including myself) would call atheism. So, as Nudger suggests, your issue is with gnostic atheism. Not atheism in general.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not believing in gods is exactly what makes a person, and the only thing that makes a person, an atheist. Did you want to discuss some position, or air your grievance with accurate language?

---

---

You could explain what you think a gnostic atheist is being unreasonable about, or in what specific way they're gullible, Frank.  We could just use gnostics in general, as I wondered earlier.  Do you doubt knowledge claims in general, or just knowledge claims about this particular thing?  It seems like it would have to be the latter, since we agreed almost immediately that there was such a thing as a fact...but, ofc, clarity is always appreciated.

I do not think atheists of any stripe are being unreasonable about anything. I also do not think theists of any stripe are being unreasonable either.

It is my opinion that anyone who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...is not doing so because of just a lack of "belief" in any gods. I think the reason they do it is because the think there are no gods...or they think it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is.

I do not take that stance. 

I am not an atheist.

So I can disregard all earlier comments, then, all seventeen pages, and then, having done that, discard the rest, as you're now reasserting that atheism is something it's not? 

Are you going to ask me what gave me that impression again, or just get on with the bit?

[Frank Apisa]

Not believing in gods is exactly what makes a person, and the only thing that makes a person, an atheist.  Did you want to discuss some position, or air your grievance with accurate language?

---

---

I do not think atheists of any stripe are being unreasonable about anything. I also do not think theists of any stripe are being unreasonable either.

It is my opinion that anyone who uses the word "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...is not doing so because of just a lack of "belief" in any gods. I think the reason they do it is because the think there are no gods...or they think it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is.

I do not take that stance. 

I am not an atheist.

So I can disregard all earlier comments, then, all seventeen pages, and then, having done that, discard the rest, as you're now reasserting that atheism is something it's not? 

Are you going to ask me what gave me that impression again, or just get on with the bit?

 
Atheists essentially want to assert that the word “atheism” derived from “a” without + theism “a belief in a god” = without a belief in a god.
 
But it did not!
 
In fact, if you check an etymological dictionary, you will see that “atheism” arrived in the English language almost 100 years BEFORE theism. It could not have derived that way.
 
Atheism comes to us from the Greek through the French…and actually means (approximately) "a" without + “theos” a god = without a god…NOT without a “belief” in a god.
 
Check it out…you will see I am correct on this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, believers have been calling atheists atheists since before they did it in english, and alot of other things as well. You're without a god, I'm without a god, every atheist on the board is without a god.

Some of the more amusing applications have been when one group of theists calls another group of theists a bunch of atheists because they believe in the wrong god, as the romans considered the christians. As the greeks before them considered anyone who might criticize their god concepts.