Summations Only

Not only do I believe that, I am part of the Terran Confederacy bent on the annihilation of the Zerg, and their false god called "Overmind". lol

You are right and wrong. Rahvin seems to be an Agnostic Atheist.The term Gnostic simply means:
1 pertaining to knowledge
2 possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.Obviously the addition of 'a' creates the inverse definition:
1 a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.In this case Rahvin would appear to be an agnostic atheist in that Rahvin claims an absence of knowledge on the fact and that our capability of gaining knowledge is limited by our experience. This then leads to atheism, in that a lack of knowledge of god's existence, would lead to a lack of belief in god(s).You already stated you understand now what atheism is, so I won't go into the whole explanation on theism, and it's inverse atheism. Really it comes down to an understanding of the terms, and having an open mind to another's stated position.A Christian telling an atheist what he/she believes always kind of made me laugh a little. It's kind of like a hair stylist telling a bald man he has blond hair.Edited by Michamus, : typos

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

It's kind of funny that you would say it's like being an agnostic theist, which makes no sense... because there are people who are agnostic theists. They believe in god, yet think that our ability to discern it's existence as unattainable.The word Gnostic simply means Knowledge. So to be a Gnostic Atheist (Like Richard Dawkins) would be akin to the layman's term of a Strong Atheist. These individual's view is that the knowledge required to discern god's existence is attainable.You are confusing Agnosticism with Deism, as many people commonly do. An agnostic goes even further than that in saying that the knowledge is unattainable. Perhaps you should read the definitions I provided from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary? Precisely, hence Agnostic Deism or Theism, but for Rahvin it lead to Weak Atheism (Agnostic Atheism) as it typically does.

Are you familiar with the difference between belief and knowledge? You can believe in something, but that doesn't mean you have any actual knowledge about it. Hence, the Agnostic Atheist. I am not going to take that as a proper response. Saying you have knowledge on the subject, is not the same as demonstrating that knowledge on the subject. Your "Just trust me" approach is intellectually dishonest. The agnostic does not say ALL KNOWLEDGE is unattainable, nor did I claim an agnostic does so. You are the only one here talking about that gibberish. The agnostic claim is that the knowledge required TO DISCERN GOD'S EXISTENCE is unattainable. Straw-man arguments are not welcomed. It is only non-sensical to you because you are viewing agnosticism as a belief on the existence of god, rather than a belief on whether we can discern the (non)existence of god. This is why your buddhist-muslim example is irrelevant.

You know what I said, and you know what it means. You are making this vague statement so it doesn't appear as though you have lost any ground. In case you truly don't understand what I meant, I will give you an example:Betty tells Jessica that she read a book that says there is a god that loves her, and wants her to go to heaven, all she has to do is believe.
Jessica now has three choices:
A) Believe Betty
B) Not Believe Betty
C) Look into attaining knowledge as to whether Betty is correctMost theists simply believe Betty, or read the book Betty mentioned, and believe the book. The issue here is that no ACTUAL knowledge on the veracity of Betty's (or the Book's) claim is acquired. It is a belief without knowledge. Now insert fundamental facts that are known to contradict the book, and you have a blind belief. I don't use subjective terms like "good" or "bad" in logical discussion, as their definitions are purely arbitrary.An Agnostic Atheist is someone who (Agnostic) Does not believe we have the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge (Atheist) and does not believe god exists.A Gnostic Atheist is someone who (Gnostic) Believes we have the ability to discern god's existence through knowledge (Atheist) and does not believe god exists. Just because you repeat yourself, doesn't mean you were right the first time.You can think that these terms were "Invented by Dogmatic Atheists", but that doesn't change the fact that the words [Gnostic] and a[Gnostic] have existed for millenia, and their definitions have remained the same. Have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels? So I guess when I tell you I am going to the bank of the river, you would decide to respond with "Oh really? You are going to the financial institution of the river?"There is this cool thing called context. I am discussing the belief in god, and whether god(s) existence can be determined by attaining knowledge. I then provide the definitions from a notable dictionary supporting my usage of the terms. I even provide proper syntax for usage of the terms, that do not conflict with the definition provided by the independent source.That conflicts with your a priori notion of what agnosticism is, so you have to bring non sequitor definitions to try and defend that notion. If I recall correctly, you still haven't provided a definition from ANY notable dictionary supporting what you think the term means. Okay, so you don't think we can attain knowledge of gods existence?

quote:

---

I simply believe that ultimate causation is not known and I doubt sincerely that it ever can be known.

---

That's what I thought. So what is your belief as to whether god exists or not? You're right, that is the real problem, and that is exactly what we are discussing. When you say you are an agnostic, all you are really saying is "I don't believe we can attain knowledge to discern the existence of god". You aren't saying whether you believe in a god or what god you do believe in if you happen to believe in god. Wow, I really hope you aren't this dense. Did you seriously think I was saying that it is (im)possible to (dis)prove the existence of god? You should read everything I wrote a couple more times before you respond again. It is irrelevant because it has no real representation of what I am saying. Saying an Agnostic Atheist is like a Buddhist-Muslim is ridiculous. It's like saying that when someone says "red Ferrari" what they are really saying is "Porsche Ferrari". It's non sequitor.

ROFL! LMAO! Are you serious? Really now?Perhaps I was responding to this statement YOU made?

quote:

---

Message 93
Then how would they have come to any belief in the first place without some sort of foundation?

---

without missing a beat... Read the Betty - Jessica example. Gnostics believed they could come to know god, and their gospels gave testament to this. Perhaps you should look all these things up? FACEPALMDid you even read my 'bank of the river' example? Why the heck would your reference to ALL knowledge be relevant in a discussion that was OBVIOUSLY made exclusive to the god question? So then you are an Agnostic Deist. Problem solved. Atheist is no more distinguished from agnostic than red is distinguished from a car. No. Agnostics take the stance that gods existence cannot be KNOWN, not whether it can be BELIEVED. FACEPALM Someone is projecting a tad bit here... Nor do you obviously care enough about the subject to actually learn about it.TTFN

So much for this statement you made: Then again, the fact that the best you could do was post a silly image in response to my well founded, and supported argument does more to hurt your credibility than anything else.Heh, at least we know you can make fun of yourself though .

Goodbye.

Hi Vacate! I understand that the common usage of the term agnostic is more along the lines of "Deist" or even "Nothing can really be determined". The issue though is that when having intellectual discussion/debate, the proper definitions must be used.An excellent case in point is a creationist and scientist debating evolution (as if there is really any debate on the subject). The creationist will constantly try and use the common usage of the term "Theory". Does this mean the scientist has to suddenly disregard the proper use of the term "Theory" in the scientific realm? Of course not.Rather, the scientist will provide an "on the spot correction" as to what the proper definition of the term "theory" is.This is no different than what has just occurred between myself and Hyroglyphx. Hyroglyphx was utilizing a "common usage" of the term "agnostic" as if it were a position of belief in reference to the existence (or non existence) of god(s). In reality the term agnostic has nothing to do with whether god exists or not, but moreover, whether we are capable of acquiring the required information to determine his/her/it's existence. That's all it is, a philosophical position on the human capability of acquiring information.This definition of the term [a]gnostic has been in use for millenia. It is only recently that it has become changed to include ALL KNOWLEDGE, or even synonymously with Deism. You don't seem like a loudmouth to me PS Could you please explain in further detail what you meant with your first statement please?