Agnostic Theist?

[pinkocommie]

This is my take on it, but I am by no means an expert.

1 agnostic= i don't know

2 gnostic= I do know

3 theist= I believe in god

4 atheist= I do not believe

5 agnostic theist= I'm not sure, but I think there probably is a god

6 gnostic theist = I know there is a god.

7 agnostic atheist = I'm not sure, but I think there probably isn't a god

8 gnostic theist = I know there is no god

6 is just a trumped up 5 with a lie added to it.

I can say I know the sun isn't coming up tomorrow, and come tomorrow morning I will in all likelihood be proven wrong.  I can say I know anything, for it to count as knowledge, it must be true. Tomorrow, when the sun comes up, I'll have to admit, no matter how certain I was at the time, that I did not in fact know that the sun was not going to come up.

 There are no gnostic theists. Knowledge isn't a strong opinion or belief that you are certain--which is what (6) is. If it can't hold up to independent proof you don't know it.   Likewise, there are no gnostic theists.

If they don't exist, why are there names for them. It seems joeactor's picture has 2 too many sections.

I thought you were asking for clarification because you didn't understand or were honestly confused about the terms.  It seems more like you're just wanting to share your opinions about those different positions.

I don't see these terms as anything to argue about - they're just a tool some people use to try to convey their position a little more clearly.  Obviously you don't find them to be clear.  That's certainly not Joe's (or anyone else's) responsibility to rectify.

Chillax.  

[elliebean]

I'm not agnostic about unicorns, why would I be agnostic about gods?

[Reginus]

I'm not agnostic about unicorns, why would I be agnostic about gods?

Maybe if you think that there is some sort of subjective evidence for God, but it's not enough to convince you.  Not sure if I know anyone who would fall into this category though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My own agnosticism about god is in response to the number of believers.  I'd hate to call that many people wrong without being sure.

[humblesmurph]

This is my take on it, but I am by no means an expert.

1 agnostic= i don't know

2 gnostic= I do know

3 theist= I believe in god

4 atheist= I do not believe

5 agnostic theist= I'm not sure, but I think there probably is a god

6 gnostic theist = I know there is a god.

7 agnostic atheist = I'm not sure, but I think there probably isn't a god

8 gnostic theist = I know there is no god

6 is just a trumped up 5 with a lie added to it.

I can say I know the sun isn't coming up tomorrow, and come tomorrow morning I will in all likelihood be proven wrong.  I can say I know anything, for it to count as knowledge, it must be true. Tomorrow, when the sun comes up, I'll have to admit, no matter how certain I was at the time, that I did not in fact know that the sun was not going to come up.

 There are no gnostic theists. Knowledge isn't a strong opinion or belief that you are certain--which is what (6) is. If it can't hold up to independent proof you don't know it.   Likewise, there are no gnostic theists.

If they don't exist, why are there names for them. It seems joeactor's picture has 2 too many sections.

I thought you were asking for clarification because you didn't understand or were honestly confused about the terms.  It seems more like you're just wanting to share your opinions about those different positions.

I don't see these terms as anything to argue about - they're just a tool some people use to try to convey their position a little more clearly.  Obviously you don't find them to be clear.  That's certainly not Joe's (or anyone else's) responsibility to rectify.

Chillax.  

Of course it isn't anybody's responsibility to explain anything to me.  I'm new to this whole atheist theist thing.  When I explain this stuff to my family, I'd like to know as much as possible.  HAF seems pretty good at ripping theists theories to shreds, in the process you give the theist a great lessen the she may or may not appreciate.  To me, the best way to learn is to have my preconceived notions ripped to shreds.  I meant no offense.  I started a thread that could have easily been ignored.  It is soooo hard for me to convey tone via a forum.  I usually only use these kinds of things for talking about sports. Face to face, I'm very chillaxed.  Again, I appreciate and respect all of you, not just for the threads you have started this past week, but for the wealth of old threads that have helped me understand people a little bit more.

[Tank]

It is soooo hard for me to convey tone via a forum.  

Please pardon quote mine (taking one element of a post and focusing on it (sometimes done to take a comment out of context and twist its meaning, but not in this case)).

You are absolutly 110% right about conveying 'tone' via the written word, it is very, very difficult and I have written things and perceived many things in the wrong way many times. Try to avoid all-encompassing assertions. Questions are often a good way of putting a point across without aggression 'I see what you are getting at, but would you consider XYZ as a possible solution?  Pejorative terms like 'lies' are real no-no's in discussions and often are sparks in flame wars as you can be perceived as impugning a person's integrity. It is a difficult media to master and your posts do grate a little sometimes, but I really couldn't put a finger on it anymore than to say they are a little too demonstrative in the a sort of very mild version of 'I'm right F*** you' way. I have been told my post can sometimes come over as patronising, so nobody is perfect  :eek:  we get one brilliantly, he is a real scream. Now I see the twinkle in his eye when I read his posts and they have a completely different complexion! So stick with it!

[humblesmurph]

humblesmurph: Please use a more civil tone in your replies, and refrain from any name-calling.  Consider this a warning.

You began this thread asking for other people's views on the topic.
However, you seem unwilling or unable to entertain the possibility that others may see the world differently than you do.

I get it.  You don't thing that "Gnostic" is a possibility.
That's fine.  For you.

Others disagree.

After all, you seem pretty Gnostic in your belief about being "Gnostic", don't you?

Those who say that they know god exists, and optionally define god, are "Gnostic".
Those who say that they know god does not exist are also "Gnostic".
Those who say they don't know for certain if god exists, or does not exist, are "Agnostic".

Period.  End of story.

Can you at least agree on the definitions for "Theist" and "Atheist"?

I don't just  entertain that others see things differently--i expect it and embrace it.  If everybody thought exactly what I did, I'd just stay stupid.  I never try to get people to change their mind about anything. I try to understand people. I hear these terms left and right in my real world, without really having the opportunity to ask what people mean.  It's hard to do so without causing offense, or appearing to question one's faith.  I did ask, once, and the response was more or less "don't be a jerk, you aren't stupid, you know what I mean!".  But I am stupid and I really didn't know.

 I appear gnostic about this because there seems to be a logical contradiction. I'd appear to be gnostic about 2=2 as well.

The dirty stinking liar bit  was a joke, I thought an obvious one....guess not. The more civil response would be that a gnostic atheist/theist, i.e., people who claim to know whether god exists or doesn't, in my opinion, has either misunderstood what it means to know something or is insincere in their claim. I apologize.

 I never belittle anybody's faith, or lack thereof--i was challenging an assertion of knowledge. To say something is known is different from saying a thing can be known. Also, I didn't think I could offend gnostic atheists (the particular gnostic I was referring to) even if "dirty stinking liar " was taken seriously, because I don't believe they exist.  In my mind, it would be like calling a unicorn a scumbag.  Again, I apologize. I've seen theists belittled in more ways than one on HAF.  I thought it was a more thick skinned atmosphere.  Not trying to excuse my actions, I was wrong, I'm just explaining that I really didn't mean offense and didn't think that anybody would be offended.

Yes I can agree that a theist believes and an atheist does not.  I think we are clear on that. I'm also clear on Agnostic Theism, thanks for your help.  

My argumentative tone was attempt to deal with the awkwardness of gnostic theism/atheism in comparison with the accepted meaning of agnostic theism.  

If the  definitions of gnostic theism/atheism are your only your own, I respect that.  I now know what you, joeactor, mean when you use them.  Again I thank you for taking the time to explain.  You could have just told me to eff off, or banned me.

However, if the definitions are the standard way that they are used, could you, or anybody for that matter, point me in the right direction to study gnostic theism and gnostic atheism for myself?

[humblesmurph]

It is soooo hard for me to convey tone via a forum.  

Please pardon quote mine (taking one element of a post and focusing on it (sometimes done to take a comment out of context and twist its meaning, but not in this case)).

You are absolutly 110% right about conveying 'tone' via the written word, it is very, very difficult and I have written things and perceived many things in the wrong way many times. Try to avoid all-encompassing assertions. Questions are often a good way of putting a point across without aggression 'I see what you are getting at, but would you consider XYZ as a possible solution?  Pejorative terms like 'lies' are real no-no's in discussions and often are sparks in flame wars as you can be perceived as impugning a person's integrity. It is a difficult media to master and your posts do grate a little sometimes, but I really couldn't put a finger on it anymore than to say they are a little too demonstrative in the a sort of very mild version of 'I'm right F*** you' way. I have been told my post can sometimes come over as patronising, so nobody is perfect  :eek:  we get one brilliantly, he is a real scream. Now I see the twinkle in his eye when I read his posts and they have a completely different complexion! So stick with it!

 Thank you for the constructive criticism, Tank.  I never called anybody a liar.  I have attacked arguments, not people.  I did make an inference  about what a person would or wouldn't do and I apologized for it.  The way I post is the way I talk with my friends and they way they talk to me.  There is an underlying respect between us that allows us the vehemently disagree.  I believe my friends aren't morons or bad people, and I presume they think the same about me.  If they disagree with me, I assume that they have a point--not a morally dubious agenda.  I argue to flesh out that point--not to win.  99% of the time, neither side changes their mind, but I almost always have a better understanding of reality because of it.

The disconnect may be a social one. From what I read, I doubt that I would typically share social circles with an HAF member.  My posting style isn't considered grating on sports forums or black american forums.  We argue all day and nobody ever takes offense. I've never been warned about anything. I'm likely in the wrong place.  I tried this forum because all of the black atheist forums are ghost towns.  I actually thought I was getting the hang of this.  I started this thread in the philosophy section, thinking that point/counterpoint  and logical arguments would be a good way to get to the heart of the problem.  

I'm not sure what a "twinkle in the eye" means.  Thanks again, for the criticism.

[Tank]

HS it would be a great shame if you didn't hang around here, diversity is the spice of fun  :hmm:  Saying something that could be nasty but smiling to show you don't mean it.

It's not for me to tell others how to behave and I didn't mean to imply that you did, sorry if it sounded like that  

[Tank]

Pinco suggested I might post this image. This is a screen shot taken from the poll on the thread "Where do you sit on the atheist scale?" that was very active at the now defunct (  ) Richard Dawkins Forum. It is useful as it takes a group of mostly self selecting atheists and it gets them to rate themselves. So if you get somebody stating 'All atheist deny the existance of God!', a 7 on the scale, most atheist self classify at 6.

[deekayfry]

humblesmurph: Please use a more civil tone in your replies, and refrain from any name-calling.  Consider this a warning.

You began this thread asking for other people's views on the topic.
However, you seem unwilling or unable to entertain the possibility that others may see the world differently than you do.

I get it.  You don't thing that "Gnostic" is a possibility.
That's fine.  For you.

Others disagree.

After all, you seem pretty Gnostic in your belief about being "Gnostic", don't you?

Those who say that they know god exists, and optionally define god, are "Gnostic".
Those who say that they know god does not exist are also "Gnostic".
Those who say they don't know for certain if god exists, or does not exist, are "Agnostic".

Period.  End of story.

Can you at least agree on the definitions for "Theist" and "Atheist"?

I don't just  entertain that others see things differently--i expect it and embrace it.  If everybody thought exactly what I did, I'd just stay stupid.  I never try to get people to change their mind about anything. I try to understand people. I hear these terms left and right in my real world, without really having the opportunity to ask what people mean.  It's hard to do so without causing offense, or appearing to question one's faith.  I did ask, once, and the response was more or less "don't be a jerk, you aren't stupid, you know what I mean!".  But I am stupid and I really didn't know.

 I appear gnostic about this because there seems to be a logical contradiction. I'd appear to be gnostic about 2=2 as well.

The dirty stinking liar bit  was a joke, I thought an obvious one....guess not. The more civil response would be that a gnostic atheist/theist, i.e., people who claim to know whether god exists or doesn't, in my opinion, has either misunderstood what it means to know something or is insincere in their claim. I apologize.

 I never belittle anybody's faith, or lack thereof--i was challenging an assertion of knowledge. To say something is known is different from saying a thing can be known. Also, I didn't think I could offend gnostic atheists (the particular gnostic I was referring to) even if "dirty stinking liar :pop: