False again. It takes you to SkywardGnost attesting to his existence. There you go, the agnostic atheist exists. There are other empirical examples we can point you to as well.sonoman wrote: You didn't show anything let alone "empirical evidence". Your link just takes one back to your post
Also false.sonoman wrote:which repeats the same irrationality that tries to claim the definition of one word equal the other when they don't at all.
I brought up the words agnostic, atheist, theist/m, and gnosis/c.
I never equated any of these to each other. In fact, I was explaining differences between various usages of them.
So if your above statement was directed at my usage of any of those words, then it is, as I said, false.
However, I did say gnosis reflects knowledge, which it does.
I also said theism reflects belief in god, which it does.
Hence that can hardly constitute "when they don't at all."
Your qualifier "at all" at the end there denies any equivocation to any degree. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "ALL."
Thus, if your above statement was directed at my usage of gnosis as knowledge or theism as belief in god, then it is still, as I said, false.
While the Greeks, the ones who invented the word and it's definition (not you) certainly went on to employ gnosis in ways other than to merely mean "knowledge" (and hence why I never claimed or even so much as insinuated that such was it's only possible meaning), the fact remains that they DID use it to mean knowledge and that is the most common way in which it was used in ancient Greek literature. Therefore if someone were to have claimed gnosis cannot be equated to knowledge "at all" they would be wrong, just as if someone (no one here there though, and certainly not myself) were to have claimed gnosis "always" meant knowledge or "only" meant knowledge, they would be wrong as well.
Agnosticism reflects lack of knowledge ("a" being used to indicate "without," as in "asexual," and gnosis indicating knowledge). Seems odd to assert that not knowing something can itself be a philosophy, and a scientific one at that. But whatever.sonoman wrote:Agnosticism is the only valid philosophy of scientific inquiry.
Atheism indicates nothing about conclusions of phenomena, it indicates a lack of belief in a god. A lack of a belief hardly equates to a conclusion. I have no belief concerning what side the penny in my change tray is on, I have made no conclusions about whether it is on heads or whether it is on tails. I don't know, and I don't care, and I haven't taken a side for either of those two possibilities, even though they are the only two (so far as I can tell).sonoman wrote:Atheism is invalidated from rationality because of jumping to conclusions about phenomena with too little data
Since atheism only indicates a lack of belief and nothing more about anything else, one's atheism can only be invalidated by a subsequent belief.
It only seems fair that knowledge acquired in the future won't effect someone's belief until the future, in particular, the future in which that knowledge is acquired.sonoman wrote:and a marked tendency to deny any data at all that suggests there's more in heaven and earth than atheists realize, not ever factoring in future knowledge acquisition.
Many of us here do not know whether, and thus do not yet believe, in life on other planets. We do grant that it's possible to acquire such knowledge in the future (in fact, some of us really hope we get such knowledge). But if that knowledge only lies in the future, then so does our belief.
Moreover, since, as I said, atheism indicates nothing about anything beyond a lack of belief in a deity, it seems like it would be difficult to quantify what atheists "realize" is "in heaven and earth." I know of some atheists who believe in souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc. They just don't believe in a god. Beyond that there is no consensus among atheists on any issue.
sonoman wrote:And again, I reiterate that one can tell the difference between atheists and agnostics
The difference between atheists and agnostic what? What is it these don't-knowers aren't knowing? If you are still referring to belief in god, then as I have explained (and countless others before me have explained as well)- there is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism, just as there is no dichotomy between Gnosticism and theism. One further specifies the other, as it can about a great many other things as well.
sonoman wrote:on these and most any religious forum where atheists are there to attack theists and theism because true agnostics will not engage in ad hominen attacks on theists and theistic views of spiritual matters.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
First of all, as I've sufficiently explained already, atheism only concerns lack of belief in a god, and many atheists, thus "spiritual matters" would simply concern general skepticism, not atheism or theism, since I also know of several theists who are naturalists and do not believe in anything "spiritual".
Likewise, as I've mentioned, some atheists, including some agnostic atheists, believe in a soul and type of afterlife and other spiritual matters.
So since there exist even theists who "attack" "spiritual matters," I'd find it hard to imagine there are no agnostics who do not do likewise. I know Neil DeGrasse Tyson identifies as agnostic concerning the existence of god, he "attacks" spiritual matters. Same went for Carl Sagan. Same goes for Bart Ehrman. These men would be just as, if not more, critical of many of your supernatural claims made on this site.
It is for those here who do not know that a god exists. Even atheists who do not. Such as SkywardGnost.sonoman wrote:But it's not an agnostic forum environment here at all.
There have been theists here on Booktalk who have never experienced hostility. Of course, they also weren't as much of a deliberate shit-stirrer as you.sonoman wrote:It is a war zone of atheist hostility.
And many other folks are here to expose the fatal flaws in your claims made here.sonoman wrote:I'm here to expose the Fatal Flaws of the atheist philosophy.
Our other stuff aside, what is it here you mean by "End Times"? Given that you do not identify as an orthodox Christian, I'm guessing you might not be using this phrase the same way they do. What I mean is, are you referring to like the rapture, antichrist, and all that kind of stuff?sonoman wrote:It's all part and parcel of the End Times
You don't seem to know the first thing about Greek. To be expected though, after the way you embarrassed yourself over "logos".sonoman wrote:You don't seem to know the definition of Gnosis: it means "knowledge of God", not just "knowledge".
The Greeks invented the word and they hardly used it exclusively in regards to "knowledge of god."
In regards to knowledge in general
In regards to science“Does it opine that which is not, or is it impossible even to opine that which is not? Reflect: Does not he who opines bring his opinion to bear upon something or shall we reverse ourselves and say that it is possible to opine, yet opine nothing?”
“That is impossible.”
“Then he who opines opines some one thing.”
“Yes.”
“But surely that which is not could not be designated as some one thing, but most rightly as nothing at all. To that which is not we of necessity assigned nescience, and to that which is, knowledge (gnosis).”
“Rightly,” he said.
“Then neither that which is nor that which is not is the object of opinion.”
“It seems not.”
“Then opinion would be neither nescience nor knowledge.”
“So it seems.”
“Is it then a faculty outside of these, exceeding either knowledge in lucidity or ignorance in obscurity?”
“It is neither.”
“But do you deem opinion something darker than knowledge but brighter than ignorance?”
“Much so,” he said.- Plato's Republic 478b-c
In regards to word syllablesIn this way, then, divide all science into two arts, calling the one practical (praktikos), and the other purely intellectual (gnostikos). - Plato's The Statesman 258e
Etc. and so on it could go.the genus of the elements admits of a knowledge (gnosis) more vivid and authoritative than that of the syllable- Plato's Theaetetus 206b
Again, there's no dichotomy between the two. Moreover, YES we are talking about agnosticism, since SkywardGnost brought it up, and you responded (with a falsehood).sonoman wrote:We aren't talking about agnosticism but atheism.
sonoman wrote:There's no way except in your own private definition
The clarifications I gave were hardly private or new. Just read more. And read literature more up to date. And read literature more relevant to the topic about which you presume to write. You'll avoid looking as ignorant as you have here.
It can when the one lacking belief claims such gnosis of no god.sonoman wrote:that "gnosis" could ever involve disbelief in God.
That does not include myself, of course, but I've met plenty of atheists who do claim to know there is no god, just as I have met atheists who admit to not know if there is a god (thus making them an agnostic atheist).
And it's odd that you would argue against that here because it is that very claim to know there is no god that you keep trying to demonstrate is irrational and "fatally flawed."