sonoman wrote:

SkywardGnost wrote:

Atheists won't accept this possibility because their fundamentalist belief system requires absolute belief that no God or spiritual reality exists

I am an agnostic atheist

No such thing. You're either one or the other.

False. There is such a thing. And I can show you empirical evidence that such a thing exists- [link]

Gnosis reflects knowledge.

Theism reflects belief in god.

An agnostic atheist does not know and does not believe.
A gnostic atheist claims to know (the negative) and does not believe.
An agnostic theist does not know and yet believes anyway.
A gnostic theist both knows (the positive) and believes.

Many here are agnostic about a great many things, not just in regards to theism. The only way not to be an agnostic about anything at all is to be omniscient.

sonoman wrote:I am the latest spiritual receiver in this tradition and Scripture cannot be broken, true Scripture being the Sign-Nature of God written in the heavens before translated into earthly religious guidance.

How many prophets are there besides you?

Dexter wrote:

sonoman wrote:I am the latest spiritual receiver in this tradition and Scripture cannot be broken, true Scripture being the Sign-Nature of God written in the heavens before translated into earthly religious guidance.

How many prophets are there besides you?

As many as the account limit per IP permits.

Vishnu"]

sonoman wrote:

SkywardGnost wrote:

Atheists won't accept this possibility because their fundamentalist belief system requires absolute belief that no God or spiritual reality exists

I am an agnostic atheist

No such thing. You're either one or the other.

False. There is such a thing. And I can show you empirical evidence that such a thing exists- [link]

You didn't show anything let alone "empirical evidence". Your link just takes one back to your post which repeats the same irrationality that tries to claim the definition of one word equal the other when they don't at all. Agnosticism is the only valid philosophy of scientific inquiry. Atheism is invalidated from rationality because of jumping to conclusions about phenomena with too little data 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.

And again, I reiterate that one can tell the difference between atheists and agnostics 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. They know better than to do that because they don't have the ego investment that atheists do in maintaining an attack dog attitude towards theists. I mean all one has to do is look at just the commentary directed at this theist's posts to see what I mean about attack dog attitudes that reveal the fundamentalist atheist anger at theists that Einstein spotted a long time ago. No agnostic would censor my comments or membership in a discussion forum dealing with astro-theology but the owner and moderators of this forum did just that as did Acharya too just for one reason: I posted that I was a spiritual visionary and links to Celestial Torah Christianity, i.e. they had no tolerance for discussion with a theist.

I think the only reason I'm still able to post here is because I exposed both Interbane's and Chris' actions towards me and now they don't want to look bad as atheist bigots so I'm allowed to keep posting. But it's not an agnostic forum environment here at all. It is a war zone of atheist hostility. I'm here to expose the Fatal Flaws of the atheist philosophy. It's a dirty job but somebody's got to do it because, remarkable as it seems, atheists are missionizing on internet discussion forums wherever they can do so. Joining the Muslims in doing that. It's all part and parcel of the End Times we are in where old religious and philosophical ideas just don't work anymore and new ones must be and will be adopted. Atheism is just one of the fundamentalist belief systems headed for the compost heap of history.

Gnosis reflects knowledge.

Theism reflects belief in god.

You don't seem to know the definition of Gnosis: it means "knowledge of God", not just "knowledge".

An agnostic atheist does not know and does not believe.
A gnostic atheist claims to know (the negative) and does not believe.
An agnostic theist does not know and yet believes anyway.
A gnostic theist both knows (the positive) and believes.

Many here are agnostic about a great many things, not just in regards to theism. The only way not to be an agnostic about anything at all is to be omniscient.

We aren't talking about agnosticism but atheism. There's no way except in your own private definition that "gnosis" could ever involve disbelief in God.

sonoman wrote:There's no way except in your own private definition that "gnosis" could ever involve disbelief in God.

yeah but which God?

as defined by sonoman? or what if someone doesn't accept CTC or paxcalibur?

can a person not be allowed the right to differ and not automatically be wrong?

are you 100% right about everything?

can one reject sonomans version of God and substitute one of their own?

i like Vishnu's assertion

The only way not to be an agnostic about anything at all is to be omniscient.

do you agree with that sonoman?

sonoman wrote: You didn't show anything let alone "empirical evidence". Your link just takes one back to your post

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:which repeats the same irrationality that tries to claim the definition of one word equal the other when they don't at all.

Also false.

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.

sonoman wrote:Agnosticism is the only valid philosophy of scientific inquiry.

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:Atheism is invalidated from rationality because of jumping to conclusions about phenomena with too little data

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).

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.

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.

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.
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.

sonoman wrote:But it's not an agnostic forum environment here at all.

It is for those here who do not know that a god exists. Even atheists who do not. Such as SkywardGnost.

sonoman wrote:It is a war zone of atheist hostility.

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:I'm here to expose the Fatal Flaws of the atheist philosophy.

And many other folks are here to expose the fatal flaws in your claims made here.

sonoman wrote:It's all part and parcel of the End Times

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:You don't seem to know the definition of Gnosis: it means "knowledge of God", not just "knowledge".

You don't seem to know the first thing about Greek. To be expected though, after the way you embarrassed yourself over "logos".

The Greeks invented the word and they hardly used it exclusively in regards to "knowledge of god."

In regards to knowledge in general

“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 science

In 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

In regards to word syllables

the genus of the elements admits of a knowledge (gnosis) more vivid and authoritative than that of the syllable- Plato's Theaetetus 206b

Etc. and so on it could go.

sonoman wrote:We aren't talking about agnosticism but atheism.

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: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.

sonoman wrote:that "gnosis" could ever involve disbelief in God.

It can when the one lacking belief claims such gnosis of no 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."

"I know of some atheists who believe in souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc. They just don't believe in a god."

Topic over. I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do, trying to change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact. Atheists post against souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc, Your idea of "atheism" seems tailor-made for this thread, i.e., it's just another example of how no matter what I post that never receives adequate logically reasoned answers, e.g. this Nth topic challenge to atheist belief system, return posts are either composed of mostly slander or cheap dismissals of clear personal experience reports like trying to belittle my Ariel Lome painting which just about any person I've ever met who knows anything about art recognizes as a most definite work of unique art, and I gave the examples of the two most prominent Bay Area curators of art museum's opinions. I can't argue against small minded people who don't reason well. It's especially annoying when they think they know everything better than others do and yet show the exact same blindness to any contradictory facts of science or history or logic that one finds in fundamentalist believers in God. The proof is in the pudding which is dogma liberally laced with personal attack instead of any reasoned argument.

There's no reason to continue discussion with minds closed to reasoned argumentation and ones prone to inventing new meanings for words and common knowledge just to "win" some atheist's idea of "answering" my questions. It isn't reasoned argument anymore but then again I didn't expect anything else. But there are my limits to dealing with closed minds. It's really too bad true agnostics don't seem to create forums or chase Christians around religious forum discussions bashing their fundamentalist mirror-images. Don't have that anger propelling them I suspect as atheists do which in turn creates the atheist iconic stamp of intolerance of theistic beliefs and proneness to political attack of them.

I'm making this my new policy here. I post a challenging topic. I will respond to intelligent questions but not to slander or poorly reasoned defenses of atheistic beliefs that rely on creating double-standards, i.e., new meanings for common words, denial of recognized authority when it counters atheistic beliefs, diversion of topic, etc. i.e. I'm here for debate, not target practice.

I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do, trying to change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact.

Then don't respond, you're not on Vishnu's level. I know of atheists who believe the things he said as well. You have this childish worldview where anything that doesn't accord with your beliefs is therefore wrong, and you blame everyone else for doing the exact same thing. It's hypocritical and dishonest.

You're nowhere near as sharp as the majority of people on this forum, Stahrwe included. Stop acting like you're smart. I don't care if that's insulting, it's the truth. Have some humility or stop posting.

It's really no different from people who might make posts against theists in general, sonoman. Doing that, in my opinion, isn't valid for the same reason that it's not valid for you to post against atheists in general. Would you agree that theists might differentiate themselves from one another in various ways? We can't assume we know what the typical theist is, as the category even includes some who say they don't believe in God. Same with atheists--it may bug you or not make sense to you, but atheists have a wide spread over the beliefs map.

sonoman wrote:Topic over.

No.

But if you wish to retreat all defeated and flustered, 'searing your conscience with a hot iron', that's your prerogative.
We'll make due without you, just as we did before you got here.

sonoman wrote:I can't and won't respond to someone who doesn't understand words have their meanings for the purpose clarifying things, not confusing them as you do,

The confusion as to what atheism is clearly lies on your end. If you want to specify the characteristics of an atheist beyond it's one and only definition (no belief in god) then you simply use more of those very things which you admit are for the purpose of clarification- WORDS. Use more WORDS. That was the whole point here. Using more WORDS to further specify what type of atheist is exactly what SkywardGnost was doing (i.e. agnostic atheist).

And yet when he did the very thing you are advocating right here & now, you tried (and failed) to chastise him for it.

The definition of atheism is simple and generic. Just like its counterpart- theism. The word IS generic, that's just the way it is, too bad for any atheist who doesn't like it just because it means he can't then use an argument against a Christian theist to refute a Muslim theist or a Hindu theist.
And likewise, too bad for you if the FACT that atheism is an equally generic word frustrates you and ruins all your straw-men.

sonoman wrote:trying to change the definition of atheism

You are a liar. I have done no such thing. I have always defined it here as a lack of belief in god.
Which it is.

And I can show some evidence to support that such is the definition of the word. You however have never shown evidence of atheism having any other definition beyond that.

As per Merriam-Webster (an actual dictionary, unlike you:



That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per Oxford (an actual dictionary, unlike you):



That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per American Heritage (an acutal dictionary, unlike you):



That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

As per Collins English (and actual dictionary, unlike you):



That's it. That's all they define it as. NOTHING more.

And likewise, that's the only way I've ever defined the word in this thread. NOTHING more.

So all the stuff you keep trying (and failing) to insert into the definition of atheism is wrong and simply describes other characteristics a human being can have which are mutually exclusive to their belief or lack of belief in a god.

You fail.

sonoman wrote:change the definition of atheism to a hodge-podge of what would be described by most people I know as spiritualism

A further lie. The definition I have consistently always used in this thread for the word atheism is LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD.

NOTHING more.

That's actually a very concise definition and hardly a hodge-podge at all.

And I sure as hell have NEVER included "spiritualism" in that definition which I have always used here, and you will fail to produce any instance of myself having done so.

Just as an atheist can be a lawyer, just as an atheist can be a cashier, just as an atheist can be a republican, just as an atheist can be a democrat, just as an atheist can be an American, just as an atheist can be Japanese, etc.,

so also can an atheist be a believer in a soul, in an afterlife, in miracles, etc..

You are obstinately trying to conflate details that are not determined upon whether one believes in a god with the actual belief or disbelief itself. You err in doing so.

sonoman wrote:which again I know of no atheists embracing but you posting it as if it were a given fact.

Because it is a given fact. I know of some atheists who believe in several of the things I mentioned in my previous post. I can introduce you to a few of them if you like. Do you have a Facebook? You can hit up this guy for an informative chat to start you off.

sonoman wrote:Atheists post against souls, afterlife, reincarnation, miracles, etc,

Correction- some atheists post against such things. And it is their prerogative to do so. But they do so not because of their atheism, but as I said, they do so because of their general skepticism.

I know of theists who post against such things as well (and I can likewise introduce you to them if you like), would it be wise to define theism and characterize all theists as being the same as these skeptical naturalistic ones I just mentioned?

Obviously not, for you yourself and many other theists are not like that. And likewise, not all atheists are like what you described here, and it is just as wrong to try and characterize them all that way.

sonoman wrote:Your idea of "atheism" seems tailor-made for this thread, i.e.,

Well, given that "my" idea of atheism which I have consistently always used here is the idea of atheism taken directly from academic dictionaries on the English language, my idea is of atheism is thus tailor-made by the English speaking community, for the English-speaking community.
Which of course, includes this thread, since we've all been using English here (sans a little Greek from myself). So in that much you are right. Too bad being right is out of character for you. But it's a start, let's see if you can keep it up.
*Whoops, after reading further, it appears you can't keep it up, and are right back to your usual form.*

sonoman wrote:I can't argue against small minded people who don't reason well. It's especially annoying when they think they know everything better than others do and yet show the exact same blindness to any contradictory facts of science or history or logic that one finds in fundamentalist believers in God.

Ah, I see you've been engaging in soliloquy then.

sonoman wrote:The proof is in the pudding which is dogma liberally laced with personal attack instead of any reasoned argument.

There's no reason to continue discussion with minds closed to reasoned argumentation

Then put down the mirror and drop the soliloquy. Problem solved.

sonoman wrote:and ones prone to inventing new meanings for words and common knowledge just to "win" some atheist's idea of "answering" my questions.

I've already refuted such false accusations of "inventing new meanings" above, so I refer to that to spare redundancy.

sonoman wrote:It isn't reasoned argument anymore but then again I didn't expect anything else. But there are my limits to dealing with closed minds. It's really too bad true agnostics don't seem to create forums or chase Christians around religious forum discussions bashing their fundamentalist mirror-images. Don't have that anger propelling them I suspect as atheists do which in turn creates the atheist iconic stamp of intolerance of theistic beliefs and proneness to political attack of them.

You truly are unfamiliar with the 'no true-Scotsman fallacy', aren't you? What irony that you commit a logical fallacy in the same keystroke in which you claim a lack reason. Seems that lack of reason is with you.

But of course, the rest of us already knew that from day 1.

sonoman wrote:I'm making this my new policy here. I post a challenging topic. I will respond to intelligent questions but not to slander or poorly reasoned defenses of atheistic beliefs that rely on creating double-standards, i.e., new meanings for common words, denial of recognized authority when it counters atheistic beliefs, diversion of topic, etc. i.e. I'm here for debate, not target practice.

So we'll see you right back here in a few then?

Meh.

The fact is, you have been utterly refuted beyond all possibility of rebuttal.

I win.

You lose.

You will never deny it.

I have spoken.