Grim,

You start off by claiming that I have endorsed the point you’ve been making, then you go on to repeat the same misunderstanding that I have been correcting all along.

Okay, so maybe we agree on the definition of “disbelieve”. In fact, in retrospect, the only one here who attempted to place a question mark over it was Luciferase with his comment regarding “dictionaries at 10 paces” (and we can all see now how that would’ve fared) so I’m not sure why you’ve been arguing as though atheism and agnosticism were mutually exclusive and nor does it explain why you feel the need to add the unnecessary “de facto”.

Take your M-theory example, for instance; you conclude by stating that your position on it makes you an agnostic. Yet, had my last post endorsed what you’ve been saying, then you would also have acknowledged that in the context of religion, your position on M-theory also makes you an “atheist” in regards to it - an agnostic-atheist to be exact.

To add to this, you then mention Sagan’s proclaimed “agnosticism”, seemingly unaware that when Sagan referred to himself as an agnostic, he did so thinking that atheism was a claim to knowledge on the question of the existence of God. In that sense, he was victim of his times.

Furthermore, you claim that the influence of Dawkins et al has pushed the definition of atheism to the point of “very strong belief” when the definition has incorporated that all along... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg

I'm not sure why you want to cling so strongly to the idea that there is a third exclusive category. Referring to yourself as an atheist may give others (mostly just theists) the wrong idea about how strong your stance is on this topic, but the way I see it, if they’re too daft to understand what it means, then that’s their problem.

But I can’t stand when people molester the English language and I refuse to help propagate, or even enable, the deliberate skewing of definitions that theists engage in just because it makes them feel better.

AJ

I have applied the terms gnostic, agnostic, theist and atheist, as I see appropriate, below

Q1 (Knowing)
Does God exist?

A1 Yes (gnostic)
A2 No (agnostic)
A3 Maybe (agnostic)
A4 Don't know (agnostic)

Q2 (Believing)
Do you believe God exists?

A1 Yes (theist)
A2 No (atheist)
A3 Maybe (agnostic)
A4 Don't know (not an answer to the question)

Please say where do you disagree with this schema and say why?
Please indicate your personal position in this schema, as it stands or as corrected by you?

If you disagree with the term "agnostic" in relation to Q2,A3 then please indicate what word in the English language should replace it)

define/gnostic
http://www.google.com/search?q=define+gnostic

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gnostic

""gnostic..-Means
"relating to knowledge"..or "clever,..or knowing."""

so..anti-knowledge
or..not/clever
or..not/knowing...lol..

[gnostic..makes perfect sense..
a-gnostic..is non-sense]..lol

""2...Of..
or..relating to..Gnosticism.
n.
A believer..in Gnosticism.""

..the opposing..to believer
is deney-er...or a diss-believer

lol

http://www.gnosis.org/whatisgnostic.htm

""Only twenty-five years ago,..when one used..the word "Gnostic,"
it was very likely to be misunderstood..as "agnostic,"""

lol..it seems it still is..!

""and thus..have one's statement
turned into its exact opposite...!"""

yeah/lol

""Such misapprehensions..are far less likely..today.""

oh lordy/lordy..dream-on

""..It is evident..that a word used
in such contradictory ways..has lost its meaning.""

ie anti..[lol]..meaning?

""No wonder GNOSIS writer..Charles Coulombe despairs..over the situation..when writing recently..in a Catholic publication:

"In reality, "Gnosticism,"..like "Protestantism,"
is a word..that has lost most of its meaning...

Just as we..would need to know..whether a "Protestant"..writer is Calvinist,..Lutheran,..Anabaptist,..or whatever..
in order to evaluate him properly,

so too the "Gnostic"..must be identified.""

as must..the opposing to gnostic
whatever that is..

q1+A2=ignorant of knowledge[agnostic]

know what knowledge..your deneying

""The following characteristics..may be considered normative for all Gnostic teachers..and groups in the era of classical Gnosticism;

thus one who adheres..""[OR REJECTS}..to some
or all of them..today might properly be called..a Gnostic:

{OR A-gnostic]

The Gnostics posited..an original spiritual unity..that came to be split..into a plurality.[

ME
WE

As a result of the
pre-cosmic division..the universe was created.

This was done..by a leader..
who resembled..the Old Testament Jehovah.

A female emanation of God..was involved in the cosmic creation..

In the cosmos,space..and time..have a malevolent character
and may be personified*..as demonic beings/events..separating man/from God.

For man,..the universe..is a vast prison.

He is enslaved..both by the physical..laws of nature
and by..moral laws..

Mankind may be..personified as Adam,
who lies..in the deep sleep..of ignorance,
his powers..of spiritual self-awareness..stupefied..by materiality.

Within each natural/man..is an.."inner man,"
a fallen spark..of the divine/substance.

Since..this exists..*in each man,
we have the possibility..of awakening..from our stupefaction.

What effects..the awakening..is not obedience,
faith,..or good works,..*but knowledge.

Before..the awakening,..men undergo troubled dreams.
Man does not attain..*the knowledge..{gnosis]..that awakens him..
from these..*dreams..

[deleted/..post-limits]

..see link

only you..*know..what you*..are

if you say..your anti-knowing..thats fine..lol
but its time..you saw the joke..*

Luciferase,

You schema is wrong in so many ways, I can only conclude that it’s what you’ve cobbled together over many years using fragmented information - much of which is not correct (can you provide any links to support it?). I can’t correct it in 350 words and nor do I have the motivation to considering all my posts on this thread have done that already.

Where have you been?

One thing I will mention, however, is that your schema doesn’t recognise that atheism/theism and agnosticism/gnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

A more accurate way of putting it would be to say that everyone in the world fits into one of the following categories: -

Agnostic-atheist;
Gnostic-atheist;
Agnostic-theist;
Gnostic-theist.

Strictly speaking, I would regard myself and agnostic-atheist.

<<If you disagree with the term "agnostic" in relation to Q2,A3 then please indicate what word in the English language should replace it)>>

Well, “atheism” already does. I would ask you why you think we need a word specifically for it.

I personally don’t think we need a word for it and here’s why...

Firstly, I don’t think it’s a large enough category to really warrant a word for (particularly considering how lucky theists are that they even get an “atheism” out of us when they are yet to demonstrate one iota of truth in what they believe). In my experience, genuine confusion over what one believes here really only affects those who are slowly emerging from their childhood indoctrination (I’ve been there) and it’s usually a relatively short phase at that.

More importantly, though, theists (who like to think that there’s a third exclusive category of people out there who at least meet them half way) enjoy having a label (i.e. “atheism”) to attach purely to the rejection of their God in order point to communism as an inevitable result of that rejection and I don’t think we should have to find another word for it just because of this.

We see this type of idiocy on OLO from time-to-time and I even remember doing it as a theist myself too.

Dear AJ,

Atheist only deals with those religions which include a belief in god. There are religions such as Buddhism which do not include a belief in god but include a belief in a supernatural as exemplified by Nirvana and reincarnation.

Naturalism is a word that means a stance that all natural processes are due to natural means. However, a naturalist is also one who studies nature.

I am a naturalist in the sense that I do not accept any supernatural manifestation since I have no evidence that any such thing exists. I think that all physical processes can be described by the laws of physics and chemistry although I am open to Stuart Kauffman's work that maintains that life processes cannot be described solely by those laws. However, that does not imply a supernatural but merely the concept that there may be undiscovered laws such as a fourth law of thermodynamics.

Dear david f,

I too would regard myself as a naturalist and for exactly the same reasons you mention.

Thank you for your point in regards to Buddhism. That being said, by default, Buddhism doesn’t fare into the mix here - just as many other schools of thought wouldn’t.

I’ve said a couple of times, “in the context of religion”, whereas I now realise that I should have said, “in the context of a belief in God”, since we are talking about the words theism, atheism, etc.

But I’ve always had a problem with referring to Buddhism as a “religion”. I regard it as more of a philosophy and have always thought that referring to it as a religion is a recipe for confusion and only helps to feed the whole “atheism is a religion” and “AGW is a religion” nonsense.

But again, thanks again for pointing that out. I’ll be more careful with my wording there.