Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A theist is a person who believes in the existence of at least one god. it doesn't matter how many gods he doesn't believe in.
A theist who claims to know is a gnostic theist.
A theist only has a presence of belief that god(s) exist. A weak atheist has an absence of belief that gods exist. A strong atheist has a presence of belief that gods don't exist. A theist must have a presence of belief that at least one god exists. Would you please read a beginners book on atheism?
"someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossibleto know, if a god exists:" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic
Did you look up the term "atheist" in the same dictionary?
The great thing about statements of the form that some person "doesn't believe in X" is that, for any term X (e.g., "god"), there exists no entity, thing, process, etc., that is X and that this person believes in. Even less formally, to not believe god exist simply requires that I believe nothing exists which I would say is god, and anything that I would say is god or a god is something I don't believe exists.
I don't. If one doesn't believe god exists but it is not true of this person to say that they believe god doesn't exist, they are not atheists (they are most likely agnostic).
You can remain unconvinced about the ontological status of god, the Loch Ness monster, big foot, etc., and yet believe that none of these exists as opposed to the agnostic position in which you assert merely that you don't know (you can make this more formal with belief functions or subjective probabilities, but the essence remains: if there exists enough evidence for you to conclude that you can say more that "I don't know", even if you don't actually know the truth based upon the evidence you need only evaluate it as sufficient to warrant a verdict; in this sense we might compare belief to a verdict or, as is done often in epistemology, the philosophy of probability, etc., to bets- juries don't actually know guilty parties but are asked to render a verdict in criminal trials based on whether the evidence is reasonably sufficient to "prove" guilt, while a rational gambler will not place a bet on the truth of the statement for which she has little cause to think is either true or false).
Almost the entire point of mental state predicates like "believe", and epistemic modality more generally, is to enable claims/assertions about what "is" or what is "true" without requiring that such statements be correct. Thus I can say that "I believe that whatever doesn't kill you simply makes you stranger" if in fact this is a position I support or regard as truth even though I can simultaneously state (truthfully) that I don't "know for a fact" that my position is true.
Any proposition of the form "x knows y" isn't actually a proposition in logic (or rather, requires "deviant" logics for admission). Mental state predicates in general are not admitted as propositions. However, the pragmatic basis for the continued term that Huxley coined is not so much a certainty as to whether or not a statement about knowledge of god is impossible, but a subjective epistemological claim (namely, that one doesn't know whether god beliefs, or better yet one does not know enough given the evidence such that one would place wagers according to formal probabilities or game-theoretic systems involving rational payoffs).
Belief that god exists isn't the same as knowing god exists, but because any belief claim is a claim to have knowledge we demarcate those whose belief claim is that god exists from those whose belief claim is that no god exists, and both from the position that one can only say they don't believe god exists, not that they believe god doesn't.
Yes can you believe a dictionary can be so wrong? First they use the definition of a "strong atheist" to define just an atheist, and as if that wasn't bad enough they say it's "someone who believes that God does not exist" when everybody knows that a "strong atheist" is "someone who believes that gods do not exist." Plural. All gods. Not just "God". The writers should bow their heads in shame.
Since your ignorance of the subject is so great and you refuse to learn but just keep repeating the same nonsense it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to you so I won't answer your posts any longer.
If that dictionary isn't right about atheism, how can you be so sure it's right about agnosticism?
Because I know what atheism and agnosticism is from having studied those subjects in depth for many years.
Apparently, the answer is "faith".
So we should pick the dictionaries or dictionary entries that only fit your conclusions?
The answer is logic, reason, common sense and knowledge.
No we should pick those that are correct.
And which ones are those? Who decides?
Surely such a fine term would apply to those who do know, rather than those who only claim to know, which would be nothing but meager belief.
If that's the case, why did you choose to disregard the definition of "agnostic" that was given by the person who coined the term?