(a)gnosticism and (a)theism are separate axes, there are virtually zero atheists who claim certainty of knowledge. You've misunderstood something along the way here.
What do you even mean, my point is that Dawkins is taken by libs as paragon of atheism but he's not even an atheist, his book reeks of spiritual search and neophyte zeal typical of agnostics in the process of finding his new opium (and that Norton is 100% correct here)
no part of being atheist or theist requires thinking you have knowledge. If you're using the god delusion to say dawkins doesn't count as an atheist, you're saying there are no atheists at all because none of us have the hubris to claim we know for sure.
there are gnostic and agnostic theists, there are agnostic atheists, and out of all the people who have ever lived you could probably fit the gnostic atheists on a single bus.
I think, in the context of arguing a point along the lines of "This person is actually Y, not X!", it makes a fair amount of sense to nitpick about definitions, especially if your claim lies in assuming that Y and X are mutually exclusive.
I know several Christian atheists. They study the Bible as a work of fiction and participate in Christian ceremonies and gatherings. They just don’t believe god literally exists.
you can't prove a negative. it's intellectually irresponsible to say or believe that you know with 100% certainty that "god" or bigfoot or whatever doesn't exist, in a mirror of the way that weird christians will claim to know that god talks to them.
(a)gnosticism and (a)theism are separate axes, there are virtually zero atheists who claim certainty of knowledge. You've misunderstood something along the way here.
What do you even mean, my point is that Dawkins is taken by libs as paragon of atheism but he's not even an atheist, his book reeks of spiritual search and neophyte zeal typical of agnostics in the process of finding his new opium (and that Norton is 100% correct here)
no part of being atheist or theist requires thinking you have knowledge. If you're using the god delusion to say dawkins doesn't count as an atheist, you're saying there are no atheists at all because none of us have the hubris to claim we know for sure.
there are gnostic and agnostic theists, there are agnostic atheists, and out of all the people who have ever lived you could probably fit the gnostic atheists on a single bus.
Ah you're going into the extremely specific definition route, fair enough.
I think, in the context of arguing a point along the lines of "This person is actually Y, not X!", it makes a fair amount of sense to nitpick about definitions, especially if your claim lies in assuming that Y and X are mutually exclusive.
you're the one who brought up the guy's book where he literally talks about this. there's a seven-(for some reason) point scale and everything.
Imagining a Gnostic Atheist that denies the existence of god but admits the Demiurge does exist.
I know several Christian atheists. They study the Bible as a work of fiction and participate in Christian ceremonies and gatherings. They just don’t believe god literally exists.
So, basically a fanclub?
Lol it sounds similar, yeah. They’re into Jesus in the same way I’m into Sonic
you can't prove a negative. it's intellectually irresponsible to say or believe that you know with 100% certainty that "god" or bigfoot or whatever doesn't exist, in a mirror of the way that weird christians will claim to know that god talks to them.