So now it is a belief? I thought theists and atheists just had those in your view...
That’s why I prefer using the term “point of view” in that particular case. We are using belief two ways, and it seems to be getting a little confusing.
A belief is a belief isn't it?
Can you explain "For a theist is a belief about believing" please? And after you explain that can you please explain if you hold this to atheists as well?
To say you believe God exists is different than saying you KNOW God exists. By definition; to say “believe” leaves open the possibility of doubt, to “know” does not. The same applies to the Atheist. Think of it this way: (as the website I sent you yesterday confirmed)
Theist: someone who believes God exist but leaves the possibility that he may not
Atheist: someone who does not believe God exist, but leaves open the possibility that he may
Theist Agnostic: Person who Knows God exists
Atheist Agnostic: person who Knows God does not exist
Agnostic: person who says it is impossible to know either way.
You see these agnostics theist / atheist terms. Hubris.
A theist is someone who believes God exists period!
An atheist is someone who believes God does not exist period!
Both are knowledge claims regardless of their justification for their belief. What you are attempting to do is describe justification for belief - not the belief itself.
The definition for Theism/Atheism has never been - A belief where someone knows God does exist/not exist, it has only ever been the belief God exists or the belief God does not exist.
Perhaps you should stop reading those infidel sites, which attempt to redefined terms including the word faith.
Seems to me you hold to one definition of agnosticism and ignore Wikipedia also stating:
philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God
And dictionary definition 3 third one.
agnostic -a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: "Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality."
Do you cherry pick to suit yourself?
How's subjectivism working out for you?
And does this mean a theist or atheist isn't making a knowledge claim, when they say God exists or Does not exist respectively?
The way you phrased it was a knowledge claim which would make them a "theist agnostic or an "atheist agnostic". For them to be theist or atheist they would have to say I believe God exist, or I don't believe God exist.
I know this stuff gets bandied around the internet but it is what it is... HUBRIS! Sometime ago I listened to a Podcast with a philosopher talking about a paper an atheist philosopher here in Australia wrote, they both agreed that this agnostic X is a contradiction in terms when applied to Theism and Atheism. I happen to agree with how nuts it is, especially when you understand that there is a clear distinction between justification and belief itself.
When someone states a belief X, REGARDLESS it is a knowledge claim.
A theist is a Theist not and agnostic theist. Same goes for Atheist. What this hubris is attempting to do is make these definitions a merger of belief with justification, but in reality these terms is about justification for belief, not the belief itself.
You and those who use this hubris fail to understand that your justification for belief is wholly independent to the belief itself. So sorry sunshine in philosophy they are seen as two entirely separate things.
What about an agnostic who says "I don't believe God exists and I don't believe God does not exist" (and holds no position on whether it is knowable) how is that a belief about knowledge in your view?
If he holds no position on weather it is knowable, according to Thomas Huxley (the man who coined the term agnostic approx 150 years ago) he is not an agnostic. According to Huxley he has to have the view that knowledge is unknowable.
I refer you to the other meanings and definitions for the term Agnostic.
So when someone talks about anything to do with Gods existence it isn't about God?
Not God by himself, but God’s existence.
So now you are saying it is about God because it is about his existence when before you said it isn't?
KenI think you misunderstood me
So are you saying an agnostic who claims you cannot know if God exists or not doesn't hold a belief about Gods existence?
I am saying an Agnostic claims you cannot know if God exist, but he doesn’t address belief in God.
But that is still a belief right?
What about an agnostic who holds no belief either way, because they have never heard about God or not worked out from nature that God may exist, and as such don't have a belief about knowledge (In your view)?
If a person never heard of God, he cannot be an Agnostic.
Refer to definitions again.
Will Kenny cherry pick?