Explains what exactly? I think it implies what I said.
Yes and no. We would believe in God if there was undeniable evidence of his existence. Like the cartoon implies as he stands in front of God himself. How can you be atheist if you're standing in front of God?
No. Simply because you cannot prove a negative. Simple as that. If the positive is untestable, the negative is unprovable. The response they should have is either agnosticism or indifference (like when dealing with folktales), but never gnosticism.
I do not see how the knowledge necessary to prove that their claim is erroneous is any more obtainable than the knowledge they claim is obtainable so calling their claim erroneous is perhaps a bit too extreme?
Knowledge to verification of the claim isn't able to be obtained. So making a conclusion on something you cannot test is a bad move.
Gnosticism is quite different than being agnostic
Two sides, same coin. It has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Separate issue.
My vocabulary is suitably increased. Yet I am not really satisfied that adding an adjective to atheist will do what I was hoping to accomplish here.
What is that exactly?
Should the word atheist even be included in this?
Yes.
If a Gnostic Atheist is an atheist of any kind then saying that an atheist is only one that does not believe there is a god and does not include someone that believes there is no god we are contradicting ourselves.
No, it's still the same definition. With a caveat.
Gnostic Atheist - Someone without belief in god; believes that it is 100% knowable if gods exist or not. Therefore actually is making a claim "there is no god" because they believe they know, that's why they don't believe.
Agnostic Atheist - Someone without belief in god; believes that it is not 100% knowable and never will be if gods exist or not. Therefore will not state for certain, "There is no god" because they do not believe it's possible to know for certain.
Certainly you've heard Richard Dawkins use the term "Weak Atheist" and "Strong Atheist" This is the what he was talking about, but in layman's terms.
Hot or Cold water, still water.
Blue or Red paper, still paper.
Etc.
Are we not? We need a word that means one that believes there is no god
Gnostic Atheist.
not a phrase that states that some atheist of a certain variety believes there is no god.
Reaching for straws that don't exist.
Otherwise telling someone an atheist only does not believe there is a god would be untruthful as there would be atheists that go beyond that to the point of believing there is no god
I believe it's called Gnostic Atheist
and those you have been scolding will be able to point that out and mock the inconsistency.
No, it's still an atheist. Just like we don't mock gnostic and agnostic theists. We can't.
If one cannot claim to be an atheist and also claim to believe there is no god, then one cannot be a Gnostic Atheist.
It's claiming to be both atheist and gnostic in theology. Two separate fields. So in theory it sounds like it doesn't work, but in practice it does. They can compliment each other, but poorly.
Your same issue with gnostic Atheism is MY issue with gnostic Atheism. That's why people like me take issue with it. But it's still a real position.
One can be a Gnostic something else but not a Gnostic Atheist
You can be gnostic Atheist but you shouldn't be. Just like you shouldn't be a Muslim Hindu. You can do them both at the same time in practice but in theory it's bad and they just don't work well with each other.
unless we change the meaning of the word atheist to include not only lack of belief in god
Same definition
but allow the word to include the possibility of belief in the non existence of god as well.
It's gnosticism, not atheism you're describing here. You take issue with a person who claims to be both gnostic and atheist. Which is an erroneous position by design because the two positions in theory, just don't work.
If we do that, then any atheist that only lacks belief must also attach an adjective to their atheism or be accused of fostering confusion.
Yes they should. But they shouldn't have to label themselves like that. Most of the atheists on this site take the agnostic position generally and don't assert there is no god and are open to credible evidences.
A gnostic Atheist will flat out shout you down and say you'll never have evidence because they just know there is no God and discussing with this sorta person would be just plain impossible. They're not open to changing what they believe and they
KNOW 100% they are right and that's the end of that.
Agnostic atheists on the other hand like to ask questions and challenge belief and maybe even influence others to see the flaws in their thinking or even their own thinking. Their position is far more honest and not subject to absolutism like gnostic atheism is.
Absolutism doesn't mesh with atheism very well. That's why you see so very few gnostic atheists. And I would consider that a misguided position. So do the majority.
The theist version of a Gnostic Atheist is an
Agnostic Theist
Someone who believes in God but doesn't know for sure if they can know if God is real or not.
...Talk about a position that doesn't work.
