@argome321,
Quote:Knowledge in and of itself is a subset of belief....Of course you have some on either side who claim to be Gnostic..to them knowing that god exist or knowing that god doesn’t exist.
Those who claim to "know" that god doesn't exist, cannot, then, by your definition be "atheist." (You said: "Theism has to do with belief and (A) thesis is without belief.") They have a belief, not a lack of belief. You can't claim to "know" something without claiming to "believe" it.
Likewise, someone "knowing that god doesn’t exist," as you put it, cannot be an agnostic. He doesn't claim a lack of knowledge. So, by your definition, he can be neither atheistic nor agnostic.
Does that make him a "theist?" You see the problem with the distinctions you're trying to make here? They cannot be consistently applied.
You say "Knowledge in and of itself is a subset of belief." So, you can believe without knowing, but you can't know without believing. But, that aside, "agnostic," not withstanding it literal meaning, has traditionally been associated with "doubters," i.e., those who lack a belief
because they don't know. So the knowledge/belief distinction merges and the distinction is not applicable to those cases.
Quote:Past interpretations of agnosticism and atheism are irrelevant if there is ever to be constructive dialogue now in the present and in the future.
Not sure what you're getting at here, Arg. Are you saying the matter cannot be discussed unless one accepts a new "interpretation" which obliterates the traditional meaning of a term? Why should that be?