workcel wrote:My original point was that is doesn't matter if someone is 'gnostic' in anything. What matters is if they can show it. It's irrelevant otherwise. Therefore, it shouldn't be a 2d graph but a straight line between belief and non belief. Justified or otherwise.
It does matter because gnostic theists are making claims about the world we live in despite the fact they are lacking evidence. Usually they have something they think is evidence but is really bullshit. My goal is to show them that they don't. In a practical sense it matters because gnostic theists influence public policy and other things. Whereas at least agnostic theists would have much less power.
The secondary point about 'lacking a belief' I'm suspecting is a cope. You can't lack a belief in a piece of information you've been made aware of. You're on a continuum between belief and non-belief.
Lol dude, why can't you get this through your head. I actually can lack belief in a whole bunch of things, not just regarding Gods. I.e, there are probably branches of mathematics that I know nothing about. Of the Gods that I do know about, I can prove them false by showing inconsistencies in the holy books. But deists like to fight in this weird way in which they give incomplete information about a God. Therefore since they aren't clearly defining what they are talking about I can lack belief in it.
(Deist): "There is a thing that exists"
Me: What is the thing like?
(Deist): I'm unable to tell you.
Me: Then I lack belief in it.