RE: You are either dishonest or not very bright. You are confounding propositions.

1. Can a person acknowledge they know or not.
A. I acknowledge I know - Gnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
B. I acknowledge I do not know - Agnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
____________________________________

YOU are confounding propositions, and blaming me for what you are doing.
It's okay, it happens when a person is in a state of enmity. See Kayin and Abel.
You confounded 1. by adding "or" as in: one or the other. Remove "or".

1. Can a person acknowledge they know not.
A. I acknowledge I know - Gnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.
B. I acknowledge I do not know - Agnostic - SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

The "SPECIFICALLY WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD." part is where you are confused. Read what follows carefully and hopefully it will be clarified.
____________________________________

RE: What I know, I know. <---knowledge ------> BUT NOT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. YOU HAVE SHIFTED THE WORD KNOWLEDGE TO MEAN GENERAL INFORMATION.

Yes, about the existence of 'god' (taken as: all-knowing), which can be taken as (unknown) if not already "believed" in. Any/all knowledge of 'god' necessarily collapses into the dichotomous dipole of so-called good and evil (ie. all knowledge), which is precisely what elohim (ie. 'GOD') is defined by: possessing knowledge of good and evil. Note: NOT "belief" in knowledge of good and evil (which leads to polarization and death) as the "believers" "believe" they might/do have. When it comes to knowledge of good and evil, one either truly has (some of) it, or merely believes to have (some of) it and are dead wrong. Symbolically, these are the fruits of the respective trees: of living, and of death. I say some of it, as obviously all of it would be a/the all-knowing 'god' itself. As one becomes knowing, one becomes "like" 'god' in knowing good and evil, but not necessarily all-knowing (ie. 'GOD'). Each being is their own limitation (ie. ignorance) which is why, again, I keep stating 'I AM' is the only thing that can be "known". It's like this:

If god is all-knowing, as one approaches all-knowing, one approaches god.
If good and evil exist, as one approaches all-knowing, one approaches all knowledge of good and evil.

A believes B is evil.
B believes A is evil.
C knows they are both confused.

A and B are locked in conflict (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
C can be neutral "knowing" they are both evil (if so) and without conflict, or choose to entangle: by laughing at both, or trying to help both, or picking a side and playing one off the other like a cat-and-mouse. This is very common in geopolitics: a single hand playing two against one another.

Knowledge can entail knowing how not to become entangled in A/B in the first place, but rather dwell in C abstaining.
Ignorance can entail falling for A/B due to adopting a false belief (ie. eating a fruit from the forbidden tree).

So here is a poem:

O! You who "BELIEVE"
Do you not "KNOW"?

Do you like it? I know it will confuse the philosophers.

RE: YOU EITHER BELIEVE GOD EXISTS OR YOU DO NOT.

Wrong.

You can not test for something
without "knowing" 'something' about what it is.
The problem is in defining the word 'god'.
I know whether or not 'god' exists.
I do not know how others understand 'god',
as words are like labels - confusing.

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

If 'god' is all-knowing, and "belief" is required to confuse evil with good,
under what circumstances would an all-knowing god, who is all-knowing,
have BELIEVERS BELIEVE (ANYTHING)?

I return to the argument:

******
P1 'Belief' is the agency required to confuse evil with good, and/or vice versa.
P2 'Knowledge' is the agency required to reconcile evil with good, and/or vice versa.
C Belief is not so much a virtue as knowing who/what/where/why/when how and/or if *not* to "believe" is.
******

and re-state:

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

and (ac)knowledge (of) what god is not, which reveals knowledge of good and evil without distortion.
____________________________________
RE: BUT NOT OF THE ABSENCE OF GOD. YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN A GOD OR YOU DO NOT. ALL YOU ARE DOING IS PLAYING WORD GAMES. IT IS DISHONEST AND FRANKLY "IGNORANT" IF YOU ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THE SHIT YOU ARE SPEWING.

Think of a triangle again.
Place 'conscience' on the top apex and 'emotions' at the flat base.
As one is subject to their own emotions, their conscience is affected accordingly.
As one removes emotions, one tends towards conscience.
The flat base is dual: good/evil wherein emotions dwell.
The apex is clean: 'I am'.

Translation: emotions are a barrier to the reconciliation of good and evil (ie. knowledge; god) because one is subject to them. One has to remove themselves entirely (ie. what they "believe" they are) and get as close to a state of 'I am' as they can without allowing outside distortion in. Just be simple: 'I am' and no emotions.
____________________________________
RE:MORE BULLSHIT FOLLOWS: "One can not be all knowing."
NO SHIT BANANA BREATH. SO YOU ADMIT YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD, A FIRST CAUSE, A FORCE, OR ANY OTHER MAGICAL ASSERTION!

Emotionalism again. The evidence is inside of yourself.

Take conscience as who/what/where/why/when/how
Take 'I am' as unknown.

Who are you?
What are you?
Where are you?
Why are you?
When are you?
How are you?
If you are?

If you don't know the who/what/where/why/when/how AND, PHILOSOPHERS, *IF* you are, how the hell are you supposed to know ANYTHING in relation to an (unknown).

KNOW. YOUR. SELF.
NO. OTHER. KNOWLEDGE.
It's axiomatic - each has their own responsibility to know what they are (not):

Does 'god' exist? <---bad question
What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad
What is 'god' NOT? <---best question

See? It's the same: knowing what one is not, and knowing what god is not, leaves one with whatever one/god is.

Will there be anything further, then?
____________________________________
RE: MORE IGNORANT BULLSHIT TO COME: " Being in the middle is not only recommended," Do you ever read anything. Go to the home page and read the article on AR about Atheism and Agnosticism before you make your next inane comment.

You wouldn't accuse another of what you are doing, would you?
____________________________________
RE: If you want to talk about KNOWLEDGE go to a frigging philosophy forum,

I did go to a philosophy forum. I argued against their handling of 'knowledge' and had two threads removed which dealt with:

i. Reconciliation of good and evil in relation to knowledge
ii. The original sin mapped as a framework which explains what we see

So they began censoring based on my objection to "All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing.", kind of what some "philosophers" are doing here. I am sorry such people are confused about this (and understand the accusation seems the other way around from their perspective) but one must be in order to think in the first place. Philosophy is stagnated and dead, and the reason is they do not have a proper handling of "knowledge".
_____________________________________
RE: Atheists are people that do not believe in god or gods.
Right.
RE: Agnostics are people that believe nothing can be known about god or gods.
Wrong.
RE: Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge", and as it relates to God, having knowledge of God.
Right - thank you for the Greek.
RE: You can not both have knowledge of God and assert it can not be known. THIS BY DEFINITION IS AN "OXYMORON."
Agnostic need not assert it definitely CAN NOT BE known. They may assert it is not known BY THEM.

Just take gnostic - having knowledge. What is the inverse? Agnostic - not having knowledge. Do either imply totality of knowledge (ie. is every gnostic all-knowing and/or every agnostic all-not-knowing)? No, this is absurd. One can both know, and know that they know not. It is acknowledging ones own limitations - here is my knowledge, here is my ignorance. Both are an acknowledgement as distinct from "BELIEF".

RE: Do you ever get tired of being demonstrably WRONG? Do you ever get tired of your equivocation bullshit? We do.

No, being wrong about something is a good thing - it is a good time to improve. The only problem is, some people who have enmity and want others to *be* "WRONG" often fall into the trap of themselves being wrong about something, and will never admit it due to a blind pursuit of adversarial endeavors. This is a kind of madness that I will allude back to.

Words have and/or are roots. These roots imply something; in the cases of gnosis, it is to know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jnana

Such roots can be adopted into other languages and used (abused) such that they become confused. Evolved languages, such as English, may obscure what roots (originally) mean(t) and suffer being limited to what one "believes" a root/word to mean. It is for this reason I did not learn the Hebrew roots from the language, but rather from the gestures themselves.

As to "gnostic" and "agnostic" you are attempting to enforce/apply an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) that, rather than reflecting the essence of a root, is rather a reflection of the common usage of that root, of a particular people, based on a particular understanding (or lack of). I encountered this same problem within scriptures: the Qur'an uses Syriac roots (being passed off as "Arabic") which, when used by the Arabs, means something different to them (rather than what the root implies). It is without question that the latter did not understand the roots and/or desired them to mean what reflected their own worldview. This happens all throughout history: languages suffer deterioration such that the meaning of words reflects the integrity/respect of the ones using them. Again, hence my need to understand the roots based on gesture.

In my case, gnosis is taken to be knowing. The inverse is agnosis taken to be not knowing. You are attempting to enforce a limited usage-based "English" understanding reflecting such deterioration and attempting to apply it to me. It is not my own usage, and neither is it your position to do so. But I understand, you have an axe to grind. I do not call into question your handle 'Cognistic' because I assume it means something to you. I also do not call into question (by any means) you indicating you are a monkey behind a typewriter.
_______________________________
RE:MORE INANE BULLSHIT AND PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE -
Does 'god' exist? <---bad question - THE ONLY QUESTION..

I would ask if there was something wrong with you, but I already know the answer to that question.

"Does 'god' exist?" begs the question as to what 'god' is. You can not address the question of whether or not something exists until defining what that thing is and/or what characteristics (ie. "signatures") it might have. To do this, I read the root for the Hebrew word for 'god' which is elohim and searched for its characteristics.

RE: What is 'god'? <---better, but still bad - PRESUPPOSES GOD EXISTS - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.

No it doesn't - equivalent question: 'what is elohim'?

What is elohim? Do you know? Do you know the root? Have you read it?

RE: What is 'god' NOT? <---best question - PRESUPPOSITIONAL NONSENSE - BEGGING THE QUESTION FALLACY.

If 'elohim' is known, what is 'elohim' not?

The presuppositions are inside of yourself.
______________________________
RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Circling back to the madness; it is *you* doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.

This is the problem with enmity: accuser is the accused. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them, they rage and rage and rage.

Thank you Cognistic, you have helped me understand further that psychological projection is a product of enmity.

RE: @ an narrow English-based dictionary definition(s) Wrong banana breath. Dictionaries do not give definitions but common usages. As you said, words change over time. If you are using some archaic form of a word, it is your responsibility to clearly define what you mean. You are in an ATHEIST FORUM. You have been called out numerous times on your bullshit misuse of words. Get with the program. We are not speaking LATIN or GREEK around here.;
______________________________

If dictionaries do not give definitions but common usages, and my name is unique (ie. opposite of "common") why would any assume my usage were common? Why would you assume anything? Are you a "believer"? Do you "believe" you are something you are not, such as... right?

I actually haven't had any contentions to the argument as of yet. I am still waiting for one, and in the meantime using you to elaborate and clarify other things I am still inquiring about internally. It's really interesting, look:

RE: RE: HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT. YOUR PRESUPPOSITIONAL BULLSHIT IS GETTING YOU NO-PLACE.

Can I ask you (as I do not know): are you aware you are accusing another of what you are doing? Are you aware that you have literally copy-pasted this exact response fulfilling:

"...TO REPEAT THE SAME NONSENSE. THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY IS DOING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WHILE EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT."

and are effectively repeating the same nonsense? I can not tell if you are serious, or trolling. If you play the troll card, you will have one-upped me because I thought you were serious.

Back to the OP:

"Belief" itself seems to be the Edenic warning.

To believe, rather than to know (what not to believe) is ignorance.
To know what not to believe reconciles any/all ignorance.
If god is all-knowing, knowing all who/what/where/why/when/how and/or if *not* to "believe" tends towards god.

Getting close.

RE: Wow that is pretty harsh. Especially since in the very next paragraph; you went on to acknowledge that Islamophobia is a real thing:
______________________________

It is absolutely real. But, it is inverted/upside-down. Try to get rid of the emotions for 30 seconds and use your conscience only.

Take a triangle with an area of 100(%):

Top 5% = House of Islam (ie. Muslim Brotherhood)
Bottom 95% = "Believing" Muslim
Call these H and M resp.

There are two kinds of fear happening here: rational and irrational.

H has a RATIONAL fear:
-Qur'an is man-made (exposed=collapse)
-Petra scandal (exposed=collapse)

whereas M has an IRRATIONAL fear (of Allah/Islam).

The nature of the M/E Canaanite-derived religions is to scapegoat/project their own iniquities (ie. of the "tribe") onto others. This is a pathology in Christianity with Jesus being the scapegoat for all of the sins of the world, and a pathology in Islam to project/condemn their adversaries as being guilty of what Islam wants off of itself. It will do this to take the focus off of itself and on to others: accuser is the accused.

A is guilty of (x). A is drawing attention about (x).
A accuses B of (x) in front of C, who is a gullible "believer".
C "believes" A and condemns B for (x) which A is guilty of.

This is how witch mobs work. Look at the United states:

A=Democrats/House of Islam
B=Republicans/West
C="Believers" who hate instead of think

The internal nature of the top 5% is constant fear, thus they use fear to control their own people (same pathology as Muhammad). This is a conscious process.
The internal nature of the bottom 95% is also constant fear, but as with the glass analogy, Muslims pathologically project their own internal state (ie. phobia) as being caused by an outside source. Therefor, despite themselves having an irrational fear of (criticisms of) Islam, they blame whoever is stirring it up in them. The Palestinians do this constantly: blame others for what they are guilty of.

So this entire "phobia" business is actually suffered by the "believing" Muslims (who are the first victims of Islam) and the term is used by the top 5% to silence criticisms of Islam by condemning others for their own state of being (ie. fear). They will always, always blame others for their own internal state. That is the mental illness of Islam: projection. Once you see it, you see it for life.

RE: So according to what you have told us, you are either: retarded or a fascist whiner/squealer.
_____________________

No, however that might be what you want me to be because it suits your "narrative". A fascist whiner/squealer is exactly what Old man shouts... is. Retarded is what Islam is. It is stuck in the 7th century trying to make the Qur'an-based sharia the global law, and this is where all of the hatred/divisiveness is coming from. Most people don't see it because they buy into the hatred and turn into zombies that attack on command. They are trying to destroy the United States from within, and Canada is being invaded under Justin Trudeau who was literally picked up off the streets by these people.

If you understand projection, you will understand geopolitics. Always ask upon any accusation: are they projecting? If there is enmity, it will always be yes. If there is no enmity, the accusation may have a degree or more of soundness to it. But once there is enmity... seriously might as well just look into a mirror. It's that obvious.