I don’t get why theists care wether people are agnostic, agnostic aheists, gnostic atheists etc. What does it matter. We are talking with theists who in the majority are gnostic theists: they know god exists. They do not claim they are uncertain, like agnostics, but are certain they KNOW god exists, some even claim they have evidence. Most people tend to be gnostic theists here.
Theists do not claim to be strict (or primarily) empiricists. They admit to having faith by which they take the leap from “I think this is probable” to “I know”; those who claim to have evidence either mean that such evidence
bolsters their claim–rather than absolutely proves it–or they probably do indeed go too far, theist or otherwise. It is when someone claims to be primarily or strictly an empiricist, using no faith whatsoever,
and claims to be gnostic whatever on the question of God that they go too far, regardless of whether they’re theists or atheists on any part of the spectrum; because
empirically speaking, I am not convinced that anyone could give
any gnostic answer to that question.
When invisible elephants are considered, people find it normal to have a gnostic attitude: they do not exist. But gods require special treatment: people feel insulted when you go further than agnostic when it comes to atheism. You have to keep into consideration their god may exists, otherwise some religious are insulted. … So why is there arn issue with gnostic atheists?
The reason that religious people are often insulted by gnostic Atheists is covered in my last post, as most gnostic Atheists encountered on the forums and elsewhere are more likely to have the following tendency:
**"**In any event, it seems to me that Agnostics and religious people essentially disagree only about whether or not empirical evidence–being able to reproduce proof in the here and now that one can see and touch–is the only rational basis for believing in something, or whether other information, such as eyewitness testimonies from the past combined with making a judgment based on the surrounding circumstances, can also constitute a rational basis and rational justification for believing in something, even if it’s not absolute proof of that something. Agnostics tend toward believing the former, whilst religious people tend toward believing the latter.
Understand: We religious people simply get annoyed when non-theists wrongly imply that we just made it all up like a fairytale, as though we pulled it from thin air and have no logical reason to believe what we believe. In fact there really is a rational, logical thought process behind our being convinced of our beliefs, and faith merely bridges the gap between “probably” and “I believe”. Some religious people may go on utterly blind faith–but a good number of us have reached our conclusions through logical reasoning and investigation, such as I can pretty well assure you that no one who believes in transcendent Leprechauns or Himmemonshaor has done. Even if non-theists don’t believe the way we do, we simply wish they’d refrain from implying we were blind and irrational for believing it ourselves, as such insults are dishonest and always show a lack of familiarity with (or deliberate dodging of) our actual beliefs and arguments. Though I’m not the OP, I believe that this thread was probably aimed toward those with that sort of elitist attitude, not those who simply disagree with us.
"
It is when Atheists think they are
intellectually superior, in exactly the sense of comparing religion to believing in “Invisible Elephants”, that religious people get offended. Anybody who cares enough to study religions will often find that, even if they themselves remain unconvinced, there are much better, perfectly rational reasons for believing in religions, at least several of the major ones. They are not pulled out of thin air like invisible elephants, giant spaghetti monsters, or even belief in something hitherto (or as it had become countless centuries ago) clearly known to be a fairytale, like leprechauns.
Also quite often I see on this forum atheism and antitheism are confused. Atheism is not the same as antitheism. Most antitheists are atheists. But the majority of atheists is not an antitheist.
Atheism = does not belives in god, does not follow a religion.
Antitheism = has issues with religion, anti-religion, may or may not be atheist.
I suppose this confusion arises because the really outspoken Atheists tend to have Antitheist qualities; i.e. mocking religion, mocking God, saying we’re irrational, saying we’re blind or unthinking, clearly thinking they are more rational or intellectually superior, constantly trying (keyword: trying) to punch holes in our faith for the sake of what, to an Atheist, should amount to nothing more than a lofty opinion rather than a cause for “evangelization”. With such attitudes among the likes of certain popular Atheist writers (and bloggists), it is
no wonder that we are so likely to think Atheists are Antitheist. Only Atheists without these attitudes can truly say they
aren’t.
If you are not an Antitheist, and thus if you do not share any of the elitist attitudes mentioned above, then that’s wonderful and good. You make yourself a breath of fresh air–well, you will when you cease comparing religion to the likes of invisible elephants. Other than that, perhaps you’re not an Antitheist, and your using such an unfortunate Antitheist tactic was accidental. Time and your future posts will tell, I suppose.
In any event, for the sake of mutual respect on both sides, I hope that you’re not.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
I was just commenting on the essential difference between how we approach our search for truth, as respectfully noting that difference is key to understanding each other. 
