Indeed. Far from being a troll, Arcanus is possibly one of the most well-informed and rational Christians I have come across and I have clashed with him on many occasions. The only problem I have with his argument is that I can't get around the seemingly assumption-ridden "TAG". Whether that is a problem of TAG, or a problem of my understanding of TAG has yet to be seen. :P

Odd, it works in IE8 for me :S

Could you send me the errors it throws using my contact form?

"Please don't label me" is a request. It isn't an order, we aren't trying to force people; we are trying to create a dialogue.

Gnosticism isn't a tenable position, but some people do claim it. We still have a word for people who think the moon landing was faked, even though the claim is so preposterous there is no doubt amongst rational people that it happened.

I've certainly met people online and in real life who claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, and they usually do it through the use of logical proofs (arguing from a point that logic is a basis of absolute knowledge itself).

Just because a certain position is useless, doesn't make it any less of a position to hold. It's wrong (very wrong), and most agnostics can easily poke holes in gnostic arguments. Truthfully, I think we are all agnostics; some of us just don't like admitting it, and prefer to cling onto the hope of absolute knowledge.

Relative knowledge is not absolute (by very definition), and therefore cannot be held as such. The theist who claims that their experience is all the evidence *they* need is still adhering to agnosticism, and is not a gnostic (in the modern sense of the word). They understand that what they espouse is relative, not absolute knowledge.

On practical terms, you say you know that Margaret Thatcher used to be Prime Minister, but can you say with absolute certainty that this is absolutely the case? I hold that you simply cannot. What your mind tells you is a memory of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, or is the knowledge that Margaret Thatcher used to be Prime Minister, could easily itself be a delusion.

An atheist could claim relatively that a God does not exist for them, and this would be perfectly true if they were being intellectually honest about their atheism. If they don't see any evidence for a god, they can say that to them, god does not exist. It is only when an atheist makes an absolute statement about the existence of god that things become less valid.

I fail to see the difference between a theist who claims to "know" god exists relatively based on evidence they have seen, and an atheist who claims to "know" god exists relatively based on the lack of evidence (or indeed, evidence against). This form (if indeed it can be called a form) of gnostic theism is not more tenable than it's counter position of gnostic atheism, as they both rely solely on relative knowledge.

Of course, I deny that these positions are gnostic. I see a clear dividing line between gnostic and agnostic, namely in the use (or claim to use) of absolute and relative knowledge. If claimed absolute knowledge is used to support a position, it is a form of gnosticism, otherwise it is agnosticism.

As for meeting gnostic atheists, I have met people who claim it, but a few probing questions get them to admit the flaw in their position.

The problem I see with your empirical point is that most theistic philosophers would say (and rightly so) that such gods "intrude" through what we perceive as naturalistic means. In other words, God did create us, but used evolution as the process, etc. That, or such non-temporal beings are capable of changing time itself to "hide" their actions from us.

The non-temporal is by very definition unknowable through empiricism.

I find it so hard to accept that God gave us a saviour because I find it so hard to believe that there is a God.

No, I don't understand sin. I understand conscience though, and why it is a useful evolutionary adaptation for the development of society.

I did find the "I can't announce the lotto numbers before the BBC" thing a bit suspicious, given that he wasn't announcing them, he was making a prediction (which by definition could be wrong). I mean, is it against the rules to read out 6 numbers on TV before the national lottery...really? Then again, of course he couldn't read them out first; he isn't *really* predicting the lottery at all, it's an illusion.

The problem with the split-screen theory is that the camera is being held by a guy, and is visibly moving. Doing split screen with a moving camera is difficult enough, but broadcasting it LIVE as well??? Course there is the other general problem which is that Derren Brown doesn't do that kind of thing, and he would ruin his career if he announced on Friday night that he'd done it this way; it is far too easy, not to mention disappointing.

How exactly did I use this as an argument against the religious? I said repeatedly (even in the title) that it strikes me as a hoax, especially the ending. Having said that, I have seen fundies before who act this way, and they were adults. We'll never know unless they "reveal" it to be a hoax anyway.

I beg to differ. This is how all the atheist memes start.