Jump to content


Photo

Am I An Atheist?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
56 replies to this topic

#41 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:45 AM

yup and they often lie and will tell you thiest are lying on what is true and wont look into the matter.

#42 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 March 2012 - 01:53 PM

I was going to add an additional 8 or 10 paragraphs, but thought better of it. I figured, why should I, the facts I've already posted will probably be ignored... And Jason, I'm not so sure that its an out-and-out lie as much as its simply denial due to a certain amount of need to cling to a philosophical world-view.

#43 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 24 March 2012 - 02:46 PM

How about I give my hand at this?

Gnostic: of or relating to knowledge
Theistic: belief in the existence of a god or gods

Notice here that gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge, and theism/atheism to belief.

Therefore, a gnostic atheist is 100% sure, he knows there are no gods. I would provide that this position is untenable
An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in deities, although he cannot be sure they do or do not exist. Notice the fact that deities exist or not is independent of a person's belief in them.
An agnostic theist would be someone who is still looking, of who believes in god, but not 100%
A gnostic theist would be someone who knows with 100% certainty that his god exists. I would provide that depending on the definition of the god in question, this position is also untenable.

So, no I'm not 100% sure, but no, I don't believe either. I am an agnostic atheist.
You do believe and you are 100% sure. You are a gnostic theist.
I'm not saying gods don't exist, I'm merely saying that their existence as described in holy books is unlikely.
You are saying that a deity exists, and furthermore you claim to have knowledge of traits that describe such a deity.
You are providing positive proof, I am not. You can convince me of your deity's existence to make me a theist, and from there share the knowledge of the deity you have for me to become a gnostic theist. However, the fact such knowledge requires a great suspension of disbelief on my part without much incentive or reasons to do so is what is holding me back in my atheism.

I don't need to prove any gods don't exist. If they do, fine. If they don't, fine. Either way, I am going to live a happy and productive life as though they weren't there anyways.

#44 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 March 2012 - 06:00 PM


How about I give my hand at this?

Gnostic: of or relating to knowledge
Theistic: belief in the existence of a god or gods


Sorry, we don’t allow equivocation (the use of vague or ambiguous and sometimes misleading language), in this forum (I believe we discussed this earlier):

Gnostic (noun): Somebody who believes in Gnosticism
(Encarta Dictionary)

Theistic (noun): Someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods
(Encarta Dictionary)

Gnosticism (noun): The doctrines of certain pre-Christian pagan, Jewish, and early Christian sects that valued the revealed knowledge of God and of the origin and end of the human race as a means to attain redemption for the spiritual element in humans and that distinguished the Demiurge from the unknowable Divine Being.
(American Heritage® Dictionary)

Get your definitions correct first, AND then use them correctly.


Notice here that gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge, and theism/atheism to belief.



That would be incorrect Alex, as agnosticism, in this context is defined as: The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
(American Heritage® Dictionary)

And, as I provided above Gnosticism, as defined, is a theistic worldview.


Therefore, a gnostic atheist is 100% sure, he knows there are no gods. I would provide that this position is untenable



Here, you are attempting to attach two words that are diametrically opposed. A “Gnostic” is one who “believes” in the “revealed knowledge of God”. And an atheist is one who “believes” that there is NO God. So your actual connection of those two words would be defined as “Someone who believes in the revealed knowledge of God that also believes there is NO God”.

Your attempted coupling of the two is a misnomer, fallacious, and is a travesty in the usage of the English language, as they do not comport (one with the other).


An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in deities, although he cannot be sure they do or do not exist. Notice the fact that deities exist or not is independent of a person's belief in them.
An agnostic theist would be someone who is still looking, of who believes in god, but not 100%



First – Once again, you are trifling with definitions (equivocating). Atheist is defined as “NO GOD” And Agnostic is defined as “NO KNOWLEDGE”. So, your fallacious coupling of these two words in that way would actually be defined as “NO KNOWLEDGE of NO GOD”… It is self-stultifying.

Second – A Theist is someone who believes in a deity.
Theist (Noun)
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).
(Dictonary.com)

Third – An agnostic is someone who lacks knowledge.

ag•nos•tic ( Noun)
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
ag•nos ti•cal•ly adv.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gn sis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals "ists," as he called them who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
agnostic [ægˈnɒstɪk]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc., is impossible Compare atheist, theist
2. a person who claims, with respect to any particular question, that the answer cannot be known with certainty
adj
of or relating to agnostics
[coined 1869 by T. H. Huxley from A-1 + GNOSTIC]
agnosticism n

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)


The theist already claims at least SOME knowledge of God. Agnostic = NO KNOWLEDGE… Therefore you are trifling with definitions again.

As an aside, ALL theists claim to still be searching knowledge of God (Gods Wisdom), therefore your attempt here further fails.


A gnostic theist would be someone who knows with 100% certainty that his god exists. I would provide that depending on the definition of the god in question, this position is also untenable.



This is a double positive (as BOTH = Theism) and is therefore overkill. The only thing untenable here is your fallacious usage of definitions.

#45 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 25 March 2012 - 02:24 PM

@ Ron, I was afraid you would point out the Gnosticism branch. I should have included it in my message, sorry :(

If I look at the definition of 'gnostic' and gnostic only, there are 2 definitions
1) an adjective, of or relating to knowledge, especially mystical knowledge
2) a noun, an adherent to Gnosticism

I used the first definition above in all my cases as an adjective to modify the noun following immediately thereafter instead of a second noun to describe more in detail.
I do think that in the case of agnostic, the first definition makes more sense, since we do not have amuslims nor achristians nor ajews, therefore in that case 'gnostic' is not in reference to the religion.

I'm not trying to equivocate or to muddy the water, but I did check my definitions before I posted. I am very unfamiliar with gnosticism, so I really have no idea how popular/known it is. I only wanted to use the more familiar gnostic adjective.

Using that definition, it eliminates the double positive and double negative problems, since an adjective is neither positive nor negative in and of itself.

Similarly, when looking at the definition of atheism, one sees two entries:
1) a disbelief in the existence of deity
2) the doctrine that there are no deities.
It's even more complicated if one looks at the wikipedia page in the section about implicit and explicit atheism, because it allows one to be implicitly atheistic in regards to some deities (ie: neither one of us is aware of a multitude of deities, and thus we have not rejected them) while being explicit about others (ie we both are aware of the belief in Apollo and we both reject that form or theism). Then there is the weak/strong or negative/positive, where one merely states disbelief and the other explicitly states the absence of any and all deities.

I contend that your definition of atheism is inexact because you are an atheist in regards to all the other gods you are aware of who were once venerated. You disbelieve in all deities except one, and perhaps go so far as to say none other exist but your deity (the former being weak/negative atheism, and the latter being positive/strong atheism with one exception). I do not explicitly reject the possibility of a god existing, except in the cases where such deities are internally contradictory, whose existence based on its properties can be determined and it has failed to pass the test, or violates the law of noncontradiction. In the case of the Bible, God is described as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-benevolent (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient). If he possesses those three characteristics, there should not be evil in the world. The fact there is shows that either that specific God does not exist, or God is not exactly as described in the Bible, there is some part of him that is unknown to us.

The fact that I acknowledge the belief in God but reject it shows my explicit atheism. That I do not declare that no gods can exist shows my weak or negative atheism. The fact I cannot claim with 100% knowledge that a deity can or cannot exist reflects my agnostic atheism.

Is this more satisfactory?

#46 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 March 2012 - 06:09 PM


@ Ron, I was afraid you would point out the Gnosticism branch. I should have included it in my message, sorry

If I look at the definition of 'gnostic' and gnostic only, there are 2 definitions
1) an adjective, of or relating to knowledge, especially mystical knowledge
2) a noun, an adherent to Gnosticism

I used the first definition above in all my cases as an adjective to modify the noun following immediately thereafter instead of a second noun to describe more in detail.
I do think that in the case of agnostic, the first definition makes more sense, since we do not have amuslims nor achristians nor ajews, therefore in that case 'gnostic' is not in reference to the religion.


Both definitions (as per your example above) are in reference to “spiritual” knowledge (i.e. “especially mystical”). So, in that case, your adjective fails when you attempt to couple said adjective to the words “atheist” (i.e. NO GOD) and agnostic (NO KNOWLEDGE).

Gnostic Atheist = Theistic atheist
Gnostic Agnostic = Theistic Agnostic

Again, when you use it in conjunction (as a descriptive qualifier) with the word theist, you are simply repeating yourself, as #1 “especially mystical knowledge” (some translations are “spiritual knowledge"), and #2 “an adherent to Gnosticism” are both nothing more than saying the same thing twice; because BOTH are “Theistically” descriptive NOT "Atheistically" descriptive.

Gnostic Theist (via reference #1) = theistic theist!
Gnostic Theist (via reference #2) = theistic theist!

Even if you wanted to simply use the root word Gnosis, you would still be reaching into the theistic realm:

Gnosis (Noun) “Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation”
(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Gnosis (Noun) “Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.”
(The Free Dictionary)


I'm not trying to equivocate or to muddy the water, but I did check my definitions before I posted. I am very unfamiliar with gnosticism, so I really have no idea how popular/known it is. I only wanted to use the more familiar gnostic adjective.

Using that definition, it eliminates the double positive and double negative problems, since an adjective is neither positive nor negative in and of itself.



Actually, it didn’t eliminate the double positive (as I demonstrated above). But, even if you simply wanted to use “Gnosis” as equaling “Knowledge”, in the form of a descriptive qualifier, you are doing less than you need to, as the Theist believes they have knowledge FOR God; the Atheist believes they have knowledge that there is NO God, and the Agnostic believes that they have knowledge that they either “Have No Knowledge” or that they “Cannot Know”. In every case, by definition, all the positions believe they have “Gnosis” to base their world-view on.


Similarly, when looking at the definition of atheism, one sees two entries:
1) a disbelief in the existence of deity
2) the doctrine that there are no deities.
It's even more complicated if one looks at the wikipedia page in the section about implicit and explicit atheism, because it allows one to be implicitly atheistic in regards to some deities (ie: neither one of us is aware of a multitude of deities, and thus we have not rejected them) while being explicit about others (ie we both are aware of the belief in Apollo and we both reject that form or theism). Then there is the weak/strong or negative/positive, where one merely states disbelief and the other explicitly states the absence of any and all deities.


It is only complicated because of the convoluted nature of the explainers explanation. When one attempts to change definitions, in order to create greater gray area, with the intention of having more room to run, the viewer need only go to the root of the problem to find the truth.

First – When someone tosses out the word “complicated” to describe a simple definition, then attempts to use adjectives that do not fit the purpose, in order to serve their own personal purpose, should cause red flags to immediately pop up (even to the casual viewer).

Second – Convoluting the conversation by adding more deities in no way complicate the definition for theist; as “Theist” defined, simply means someone who believes in God, or gods. Further, you cannot be an atheist in ANY WAY, while at the same time believing in ANY God or gods. This is not only conversion by definition, but it is also in contradiction of the LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION!

Third – Convoluting the conversation by adding more “definitions” to the noun Atheist, in no actual way complicates said noun. The actual definition was provided previously, and Wikipedia is an easily manipulated source ( I would know, as I am a past contributor there, and stopped because of the lack of standards). Further, even if you don’t believe in various deities, but are devoted to one (or two or three etc…), you are a THEIST, NOT an ATHEIST. The attempt to promulgate otherwise is equivocating. (Do we really need to have this conversation again?)

An Atheist is an atheist; and if you believe there is NO God (or gods) YOU ARE AN ATHEIST! You can attempt to call it “hard” or “Soft”, “positive” or “Negative”, but you are an atheist!

An Agnostic is an Agnostic; If you believe that there “may not” be a God (or gods), or you believe you have NO KNOWLEDGE, or CAN HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of (or for) God (or gods) YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC.


I contend that your definition of atheism is inexact because you are an atheist in regards to all the other gods you are aware of who were once venerated.


I contend that you convolute your definition of atheism (as I have provided in this post AND my previous post), and you further attempt to equivocate on MY status as a theist. Do you really want to continue along those lines?


You disbelieve in all deities except one, and perhaps go so far as to say none other exist but your deity (the former being weak/negative atheism, and the latter being positive/strong atheism with one exception).



I believe in only ONE God, that makes me a “Theist”; my bearing and beliefs in other deities notwithstanding. Your “belief” in NO God (or gods) makes YOU an “Atheist”; your bearing and beliefs in strong/weak, soft/hard notwithstanding. Do you really want to continue along those lines?

#47 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 25 March 2012 - 07:48 PM

Both definitions (as per your example above) are in reference to “spiritual” knowledge (i.e. “especially mystical”). So, in that case, your adjective fails when you attempt to couple said adjective to the words “atheist” (i.e. NO GOD) and agnostic (NO KNOWLEDGE).

Gnostic Atheist = Theistic atheist
Gnostic Agnostic = Theistic Agnostic

Actually, what it would really be is
Gnostic atheist = a person who does not believe in deities and which claims to possess some manner of mystical truth about them (namely their non-existence)
Gnostic agnostic = someone who does and does not claim to have knowledge of the spiritual.
I don't understand how you could stick those two words side by side and come with a conclusion as though they weren't about the same thing. gnostic + a-gnostic, knowledge + no knowledge, and come up with someone who believes (theistic) without knowledge (agnostic).

Again, when you use it in conjunction (as a descriptive qualifier) with the word theist, you are simply repeating yourself, as #1 “especially mystical knowledge” (some translations are “spiritual knowledge"), and #2 “an adherent to Gnosticism” are both nothing more than saying the same thing twice; because BOTH are “Theistically” descriptive NOT "Atheistically" descriptive.

Gnostic Theist (via reference #1) = theistic theist!
Gnostic Theist (via reference #2) = theistic theist!

Even if you wanted to simply use the root word Gnosis, you would still be reaching into the theistic realm:

Gnosis (Noun) “Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation”
(Merriam Webster Dictionary)

Gnosis (Noun) “Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.”
(The Free Dictionary)

Now see, if I were to put in italics the words of my choice, the definitions would reflect an entirely different meaning.
Gnosis (Noun) “Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation”

Gnosis (Noun) “Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.”

The fact gnosis described a spiritual/metaphysical form or knowledge in no way detracts from the fact that gnosis is about KOWLEDGE first and foremost. Therefore, you have knowledge about an essential spiritual/metaphysical truth.

I understand though that I should have said that I was not talking about the Gnostic branch of religion. Perhaps the real word I was searching for was really gnosis.


Actually, it didn’t eliminate the double positive (as I demonstrated above). But, even if you simply wanted to use “Gnosis” as equaling “Knowledge”, in the form of a descriptive qualifier, you are doing less than you need to, as the Theist believes they have knowledge FOR God; the Atheist believes they have knowledge that there is NO God, and the Agnostic believes that they have knowledge that they either “Have No Knowledge” or that they “Cannot Know”. In every case, by definition, all the positions believe they have “Gnosis” to base their world-view on.

You forget here about the second definition of atheism, to lack belief in gods. How would you describe someone who does not believe in any deities? You cannot say he is an atheist then, because he doesn't say that deities do not exist. You cannot say theist, because he does not believe. You cannot say agnostic either, because he's not saying there is no way to know one way or the other. I believe that is the hole in your definition.
Also, one can be an agnostic in the sense that we cannot know if there truly is a god, but still have faith and be spiritual.

I am curious, why do you refuse so much to consider that atheism is a position of belief, not knowledge? By your definition, if you were to meet someone in the street and tell them about God, and that person said "I don't believe you, I don't believe that", you could not call him an atheist.


It is only complicated because of the convoluted nature of the explainers explanation.

I agree, the explanation is perhaps unnecessarily complicated.


When one attempts to change definitions, in order to create greater gray area, with the intention of having more room to run, the viewer need only go to the root of the problem to find the truth.

Is the gray area being created, or was it already there? Things are not all black and white.

Further, you cannot be an atheist in ANY WAY, while at the same time believing in ANY God or gods. This is not only conversion by definition, but it is also in contradiction of the LAW OF NONCONTRADICTION!

By your definition of atheism yes, as you postulate that atheism is the denial of existence of gods. However, if you go by the definition that atheism can also be a position of belief instead of knowledge, as is explicitly written in many dictionaries, then no.


An Atheist is an atheist; and if you believe there is NO God (or gods) YOU ARE AN ATHEIST! You can attempt to call it “hard” or “Soft”, “positive” or “Negative”, but you are an atheist!

I do not say that no gods exist. However, I do claim that some manner of knowledge can be gained on them via observation of the real world and postulating hypothesis on what should happen based on the description of gods given in their holy books. Therefore, I am not agnostic, since I claim we can find knowledge, but I'm neither a theist as I don't believe, nor an atheist as I'm not saying gods do not exist.

An Agnostic is an Agnostic; If you believe that there “may not” be a God (or gods), or you believe you have NO KNOWLEDGE, or CAN HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of (or for) God (or gods) YOU ARE AN AGNOSTIC.

I just wish to point out the errors inherent in a person 'believing to have no knowledge'. A person has knowledge or she/he doesn't. Mankind as a whole might have knowledge and that specific person be unaware of it. Just technicalities.

There may or may not be a multitude of gods. I personally have some knowledge. However, I postulate we can obtain knowledge. Regardless of the knowledge we do or do not have, that we may or may not have, I do not believe. My non-belief is distinct and separate from my knowledge, although supported by it. What does that make me?

I contend that you convolute your definition of atheism (as I have provided in this post AND my previous post), and you further attempt to equivocate on MY status as a theist. Do you really want to continue along those lines?

I believe in only ONE God, that makes me a “Theist”; my bearing and beliefs in other deities notwithstanding. Your “belief” in NO God (or gods) makes YOU an “Atheist”; your bearing and beliefs in strong/weak, soft/hard notwithstanding. Do you really want to continue along those lines?

I do not equivocate your status as a theist with regards to your belief in the Abrahamic God. You claim knowledge that he does exist, and I suppose you also claim knowledge that other deities do not exist. You claim knowledge, that would be the opposite of claiming no knowledge. Remove the a- from agnosticism, and you are a gnostic theist. Do you deny this?
Also, you said my belief in no gods makes me an atheist. That is correct. Had I had belief in any god, I would not be an atheist. If you were to assert that my belief that no gods exist makes me an atheist, I could not say that that was what made me an atheist.

So, by your definition, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. However I do not fit the definition of an agnostic either, because I claim we can make a judgement given our current knowledge, and that we can gain more knowledge if our current knowledge is insufficient. That is clearly not agnosticism.

If by your definition I am neither an agnostic nor an atheist, what am I?

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 25 March 2012 - 08:08 PM

Gnostic agnostic....

Wouldn't that be as logical as a Theistic Atheist....

#49 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:34 AM


Gnostic agnostic....

Wouldn't that be as logical as a Theistic Atheist....



I couldn’t agree more Gilbo, I've been pointing this out to him over two pages now. Alex seems to think he has the linguistic flexibility to drastically reconstruct any definition he wishes to, regardless of how illogical the meaning turns out, as long as it fits his needs.

#50 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 26 March 2012 - 04:57 AM

I couldn’t agree more Gilbo, I've been pointing this out to him over two pages now. Alex seems to think he has the linguistic flexibility to drastically reconstruct any definition he wishes to, regardless of how illogical the meaning turns out, as long as it fits his needs.



A gnostic agnostic is a contradiction no matter how you explain the meaning ofc.

While I agree with you for the most part, I can't blame Alex because he does word the definitions as how they are most current on the internet. But if you think of it, it doesn't make sense to be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist because the word implies that you accept the non-existance as truth. If you say that you cannot know for sure, then you didn't accept it as a truth so you do not really believe it.

Same goes for your other explanations. Thank you for your explanations. They are very insightful.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 07:06 AM



I couldn’t agree more Gilbo, I've been pointing this out to him over two pages now. Alex seems to think he has the linguistic flexibility to drastically reconstruct any definition he wishes to, regardless of how illogical the meaning turns out, as long as it fits his needs.



A gnostic agnostic is a contradiction no matter how you explain the meaning ofc.


This is a fact… It makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. Although the word “Gnosis” basically means “Knowledge” as Alex was attempting to point out; his main problems were twofold:

First – The actual basic meaning of Gnosis (knowledge), in this context (the conversation), is “KnowING”! This caused a major problem for his hypothesis, as the “Gnostic”, as defined, means Ignorance (not the modern negative connotation). So is he attempting to say the agnostic is: “Knowingly Ignorant?” or “Knowingly NOT wanting to know?”

Now, I can make logical and experiential arguments that might prove the above to be true; BUT, butchering the language to do so is egregious.

Second – the term (as has been pointed out by myself, Gilbo, and you) gnostic agnostic is self-stultifying (by definition is self defeating).


While I agree with you for the most part, I can't blame Alex because he does word the definitions as how they are most current on the internet.


This only shows that the so-called “common wisdom” if the sites he’s using, is woefully lacking in “Gnosis”. And Alex can indeed be blamed, because given ALL the information provided him previously, that totally refutes his argument, he totally failed to use his cognitive and critical thinking skills to come to a logical conclusion.


But if you think of it, it doesn't make sense to be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist because the word implies that you accept the non-existance as truth. If you say that you cannot know for sure, then you didn't accept it as a truth so you do not really believe it.


Actually, you and I diverge a bit here, but we can agree to disagree on some points, we totally agree that it makes no sense.

First – I agree that “it doesn't make sense to be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist”. Mainly because of definitional diversity; but I explained that in detail earlier.

Second – The materialistic atheist HAS to believe something can come from nothing (due to naturalism). But the atheist that believes there is NO God (gods), but accepts the metaphysical, can accept that “nothing from nothing” is untenable. Now, there are major issues (logical, rational, and empirically scientific) for both philosophical world-views, the materialist has a far greater hurdle to overcome.

Third – The Atheist believes (“accept that something is true or real” and therefore KNOWS) there is NO God (or gods) for whatever reasoning they come to this conclusion, ALREADY claims to know! Therefore to tag “Gnostic” in front of “Atheist” is basically saying “Knows Knows”. It makes absolutely NO linguistic sense. There are many other adjectives one can use to emphasize the “Atheism” of any particular atheist, much like adding the word “pious” in front of the word “theist” as an adjective, to describe that individual’s “devoutly religious” stature (manner, personality etc…). But this doesn’t describe his “Theism”, it describes his extreme devotion to his deity. So, we can say of the atheist, that he/she is “knowledgeable” in his studies of atheism, but that doesn’t affect the fact that he is an atheist, is simply describes the fervor in which he studies said subject.

Fourth – What the agnostic accepts as “Truth” is that they “Lack Knowledge”. Whether they come to that conclusion because they either believe that they haven’t studied or searched enough, or they believe that they “Cannot Know” period. But, either way, to use the term “Gnostic Agnostic” (i.e. I know that I don’t know) is both redundant AND self-stultifying (by definition)!


Same goes for your other explanations. Thank you for your explanations. They are very insightful.


Thank you, I appreciate your candor in this discussion.

#52 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 July 2012 - 04:46 PM

I've noticed that often when a person calls himself an atheist, it is challenged and many insist that, in fact, one might be an agnostic. So, I am curious how you would be inclined to categorize me? I've called myself an atheist since about 2007. Without telling you too much about myself, I'll let you ask me the questions that you feel are important in making this determination.

To me, the label is insignificant and the only thing that matters is what a person thinks and feels.

Anyway, if any of you are interested, ask away!

Have fun! Posted Image)


Obviously, since you have free choice, you will decide to "believe" what you wish. However consider the "belief' of those of us that think there is a God-- we think all us are made in His image; Moreover since we exist we have no problem believing God exists. You would have to be god to say there is no God. You would have had to have looked all over the universe and and in the spiritual realm to make a rational decision. . If you haven't done this, then you can't logically "believe" there is no God

#53 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 21 July 2012 - 11:33 AM

I've noticed that often when a person calls himself an atheist, it is challenged and many insist that, in fact, one might be an agnostic. So, I am curious how you would be inclined to categorize me? I've called myself an atheist since about 2007. Without telling you too much about myself, I'll let you ask me the questions that you feel are important in making this determination.

To me, the label is insignificant and the only thing that matters is what a person thinks and feels.

Anyway, if any of you are interested, ask away!

Have fun! Posted Image)


Here is another idea you may want to consider. Which would descibe you best, good or evil loving or hateful? If you say loving then you believe in God as God is love.

#54 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 22 July 2012 - 12:53 PM

Here is another idea you may want to consider. Which would descibe you best, good or evil loving or hateful? If you say loving then you believe in God as God is love.

I define atheism as a person who is opposed to the knowledge of God(God as defined by the protestant bible) when I say this I try to do it from a protestant biblical worldview, believing by faith that everyone has a general revelation of God. Romans 1:20; hope this ok by standards. I tried to define atheist by a person who had no thesis and it couldn't work in my mind since everyone believes in a set of rues(religion). So at times that would make me an atheist, by My definition, because at times, I oppose God's will, and sin.

#55 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 July 2012 - 05:51 PM

I define atheism as a person who is opposed to the knowledge of God(God as defined by the protestant bible) when I say this I try to do it from a protestant biblical worldview, believing by faith that everyone has a general revelation of God. Romans 1:20; hope this ok by standards. I tried to define atheist by a person who had no thesis and it couldn't work in my mind since everyone believes in a set of rues(religion). So at times that would make me an atheist, by My definition, because at times, I oppose God's will, and sin.


The bible is not a protestant book. The term protestant came from Martin Luther who left the Catholic Churc in protest.

What you are doing is defining God into non existence. You are using your creative ability to create the idea that God does not exist. That would be the same as defining me (Mike Summers) out of existence. I am not going to stop existening because you decided to think I do not exist. lol Additionally, how long ago was it that you came to be aware I did exist? Think about it. Just because you didn't know me until I coresponed with you wouldn't make me non existent unitl you met me..

Do an experiment. Pick anything in your room and tell it to cease existing. Be it plant animal or your refrigerator, I predict that it will not cease to exist because you decide it shouldn't ( or doesen't) esist. You don't have the power to cause anything including a devine being to stop existing. Be honest with yourself.


Since your mind is finite, you can't be honest and say that God or anybody else doesn't exist!

PS I would really like to hear about how your experiment goes.


all the best!

#56 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,222 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 23 July 2012 - 09:43 AM

The bible is not a protestant book. The term protestant came from Martin Luther who left the Catholic Church in protest.
....

Actually Martin Luther did not leave the Catholic Church, he was driven out. He (and some others) did protest against several corrupt practices in the Catholic Church like the indulgences (payment of fees to be relieved from past sins). That's why they are called Protestants.

Martin Luther initially didn't want to start a new Church separate from the Catholic one, he wanted to reform the existing one. If you look at the maps you'll see that it was a drift between Northern European and Southern Europeans.

#57 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 July 2012 - 10:38 AM

that's where the term protestant came from/

Actually Martin Luther did not leave the Catholic Church, he was driven out. He (and some others) did protest against several corrupt practices in the Catholic Church like the indulgences (payment of fees to be relieved from past sins). That's why they are called Protestants.

Martin Luther initially didn't want to start a new Church separate from the Catholic one, he wanted to reform the existing one. If you look at the maps you'll see that it was a drift between Northern European and Southern Europeans.


Still the point is he was put out for protesting church hierarchy. Didn't he tack a letter with his protests to the door of the church?
I think the church he founded were called prtestant.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users