(June 9, 2014 at 7:47 pm)JimmyNeutron Wrote: I heard someone say the other day that they were a "Gnostic Atheist." To start with, I didn't know that there was such a thing, because that is completely illogical. He went on to say that "I'm a gnostic atheist because I know for sure that there is no god." This form of belief defies all logic, and here's why: It is impossible to prove a negative. This is a well known logical principle. Therefore, you cannot be logically sure that there is no god. That would be completely absurd.

You may not be able to prove a negative but does one really require such proof in order to hold such belief in the highest regard? Apparently not. I also tend to save "know" for those beliefs for which there is substantial support. Of course most theists are not as careful. I will go on dismissing the left handed rhino, ass inhabiting pink aliens and your god as the silly stuff they appear to be .. at least until some reason arises to think otherwise.

---

(June 10, 2014 at 10:51 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Epistemically speaking, there is some non-zero chance about being wrong about everything we ever claim to know, even if that non-zero chance were 1x10^negative-trillion, so IMO anyone claiming to be a gnostic anything is overstating their claim to knowledge.

Fortunately we are not logical robots. As organisms which have evolved to act with certainty in response to certain propositions but not to others, the concept of "knowledge" is not a very good approximation of what we actually do with information.

You can never prove a negative? You mean including statements like, "You can never prove a negative" ?

I am a gnostic atheist, and I'll tell you why.
While it is true that you cannot prove the non-existence of something based on evidence (in fact, if you set your standards high enough, you can't prove anything at all), you can prove it by logic alone. Logic is not sufficient to prove the existence of something, but it can prove the non-existence of something, if that something has a definition that is either impossible or self-contradicting.
I have defined a "god" as having these two qualities:
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Each quality has paradoxes associated with them, and the two together are just horribly inconsistent (impossible).
A god worthy of worship must have another quality, in addition to the other two qualities: benevolence. Due to the nature of our universe, this is inconsistent with reality (but not necessarily the other two qualities).

This is why I am a gnostic atheist and, unless my definition of "god" changes, it is as I will remain until I die.
EDIT: Even if I became a gnostic theist, I would never worship any god that was not benevolent. Again, due to the nature of our universe, such a being does not exist.

(June 10, 2014 at 11:04 am)One Above All Wrote: I am a gnostic atheist, and I'll tell you why.

Wait a minute, didn't Neutron just prove you don't exist? How can I be sure?

---

(June 10, 2014 at 10:59 am)rasetsu Wrote: You can never prove a negative? You mean including statements like, "You can never prove a negative" ?

Okay, where the hell is that hall of wit and epicness? We've got a fresh one.

(June 10, 2014 at 11:17 am)whateverist Wrote: Wait a minute, didn't Neutron just prove you don't exist? How can I be sure?

His logic is under the assumption that you can't prove the existence of a god, and that gnostic atheism meant you were sure that what other people call "god(s)" don't exit.
My logic is under the fact that "god" is something that is left up to the individual; not humanity as a whole, since humanity can't agree on it. Therefore, you can prove the non-existence of an entity you consider "god", but you cannot prove the non-existence of every possible "god" concept, since there are as many possible "god" concepts as there are possible thoughts and things in the Universe. All anyone has to do is say "water is god". You can't disprove that. Maybe their definition of "god" is something with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Under that definition, their god exists.

(June 10, 2014 at 9:45 am)ThePinsir Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 9:38 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Certainly if we're specific about which god. Yahweh has too many internal contradictions to exist. The book that claims his existence is too discredited. I am a gnostic atheist with regards to Yahweh as described in the Bible.

Fair enough. I guess agnosticism toward a deistic god is a logical position, but I think it's just a cop out, really.

It's a cop out not to claim to know something that's unknowable?

(June 10, 2014 at 9:45 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Also, being (or claiming to be) a gnostic atheist makes for good conversation, and trolls theists, as indicated by the OP lol

It's better for trolling atheists, with theists it just confirms in their minds what many of them already believe: that we have a faith-based belief that God doesn't exist. Most atheists are agnostic atheists and it gets on our nerves when atheists claim knowledge they don't actually possess. We kind of expect it from theists.

---

(June 10, 2014 at 11:04 am)One Above All Wrote: I am a gnostic atheist, and I'll tell you why.
While it is true that you cannot prove the non-existence of something based on evidence (in fact, if you set your standards high enough, you can't prove anything at all), you can prove it by logic alone. Logic is not sufficient to prove the existence of something, but it can prove the non-existence of something, if that something has a definition that is either impossible or self-contradicting.
I have defined a "god" as having these two qualities:
Omnipotence
Omniscience
Each quality has paradoxes associated with them, and the two together are just horribly inconsistent (impossible).
A god worthy of worship must have another quality, in addition to the other two qualities: benevolence. Due to the nature of our universe, this is inconsistent with reality (but not necessarily the other two qualities).

This is why I am a gnostic atheist and, unless my definition of "god" changes, it is as I will remain until I die.
EDIT: Even if I became a gnostic theist, I would never worship any god that was not benevolent. Again, due to the nature of our universe, such a being does not exist.

That works for the Abrahamic God, but lots of people don't believe in that one. Congratulations on deciding the version of God most easily demolished is the only one that counts, I suppose.

---

Negatives can be proven as long as definitions are agreed on and it isn't a universal negative. I can prove there isn't a unicorn in my pocket, but I can't prove there isn't a unicorn anywhere in the universe. Ad hoc definition shifting can make a local negative unprovable, but it's dishonest (the unicorn might be tiny, and invisible, and intangible, so it COULD be in your pocket!).

There's an exception to disproving a universal negative. If something has the property of being omnipresent, then if iit isn't in the first place you look, it doesn't exist.

(June 10, 2014 at 12:00 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's a cop out not to claim to know something that's unknowable?

With gods, I'm starting to think so, yes. The nature of truth, what is knowable, herp-derp "we can't possible know for 100% certain!"...


...it's all starting to sound like (my new term) philo-babble bull shit.

Leprechauns do not exist. Spiderman does not exist. Faeries do not exist. Gods do not exist.

(June 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Meh. Technically I agree with you. However I can state that I know there is no bigfoot. I know that are no pink aliens in my butt. I don't know why you get so bent out of shape when it comes to God.

Before you assume we're being inconsistent, you should check if we're being inconsistent. I don't claim to know there is not a single Bigfoot anywhere in the world, so I say I don't believe in Bigfoot, not 'I know there is no Bigfoot'. It's because I don't like lying, which is what claiming to know something I know I don't know, is.

---

(June 10, 2014 at 12:14 pm)ThePinsir Wrote:

(June 10, 2014 at 12:00 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's a cop out not to claim to know something that's unknowable?

With gods, I'm starting to think so, yes. The nature of truth, what is knowable, herp-derp "we can't possible know for 100% certain!"...


...it's all starting to sound like (my new term) philo-babble bull shit.

Leprechauns do not exist. Spiderman does not exist. Faeries do not exist. Gods do not exist.

One of these things is not like the others. And why should I treat gods differently from other paranormal claims. Ideology?

(June 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: One of these things is not like the others. And why should I treat gods differently from other paranormal claims. Ideology?

You shouldn't. That's kind of my point.

Most agnostic atheists, I think, have no problem saying "there's no such thing as unicorns". But when presented with the god hypothesis, they weaken their position and say "I'm agnostic on the issue. It's unknowable, but I don't actively believe in the existence of gods."


Why should we treat the god claim any different from the unicorn or leprechaun or superman claim?

(June 10, 2014 at 9:30 am)ThePinsir Wrote: Secondly, it is not impossible to prove a negative. If something can logically not exist, you can prove it doesn't exist. For example, I can make the positive claim "There is no such thing as a triangle with 5 sides". Such a thing is logically impossible. Likewise, I think I can make the claim "There is no such thing as a perfect, loving, omniscient deity who would allow people to be tortured forever and ever".

You can make such a claim, but you would be logically incorrect. Not because there is a god, but because you can't know for sure that there is NOT a god. Also, you do like most people and misinterpret God entirely. God is not simply allowing people to be tortured forever and ever. Hell, according to Judeo-Christian teaching, is this:

God is the source of all good. Anything good in this world is from God. Anything evil is the result of man's separation from God through sin. In the end, there are two places. Heaven, where God resides, and Hell, where God is not. Obviously, if that place is entirely cut off from God, there will be no good there. The reason that people wind up in hell is because they held onto there evil nature. Evil is like antimatter, good is like matter. God has so much good in him, it will completely destroy any evil with which it comes into contact. This is why people in the bible weren't allowed to look at the Face of God, because they would die. It's not that God is trying to kill or torture anyone. If they would just get rid of their evil nature they would be able to dwell with Him, instead of apart from Him.