Why I am a Gnostic Atheist

[Rhizomorph13]

I know the chair will hold me because the last time I sat on it it held me. I also know about about chair construction and have a general idea about what type of chair might not hold me i.e. when I look at my children's small chairs that have spindly wooden legs I think they probably would not hold me.

In the case of my car, yes, something changed, because yesterday it started fine for me, and I know when it doesn't start that something has malfunctioned, and the history of my vehicle would suggest that something was wrong with the battery. I would probably pray over it and kill a goat to make it work and if that didn't work I would throw runes to find a good mechanic.

Sometimes I think that knowledge is not possible, but that doesn't seem like a rational statement to make except in the case of the nebulous idea of a very loosely defined deity. I've participated in some posts a long while back that seem to suggest that we should be agnostic about everything, but we certainly don't live our lives like that. Even in the case of god, I live my life like it is an impossibility, but that is where the term intellectually honest comes in. When I think about it, I can't say I really know there is not ontologically extant being that could be refered to as god. Why bother though?

Stop where the argument starts, tell them to define god and get back to you with a testable definition, then a discussion can occur.

[The Grand Nudger]

To the example of the unicorn

---

You can't prove that she isn't real

Wouldn't this be the point that you remind someone that there is no onus upon you to do so?

and when you point out that invisible and pink are mutually exclusive, a true believer will just say that the pinkness is transcendental so again

You mean they'll make an assertion...an assertion for which they will be unable to offer an example or explanation of - an empty excuse..iow - I still know I'm being bullshitted at this point- and if I didn't know it before...I do now

---

It seems like you know alot of things, and that you have a reasonable expectation of things based upon that knowledge. Like you mention a little further down - but obviously directed in a slightly different way- when asked how I can know about gods (and having the same question simultaneously left unasked about cars and keys) I say "why bother" to differentiate? Why place the gods in one category and my cars operation in another? As to the suggestion that we should be agnostic about everything...should we then be agnostic about whether or not we should be agnostic about everything -ad infinitum? I'd say that's probably one reason why we don't live our lives that way - it's unworkable. I would say that a person could refer to whatever they wanted as a god, even a gym sock - but what is that supposed to establish, what does that mean?

I suppose I take a different route, and ask them to find a place to -begin- the argument, rather than repeating all the same tired shit. A definition for an entity - removed from any example of that entity beyond the narrative (in this case the narrative being a discussion), is no different from a character like Dracula, Beowulf, or Tyler Durden..(it;s not enough) which amusingly, is already how I define gods.

[Rhizomorph13]

Stop where the argument starts, tell them to define god and get back to you with a testable definition, then a discussion can occur.

I suppose I take a different route, and ask them to find a place to -begin- the argument, rather than repeating all the same tired shit. A definition for an entity - removed from any example of that entity beyond the narrative (in this case the narrative being a discussion), is no different from a character like Dracula, Beowulf, or Tyler Durden..(it;s not enough) which amusingly, is already how I define gods.

Different route huh? It seems like I am saying 1 + 1 = 2 and you are saying that 2 - 1 = 1. I was the terse one this time though.

---

You know who is notably absent in this discussion? The OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, not quite, since you've reached agnosticism as the intellectually honest position and I'm comfortable claiming knowledge.

For example, if someone says
Christian god - I say bullshit/You say bullshit (if I understand correctly)
Deist god - I say bullshit/You say I don't know
Nebulous god - I say bullshit/you ask for a definition.

I suppose what I was trying to get at, is how would defining Dracula, for example, lend any more credibility to the idea of vampires than before you defined him? I just don't see the point in asking for definitions - as whatever the person just told you about their god - however small that may be, is a workable definition. To be honest, I think that if someone was going to come up with some novel idea of a god that hadn't been foisted before-something so difficult to decipher that you required them to explain themselves before a conversation could be had....we would have seen it by now. It's a pretty thoroughly mined IP. The very moment someone invokes a god - you've got a pretty damned good idea of what they're talking about. You might quibble over the color of it's hair or what cut of jeans it wears...but since I don;t think that the color of it;s hair or its preferred crotchline is what makes a god such trash then these things hardly matter-to me.

That small conscession, that if they could define their deity - or that they may even be able to define a god, is the supply that's required for fundies and apologists to even operate, for example. Notice how pissy they get when you insist on step 1? A concession that the notion is even credible enough to warrant wonder or respect (the type of thing that is extended when we imagine that we can't know about gods - but we can know about elves)-this is a requirement before one can even tease a word out, and any observation to the contrary is a deal breaker for them. I don't care how they decide to describe their god, so long as within that description it's a god-that's what I want to see, not some definition hobbled up on the spot. That's not something that's going to invest the notion with any added gravitas for me.

[Rhizomorph13]

I wouldn't say that definition lends credence to a claim.

I also would call bullshit on a nebulous god.

One point that I might have expressed poorly is the possibility of a real god as yet unexpressed or defined that happens to be a ontologically real being. Maybe we're wrong, and I'm open to any evidence that comes along. Unfortunately my ears tend to snap shut when I hear the concept of god being bandied about. Thankfully my eyes don't have the same problem, so I can continue to come to this wonderful forum.

[Whateverist]

I think we should have a new category to vote for in the popularity awards.

The gnosticmost Atheist on this site should get an award. We could give this person the honorary title of being rated an EIGHT on the Dawkins scale. Perhaps we could also give one to the gnosticest Theist and award that person a rating of ZERO on the same scale. Perhaps there could be debating death match between the two which we could sell tickets to as a fundraiser.

I'd be willing to support your candidacy for the EIGHT, Rhythm. But who should we support for the Zero title, Godschild?

[The Grand Nudger]

Something tells me that any debate between myself and GC wouldn;t be all that exciting

GC "Because god......."
Me "Try again."

-ad infinitum.

But I appreciate your support for the honorific..lol.

[Faith No More]

Perhaps we could also give one to the gnosticest Theist and award that person a rating of ZERO on the same scale.

I would love to see a contest where they vied for that title.

[The Grand Nudger]

There have been a couple threads that amount to that - some of the best on the forums, imo. Two christians bickering over which was more christian - generally by reference to magic and pixiedust. It's awesome.