It makes no real practical difference. It is simply that on principle I know that God ISN'T disproved so I am agnostic. To actually believe he is would take some faith and I cannot do that because I know it's illogical because God ISN'T disproved.
I know of no evidence for God and he is SO extremely improbable that in practical terms it makes no real difference to if he WAS disproved...
But it is simply that on principle I know he ISN'T disproved so I can't help being agnostic.
I also care about the truth on principle (and I find it VERY interesting too) even when the truth being one way rather another makes no practical difference and has no practical application whatsoever. I just care about the truth for it's own sake too. I find it interesting and profound in and of itself.
And besides, what if you don't care about a truth because you believe it has no practical application so you'd rather believe otherwise - but you discover afterwards that it DOES have a practical application and DOES make a practical difference despite the fact you thought otherwise - and you'd have been better off simply caring about the truth on principle in the first place and not just for practical reasons.
He says that being a Gnostic atheist doesn't take THAT much faith (which I agree with) but he said that how he does have faith in SOME of his discernments (which i assume he is referring to Gnostic atheism on his part?).
So the conflict I see is that he says that we can never know FOR SURE that there is no God but then he also seems to claim that he knows God doesn't exist and admits that takes a little faith but that is insignificant. But you can't both be a GNOSTIC atheist and think that you cannot know God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE.' If you accept that you cannot Know that God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE' then you are agnostic on the matter, not Gnostic. Because Gnostic atheist's DO claim to know absolutely 'FOR SURE'.
Maybe he's agnostic on the matter of whether he's agnostic or gnostic?
Ok tho, which is it Ghost? If you don't mind me asking?
EvF
I know of no evidence for God and he is SO extremely improbable that in practical terms it makes no real difference to if he WAS disproved...
But it is simply that on principle I know he ISN'T disproved so I can't help being agnostic.
I also care about the truth on principle (and I find it VERY interesting too) even when the truth being one way rather another makes no practical difference and has no practical application whatsoever. I just care about the truth for it's own sake too. I find it interesting and profound in and of itself.
And besides, what if you don't care about a truth because you believe it has no practical application so you'd rather believe otherwise - but you discover afterwards that it DOES have a practical application and DOES make a practical difference despite the fact you thought otherwise - and you'd have been better off simply caring about the truth on principle in the first place and not just for practical reasons.
(May 20, 2009 at 9:06 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:I do too. The only problem I have is that it seems to conflict (at least a bit) with what he said in the rest of that post (before it).(May 20, 2009 at 9:03 pm)ghostlighter Wrote: So, yes, we will never know FOR SURE if there is a God or not so lets go with the 99.9% probabilty that no God exists and be done with it. If the ancients had not, in their ignorance, come up with the idea of God in the first place we would not be discussing it today.
I completely agree with that statement.
He says that being a Gnostic atheist doesn't take THAT much faith (which I agree with) but he said that how he does have faith in SOME of his discernments (which i assume he is referring to Gnostic atheism on his part?).
So the conflict I see is that he says that we can never know FOR SURE that there is no God but then he also seems to claim that he knows God doesn't exist and admits that takes a little faith but that is insignificant. But you can't both be a GNOSTIC atheist and think that you cannot know God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE.' If you accept that you cannot Know that God doesn't exist 'FOR SURE' then you are agnostic on the matter, not Gnostic. Because Gnostic atheist's DO claim to know absolutely 'FOR SURE'.
Maybe he's agnostic on the matter of whether he's agnostic or gnostic?
Ok tho, which is it Ghost? If you don't mind me asking?
EvF
