RE: Hey Gnostic Atheist - prove your point
September 18, 2014 at 12:01 am
(This post was last modified: September 18, 2014 at 12:07 am by answer-is-42.)
My fundamental argument is against gnostism in general. A lack of proof is NOT a proof of lack so to speak. Until recently we had no ability to visualize a virus and the very concept seems almost implausible (a microscopic creature without cells that lives as an obligate parasite and hijacks the host at a cellular level to replicate itself?) yet they certainly exist. Try proving it to someone in the 10th century. They would be fairly "gnostic" that the concept of a virus does not exist (of course i'm not sure if they had any concept of cells either). Does the lack of knowledge at that moment in history mean anything?
I firmly believe it is very difficult to claim absolute knowledge on anything, and doing so does require proof. When you claim knowledge of truth, the search for that truth ends (you already found it) and that is wrong if the proof does not rise to the level required.
That is not to say that we must be paralyzed waiting for certainty. We live in a world of incomplete information and must make the best decisions with the information we have. Improbable can be "practically" impossible, but is not "principally" (to quote a previous poster) impossible. That distinction has theoretical differences if not material ones. But stopping a search for truth is a true consequence and should be considered.
Again, I make no claim that any divine explanation is true, and truly doubt any is. I agree no evidence can support these claims and there are plenty of alternative theories that can explain why religion and the god concept exist. BUT I do keep myself open enough to reconsider if true proof presents itself. If you gnostic on this then NO PROOF can exist that would sway you - else you were never gnostic to begin with. This is often a problem on the other side of the aisle, but we should be honest enough to confront it among atheists as well, if only to be intellectually honest.
Regarding defining terms, well that is a rub in all arguements. I defined god as I see fit. You may not agree with me. If your belief is a "perfect entitiy" then what defines perfect. I see no reason why omnipotence, omnipresense, or benevolence have anything to do with 'perfection" or necessry for a diety. Infact, I'm not sure why needing to worship a deity is a requirement for being a deity. IF the god of the Bible existed, I would personally not worship it/him/her because of my views on morality are inconflict with "his" but that would change whether it was a deity (by definition it is).
I firmly believe it is very difficult to claim absolute knowledge on anything, and doing so does require proof. When you claim knowledge of truth, the search for that truth ends (you already found it) and that is wrong if the proof does not rise to the level required.
That is not to say that we must be paralyzed waiting for certainty. We live in a world of incomplete information and must make the best decisions with the information we have. Improbable can be "practically" impossible, but is not "principally" (to quote a previous poster) impossible. That distinction has theoretical differences if not material ones. But stopping a search for truth is a true consequence and should be considered.
Again, I make no claim that any divine explanation is true, and truly doubt any is. I agree no evidence can support these claims and there are plenty of alternative theories that can explain why religion and the god concept exist. BUT I do keep myself open enough to reconsider if true proof presents itself. If you gnostic on this then NO PROOF can exist that would sway you - else you were never gnostic to begin with. This is often a problem on the other side of the aisle, but we should be honest enough to confront it among atheists as well, if only to be intellectually honest.
Regarding defining terms, well that is a rub in all arguements. I defined god as I see fit. You may not agree with me. If your belief is a "perfect entitiy" then what defines perfect. I see no reason why omnipotence, omnipresense, or benevolence have anything to do with 'perfection" or necessry for a diety. Infact, I'm not sure why needing to worship a deity is a requirement for being a deity. IF the god of the Bible existed, I would personally not worship it/him/her because of my views on morality are inconflict with "his" but that would change whether it was a deity (by definition it is).
