Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Superman, unicorns and leprechauns are physical beings that should leave evidence of their existence, even if they were hiding. An undefined mind behind the Big Bang is, IMHO, another matter. We don't yet know enough to rule out that there is any kind of conscious thought behind the universe the way we can with these other beings.

[Cato]

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.

You act as if we haven't heard this bullshit before. Coming from you doesn't make it any more plausible. You can't provide evidence for any of these claims; all you can do is repeat them. Childish fiction.

[ThePinsir]

Hell, according to my denomination's version of 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.

Fixed for you, in bold.

Also, Isiah 45:7. According to your holy book, your god creates evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

About my claim of knowledge: Woud you, JimmyNeutron, say, matter-of-factly "Superman does not exist?" What about Thor? I bet you'd claim with 100% confidence Lord Shiva doesn't exist.

Superman, unicorns and leprechauns are physical beings that should leave evidence of their existence, even if they were hiding. An undefined mind behind the Big Bang is, IMHO, another matter. We don't yet know enough to rule out that there is any kind of conscious thought behind the universe the way we can with these other beings.

The deistic undefined mind behind the Big Bang is a result of human incredulity, ignorance, and (I think) a human impulse to want to anthropomorphise EVERYTHING. Why should I suppose that this being wouldn't leave evidence of its existence, even if it were hiding?

[DeistPaladin]

The deistic undefined mind behind the Big Bang is a result of human incredulity, ignorance, and (I think) a human impulse to want to anthropomorphise EVERYTHING. Why should I suppose that this being wouldn't leave evidence of its existence, even if it were hiding?

Not so much hiding as a matter of scale and no so much anthropomorphism as seeing intent. But I don't blame you for going with the null hypothesis. I am honest about it being more instinctive than something proven.

[Tonus]

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.

It seems to me that the phrase "you cannot prove that X exists" depends on your parameters. The claim "there aren't any dogs in my bedroom closet" is easy enough to prove as long as the parameters don't preclude it (ie, we don't define them as intangible and invisible dogs).

Which is where we stand with claims of the existence or non-existence of god. Having defined god as a being that cannot be detected in any manner unless he wishes it, we cannot prove the negative claim "god does not exist." But by that token, we can describe a lot of things as being undetectable, and the list of un-provable negatives becomes very long. Just applied to god and goddesses, it would likely run into the thousands, if not millions.

[ThePinsir]

Not so much hiding as a matter of scale and no so much anthropomorphism as seeing intent. But I don't blame you for going with the null hypothesis. I am honest about it being more instinctive than something proven.

Cool. Also, I'm trying to go against the grain here, for the sake of going against the grain. It seems like 99% of the atheist here go with the agnostic atheism approach, and that's cool. But a forum (especially like this) creates a kind of peer-pressure to conform, and I want to offer an alternate view, even if it's only very slightly, only nominally, different.

Faeries don't exist. I'm certain of this fact. If I'm presented with good evidence for the existence of faeries, I'll change my mind.

So it is with gods, deistic or otherwise

Also, I like to think it enrages people like OP.

[One Above All]

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.

Like I said, what "god" is is up to the individual. I don't have to debunk every definition of god in existence because, by my definition, they are not gods. Therefore, even if such a being were proven to be real, I wouldn't consider them gods and therefore wouldn't be a theist, gnostic or otherwise.

[Mudhammam]

I've met a few who make the positive assertion of the non-existence of god(s). They strike me as being as evangelical as the faithful.

Most atheists I've met are the agnostic variety. I am myself in that group.

I don't know a definition of God that isn't either a completely meaningless word salad of definitions or that invokes some variety of religious dogmas. And yes, I am 99.9% certain THAT being doesn't exist, just as I am certain that Santa Clause, garden faeries, and demonic spirits are wholly fabricated products of a malfunctioning human imagination.

[Clueless Morgan]

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.

I should have clarified that my statement is specifically in regards matters of epistemology.

In everyday parlance one can claim to know things one is very certain about (I know I'm blonde, for instance) and one doesn't need 100% certainty or 100% knowledge to act, one only needs sufficient certainty or knowledge.

I am sufficiently knowledgeable as to what range of colors of hair 'blonde' means in the English language and am sufficiently certain that my hair falls in that range of colors such that I can claim to know that I am blonde. But there is still some non-zero chance that I could be wrong about this claim. It's extremely small, I think, but it's still there.

With unfalsifiable claims such as whether there are or aren't any deities, how does one claim to know, or claim to have 100% certainty in order to take an absolute position like "I know"? We can approach a high level of certainty regarding an unfalsifiable claim, but even a high level of certainty entails agnosticism to some degree.


If we're talking about everyday parlance and the usage of the word "know" being akin to "I am very certain" then I'm a gnostic atheist since I know there is no god to the same degree of certainty that I know there are no fairies or Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot.

If we're talking about epistemic certainty and absolute knowledge claims, especially in regards to unfalsifiable claims, I'm an agnostic atheist because there is some non-zero chance that I am wrong in my claim to know there are no fairies, Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot or gods. I think the probability that I'm wrong in my assessment is pretty low, but it's still there (after all, I can't be everywhere at once and am not party to every scrap of evidence for every claim), and it's still some non-zero number.

[DeistPaladin]

Also, I like to think it enrages people like OP.

It must be torture to be a Christian. I couldn't stand it.

If I really believed Hell was a real place and that the vast majority of people were destined for eternal torture, the sadistic nature of which would make the Nazis cringe in moral disgust, it would drive me crazy. I couldn't stand the thought of no one heeding my warnings or that even one person I spoke with couldn't be saved. It would be like watching as all of us obliviously walk off the edge of a cliff into an active volcano, only there wouldn't be the release of death to end our torments in the lake of fire below.

Then again, I'd have trouble worshiping a god who would do that.