Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[Mr Greene]

I met a couple of gnostic athiests, I find their standards of evidence to be lower than I would accept. I suspect it's probably members of this group that account for the claims of atheists being "easy to convert".

[Ryantology]

Personally, I find gnostic atheism to be as much of an overreach as gnostic theism.

I suppose it depends on one's epistemological standards. I don't think either camp has reached that bar.

I don't. When every indication is that there is nothing there, and every new method of searching always comes up empty, it's more rational to say "I know there's nothing there" than "I know there's something there".

That's not to say that the former is a correct statement, or that it is a wise assertion, but the two are not overreaching to equal degrees.

That's why I'm as sure as as is possible to be sure that there is no god.

[Tonus]

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.

I've wondered about that. The JWs do not believe in a fiery hell or eternal torment; they believe that if you don't earn god's reward, you just die and that's it. That might have made it easier to stay with the religion as long as I did. Not having such an objectionable and disturbing belief made god seem a heck of a lot less terrifying (even taking his OT persona into account).

[Clueless Morgan]

Personally, I find gnostic atheism to be as much of an overreach as gnostic theism.

I suppose it depends on one's epistemological standards. I don't think either camp has reached that bar.

I don't. When every indication is that there is nothing there, and every new method of searching always comes up empty, it's more rational to say "I know there's nothing there" than "I know there's something there".

It's equally irrational to state that you know A as to say you know not-A when the subject of the knowing (A) is unfalsifiable, though. A more rational position to take is "I don't know for sure but based on the evidence I've been able to assess I'm very certain A is probably false" or, using your example, "I'm not completely certain but I strongly suspect there's nothing there."

It may be that there is more evidence supporting one side than another, but to make a knowledge claim like "I know" about an unfalsifiable position is not rational.

That's not to say that the former is a correct statement, or that it is a wise assertion, but the two are not overreaching to equal degrees.

They kind of are, though, since there could be one bit of evidence that would only be expected or predicted the A-hypothesis alone that could completely overshadow all of the counter evidence that supports the not-A hypothesis. The evolutionary equivalent of this kind of evidence would be "a rabbit in the precambrian" (as is found in the precambrian layers, dated to the precambrian and scientifically verified to not be a forgery or anything - a legit rabbit from the precambrian). That is not evidence that is expected on the hypothesis that evolution is true, but is something predicted by the hypothesis that evolution is not true.

This is kind of a bad example, though, because evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified. For that reason it is more rational to accept the Theory of Evolution than, say, ID or creationism, but you still have to allow for the fact that the possibility remains that it could be falsified one day, it just hasn't been, and why in everyday parlance it's said to be a fact.

That's why I'm as sure as as is possible to be sure that there is no god.

The fact remains, though, that there is some non-zero chance that you could be wrong, so to call yourself a gnostic atheist is overreaching, as Cthulhu said, just as there's some non-zero chance that a gnostic theist is overreaching in their claim to know there is a god.

[Ryantology]

It's equally irrational to state that you know A as to say you know not-A when the subject of the knowing (A) is unfalsifiable, though. A more rational position to take is "I don't know for sure but based on the evidence I've been able to assess I'm very certain A is probably false" or, using your example, "I'm not completely certain but I strongly suspect there's nothing there."

It may be that there is more evidence supporting one side than another, but to make a knowledge claim like "I know" about an unfalsifiable position is not rational.

I'm not really approaching it as a binary thing, though. Yeah, it's not rational to say "i know" when a statement isn't falsifiable. It is far less rational to say "I know" when the statement is unfalsifiable AND there is no evidence in support AND every falsifiable claim in support of it is proven false).

This is not a question in which there is an even chance of being right or wrong. If any individual theist claim ever turned out to be true, it would be just about the biggest surprise there could possibly ever be.

That's why I'm as sure as as is possible to be sure that there is no god.

The fact remains, though, that there is some non-zero chance that you could be wrong, so to call yourself a gnostic atheist is overreaching, as Cthulhu said, just as there's some non-zero chance that a gnostic theist is overreaching in their claim to know there is a god.

I don't deny that this is overreaching. I deny that it is overreaching to the same extent.

Gnostic atheism is saying "I know I can correctly add two single-digit numbers". There's a chance, however infinitesimal, that I could be wrong about it, or make a mistake I didn't intend to make. Gnostic theism is saying "I know I can calculate pi to a quadrillion decimal places in my head". There's virtually no chance they will be successful.

So, while I appreciate the technical reasons not to be a gnostic atheist (and I don't think of myself as one), in terms of being intellectually bankrupt, comparing gnostic atheism to gnostic theism is like comparing the size of a molecule to the size of the universe.

The very fact that theist assertions are designed specifically to be impervious to any imaginable form of falsification is evidence enough for me to conclude that it is untrue, and I don't act as if there is a chance that leprechauns and unicorns and Santa Claus actually exist.

TL;DR: when discussing the existence of god, the likelihood is so minuscule that I don't get hung up on the technicality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are gnostics in both cams, though I would say there's a higher percentage of theists who claim there is a god then there are atheists that claim there isn't.

Neither claim yet satisfies the burden of proof. One day we may find conclusive proof that there is a superior being (not the christer gawd though). We may also discover enough about the universe to confidently claim there are none. Before you go on about proving a negative, unless you remain agnostic about dragons, leprechauns, fairies, elves, big foot, the Loch Ness monster, unicorns, etc... then you cannot claim there will never be enough evidence to dismiss god claims as absurd.

Well, while I remain agnostic about god's non-existence, that doesn't mean that I think his existence is equally likely. (Indeed, due to internal contradictions, I'm comfortable saying that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist).

I'm very happy to say that I don't think any god at all exists. That is my considered opinion.

I'm not happy saying "I know that there is no god," because that is knowledge which I do not possess.

Epistemology is not black and white.

---

Somewhere, out in the multiverse, is there a universe where, for example, Joseph Smith is correct about gold plates, Moroni, and blacks and native Americans turning caucasian if they believe in him enough???

The fact that the multiverse contains infinite possibilities does not imply that all those possibilities actually exist.

[One Above All]

Well, while I remain agnostic about god's non-existence, that doesn't mean that I think his existence is equally likely. (Indeed, due to internal contradictions, I'm comfortable saying that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist).

I'm very happy to say that I don't think any god at all exists. That is my considered opinion.

I'm not happy saying "I know that there is no god," because that is knowledge which I do not possess.

Epistemology is not black and white.

Why do you not apply that same logic to everything? How do you know that you are seeing blue? Just because you call it blue and everyone else calls it blue doesn't really prove anything, does it? You could be colorblind and what you call "blue" is actually what everyone else calls "red". In fact, how do you even know anything else exists? You can't prove their existence, therefore you can't know for certain. To be honest, how do you know anything? Prove to me something that can be proven to 100% certainty. Go ahead. Don't give me math, though. "1 + 1 = 2" is simply based on what we've observed, and therefore can't really be proven (known). Same goes for cogito ergo sum. Why do you believe (know) that, just because you think, you actually exist? Because you've observed it. You can't prove that with 100% certainty, and therefore can't know it.
That is the logical conclusion of the "I can't prove anything" mentality. If you set your standards ridiculously high enough (like, say, proving something beyond what is possible, which is what you are demanding of god in order to become a gnostic atheist), you won't be able to prove (know) anything at all.

[Ryantology]

They insist we can't have knowledge without 100% certainty, while saying they have 100% certainty but nobody can 'prove' the supernatural.

If certainty is what matters, we can have it on the same level as we have certainty about leprechauns and unicorns (or, as they do about all competing gods and myths and fables). Is 100% certainty worth anything if that certainty is backed exclusively by unjustified assertions? Is that a stronger position than being 99%, or 50% or even 1% certain god doesn't exist because not one iota of evidence of any god has been found throughout human history, and every single event attributed to a god that can be tested ends up being explained fully by natural causes? It's not as if theists have just slipped up a little here and there. It's not as if most of what they say is demonstrably true and we're trying to make a negative claim based on technicalities or mistakes. They never get anything right. They prove none of what they claim. The entire contents of every single god claim ever, in human history, has produced absolutely 110% jack shit.

If I say that there is no god, and every single effort of theirs to the contrary, ever, no matter who tries, no matter how clever they are, ends up producing zilch, that may not make me right, but it means that by all objective measure, I am infinitely closer to being right then they are. I don't need 100% certainty. I'm happy with 99.999999999999999999999999999999999%.

A 'gnostic theist' is merely two words that can better be replaced with just one: 'liar'.

And I'll repudiate every word I've ever typed on this forum if even one of them proves a single god claim.

[archangle]

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.

The same thing applies to belief in a god, it is currently impossible to prove. However, a complete assurance in the non-existence of a god or gods (AKA Gnostic Atheism) is more illogical than the complete assurance in the existence of a god or gods (AKA Gnostic Theism, is guess) because, while it is currently impossible to prove either of them, it will NEVER be possible to prove the non-existence of a god. There is still a chance that we will one day find proof of the existence of a higher power. There will never be proof that such a power cannot possibly exist.

So from where does this notion of Gnostic Atheism come? Is this a widely held belief? Why do people believe it at all?

just another sect of atheist. Make a list ladies and germz.

we aint no religion ... I don't give a fuk about your list!!!!

[Whateverist]

just another sect of atheist. Make a list ladies and germz.

we aint no religion ... I don't give a fuk about your list!!!!

I know you're trying to be witty and that is encouraged. So describing the split between those who answer the belief question the same (no god) but the knowledge question differently as sects is clever. But it still doesn't make any sense to describe atheism as a religion. People who do not believe in gods are capable of believing all sorts of other stuff, including stuff every bit as batshit crazy as what you believe. But just because some atheists go in for a little woo doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.

Or maybe your point of view is so narrow and entrenched that you just assume religious views are something everyone must have.