Gnostic Atheism? WTF?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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".

You're equivocating subjective experience and objective knowledge. Blue exists only as a portion of the spectrum, but how we experience blue is unique. There is nothing which inherently tells us that blue is around 650 Thz. We experience it as we each experience it.

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.

"Proof" is a concept of logic and mathematics, not science, which is always tentative in nature. That means that everything I know is subject to change, given appropriate evidence. I'm unsure why that seems problematic.

To answer your question directly, I accept existence as axiomatic. If I didn't exist, in one form or another, we could not be having this conversation, now could we?

I won't lie, I have a deep distaste for solipsism, which is where you seem to be heading with this point. Philosophy is indeed the top of a cereal box.

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.

I don't adhere to the view that "I cannot prove anything". Implicit in my position is an entirely different point: I cannot disprove many conceptions of god at this time. Strawmanning my point doesn't refute it.

[One Above All]

"Proof" is a concept of logic and mathematics, not science, which is always tentative in nature. That means that everything I know is subject to change, given appropriate evidence. I'm unsure why that seems problematic.

Because you don't really know them, do you? You believe in them without absolute certainty (in other words, you have faith those things are true), but, if they can be proven false, you never really knew them. I mean, you knew the concepts, but not the reality.

To answer your question directly, I accept existence as axiomatic. If I didn't exist, in one form or another, we could not be having this conversation, now could we?

What's your basis for that acceptance? Experience. Experience that can't be objectively verified without being filtered by your flawed brain. You can't prove anything if you set your standards as high as you have set them for the existence of deities.

I won't lie, I have a deep distaste for solipsism, which is where you seem to be heading with this point.

It is the logical conclusion of your standards for the existence of deities. It's a double-standard, which is what I'm trying to show you.

Philosophy is indeed the top of a cereal box.

I'm not familiar with that expression.

I don't adhere to the view that "I cannot prove anything". Implicit in my position is an entirely different point: I cannot disprove many conceptions of god at this time. Strawmanning my point doesn't refute it.

You adhere to the viewpoint that, to disprove something, you need to have absolute, objective knowledge of all of reality. This is a ridiculous standard. Either that or you think that absence of evidence after tens of thousands of years isn't evidence of absence, which is just as ridiculous of a standard.

[BlackMason]

Yeah I agree with the OP. I think gnostic atheism is more stupid than theism. You're atheist most likely because of a lack of evidence. So you understand the importance of said evidence. So how the hell do you then embrace a position where you have no evidence?

[archangle]

religions always have sects in them that are literal. This atheist one is no different.

[Tonus]

I bet that many people prefer the rough sects.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Just imagine all the chairs in all the rooms everywhere that you can't see right now. You can't know that 50% aren't floating in thin air, eating a banana split, listening to Bob Marley.......right now. Hence, gnostic atheism is irrational."



The position that I know that gods do not exist is generated by the same means to the same measure of certainty as any other piece of "knowledge" I have. I passes the same test as whether or not the sun will rise tommorrow, whether the light switch will operate the ceiling fan, and whether or not I'm a fucking sasquatch. Closes the book for me.

I've yet to see a truly unfalsifiable god claim btw, I've mused on this before. I think that human beings are hamstrung when it comes to imagining truly unfalsifiable things. We have little experience of them (for whatever reason..if there's even a "them" to begin with)-and much experience of the falsifiable and so find them difficult to conceive of at a basic level.

The claim, for example that -god is ..insert attempted description of the unfalsifiable here-....is internally inconsistent in any case. If you simply cannot know, no way to tell, then hasn't the claimant has offered up a contradicting claim while laying down their gibberish? How could they possibly claim any descriptor of what they claim to be utterly unfalsifiable - including that it is indeed unfalsifiable? As an attempt to "balance out the ignorance" it betrays the premise literally -as- it is laid down, seems to me anyway. Just jumping the gun and invoking revelation as a means of aqcuring the knowledge we're still at a loss. Unfortunately, implied in the "unfalsifiable premise" is the notion that I cannot trust my experience in any case. I can think of no better way to describe revelation...other than "an experience".

(standard response to solipsism in all of it's forms really)

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I hear you. I am comfortable saying that the Christian conception of god cannot exist, because of its logical contradictions. Other conceptions of god, well, I don't believe them, but I can't say I know they don't exist. I'm fine going with Sagan's dictum: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and leaving it at that.

[Mister Agenda]

"One of these things is not like the others. And why should I treat gods differently from other paranormal claims. Ideology?" --Mister Agenda

You shouldn't. That's kind of my point.

Most agnostic atheists, I think, have no problem saying "there's no such thing as unicorns".

That's not been my experience. Unicorns are far more probable than most versions of God of which I've heard.

But when presented with the god hypothesis, they weaken their position and say "I'm agnostic on the issue. It's unknowable, but I don't actively believe in the existence of gods."

You haven't established that they have a stronger position regarding other purported paranormal beings, you've just assumed it.

Why should we treat the god claim any different from the unicorn or leprechaun or superman claim?

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't, and I don't know anyone who does. I often hear other people claiming it about agnostic atheists, but I've never seen any indication they're correct in their analysis.

---

You can make such a claim, but you would be logically incorrect. Not because there is a god, but because you can't know for sure that there is NOT a god. Also, you do like most people and misinterpret God entirely. God is not simply allowing people to be tortured forever and ever. Hell, according to 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.

So the serpent in the Garden of Eden was good, because it preceded man's separation from God through sin? Something is not adding up. The Bible explicitly states that both evil and good come from God, which is much consistent.

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.

So he decided that the right thing to do to avoid destroying our souls was to torture them forever?

---

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.

Because we've discovered all physical beings that really exist? I'll grant you Superman, largely because his provenance is a matter of record and his reputed deeds would be impossible to miss. I dismiss the God of Abraham on similar grounds. Unicorns, oth, are merely highly unlikely.

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.

True that. Although I consider the odds of such a being fitting any reasonable description of a God to be infinetesimal--what are the odds we would have a God who created exactly the universe we find ourselves in (I know that's bad logic, just having fun turning fine tuning over)? But some science geek pressing the 'create universe' button on his super-cyclotron? Not quite as unlikely.

---

religions always have sects in them that are literal. This atheist one is no different.

What text do atheist literalists try to interpret literally?

---

I've yet to see a truly unfalsifiable god claim btw, I've mused on this before.

I'm very interested in hearing how you would falsify the God proposed by deists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because you don't really know them, do you? You believe in them without absolute certainty (in other words, you have faith those things are true), but, if they can be proven false, you never really knew them. I mean, you knew the concepts, but not the reality.

Not so. Firstly, faith is not simply belief; faith is belief in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contravening evidence. I have no faith. I'm sure I won't float away from the ground not because I have faith in gravity, but because long years of experience lead me to know that gravity sucks.

As for "if they can be proven false", the fact is that it is still knowledge in the sense of my mental outlook until that point, in the same manner that Newtonian physics was thought to be completely explanatory until it was found to suffer distortions when exposed to extreme conditions. It was, and is, still knowledge, as are Einsteinian physics, even though our knowledge of Newton's physics was changed by Einstein's insights.

What's your basis for that acceptance? Experience. Experience that can't be objectively verified without being filtered by your flawed brain. You can't prove anything if you set your standards as high as you have set them for the existence of deities.

... which is exactly why I wrote that I regard existence as axiomatic, meaning that we start with the assumption that we exist, but are willing to overthrow that axiom if we can find evidence which disproves it. Of course, if I don't exist, I can't really think about it, now can I?

It is the logical conclusion of your standards for the existence of deities. It's a double-standard, which is what I'm trying to show you.

No, the logical conclusion of my standard of proof for deities is that knowledge is tentative. Anything else is imputing onto me a belief I don't hold.

I'm not familiar with that expression.

It's a snippet from a song that was a hit here a couple of decades ago.

You adhere to the viewpoint that, to disprove something, you need to have absolute, objective knowledge of all of reality. This is a ridiculous standard.

That depends on the object of proof or disproof. If we're trying to disprove the existence of the dog on your lap, then sure, you have a point.

However, when we're discussing concepts as grand as deities --and their reputed powers of omnipresence etc -- then yes, being able to examine the entire Universe is needed for disproof in the pure sense of that word.

Either that or you think that absence of evidence after tens of thousands of years isn't evidence of absence, which is just as ridiculous of a standard.

This is a false dichotomy, for the reasoning I've given above. I hold to neither view you're trying to impute upon me, and that renders your argument another swat at a strawman.

I think knowkedge and epistemology are much more subtly nuanced issues than you do, it seems. I'm not really interested in changing your mind, though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Deists and I often disagree as to how far the word "god" can stretch.