My Argument for "Gnostic Atheism" - Anyone Else?

[onebluethinker]

This has probably been posted before somewhere, but I was curious exactly how accepted my personal beliefs were among the atheist community.
1. I consider myself a "gnostic" atheist, by my definition of the term. I can't say that there is absolutely no God anywhere in the universe, but I know none of the Gods that have been invented on Earth are real.
2. It's obvious that there is no physical evidence for a God, but I can ignore anecdotal evidence on the basis of psychology. A scared human struggling for its livelihood is quick to turn to a higher power to try to explain why it has to go through its hardships. People want to have a reason for their suffering, which explains why war and natural disasters cause a spike in religiousness.
3. I choose not to believe in fate. At one point, I was a gnostic atheist who believed in fate, and my argument was this: The universe is governed by a complex set of laws that apply to everything and may never be broken. It follows that given a fixed set of atoms, there is only one possible outcome for all eternity. However, I no longer believe this and am definitely not a nihilist. A human being that does not believe in fate will live a more successful life... whether or not that human being was destined to live one.

I hope that was somewhat intelligible. Anyway, let me know what you think. I hope I'm not the only one on here that spends hours thinking about philosophy at a young age.

[answer-is-42]

Gnostism by its accepted definition is a claim of knowledge, so by admitting there may be a yet undiscovered God then you cannot be gnostic that there is no God. You may be gnostic that the currently described gods are false, but that is not the same. I would more aptly describe you as a strong agnostic atheist, your own personal definition not withstanding.
Honestly it is very hard to truly make a gnostic case FOR something and exponentially harder to make one AGAINST something. I have yet to really hear a good arguement for gnostic atheism, though I have asked on these forums in the past. I do think that agnostic atheism is probably the most intellectually honest we can be.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that agnostic sun will rise in the morningism is probably the most intellectually honest we can be. The unknown unknown is an objection that applies - to everything. If you claim knowledge about -anything- you really can't give somebody shit for claiming knowledge about gods. Theres no point in holding one concept to a different standard than all the rest - you apologist.

[answer-is-42]

Rhythm. I really getting tired of you calling me (falsely) a theist, particularly a xtian.
I don't hold anything to a different standard. If you make a claim of fact then you need empiric evidence to prove it. Don't have that? It's not a fact. You may be fairly sure or very sure but that is not the same as absolutely sure. Bring some real evidence and we can talk. Same standard for everyone. I understand astronomy enough to understand why the day night cycle continues and hence why the sun should rise tomorrow. Claim based on empiric proof dumba$$

[genkaus]

1. I consider myself a "gnostic" atheist, by my definition of the term. I can't say that there is absolutely no God anywhere in the universe, but I know none of the Gods that have been invented on Earth are real.

I think the real question is how you define "gnosticism" and if you apply that definition consistently here.

For example, you may entertain the possibility that we are all living in the matrix and everything we experience is an illusory construct - does acknowledging that possibility make you an agnostic realist.

2. It's obvious that there is no physical evidence for a God, but I can ignore anecdotal evidence on the basis of psychology. A scared human struggling for its livelihood is quick to turn to a higher power to try to explain why it has to go through its hardships. People want to have a reason for their suffering, which explains why war and natural disasters cause a spike in religiousness.

You can ignore anecdotal evidence because anecdotes are not evidence.

3. I choose not to believe in fate. At one point, I was a gnostic atheist who believed in fate, and my argument was this: The universe is governed by a complex set of laws that apply to everything and may never be broken. It follows that given a fixed set of atoms, there is only one possible outcome for all eternity. However, I no longer believe this and am definitely not a nihilist. A human being that does not believe in fate will live a more successful life... whether or not that human being was destined to live one.

Non-sequitur much. What does believing in fate have to do with atheism?

As for the question of fate itself, you should look into all the different views about it before making up your mind. For example, does it require a supervening intelligence to be called fate? How would the question of randomness vs determinism affect your views?

---

Gnostism by its accepted definition is a claim of knowledge, so by admitting there may be a yet undiscovered God then you cannot be gnostic that there is no God. You may be gnostic that the currently described gods are false, but that is not the same. I would more aptly describe you as a strong agnostic atheist, your own personal definition not withstanding.
Honestly it is very hard to truly make a gnostic case FOR something and exponentially harder to make one AGAINST something. I have yet to really hear a good arguement for gnostic atheism, though I have asked on these forums in the past. I do think that agnostic atheism is probably the most intellectually honest we can be.

A claim of knowledge doesn't mean a claim of absolute knowledge. Given that there are unknown unknowns in practically every field, the idea of gnosticism requiring the full picture is ridiculous.

Do you, for example, consider yourself agnostic when it comes to the age of the earth? After all, there might be aliens messing with every age-determining technique we use. Do you consider yourself agnostic about your own past - your childhood? Perhaps you are an artificially created human with implanted memories and everything around you has been carefully constructed to maintain that illusion.

And if you are agnostic about all these cases, then the word "gnostic" has just become meaningless.

---

I don't hold anything to a different standard. If you make a claim of fact then you need empiric evidence to prove it. Don't have that? It's not a fact. You may be fairly sure or very sure but that is not the same as absolutely sure. Bring some real evidence and we can talk. Same standard for everyone. I understand astronomy enough to understand why the day night cycle continues and hence why the sun should rise tomorrow. Claim based on empiric proof dumba$$

Empiric proof does not give absolute surety. There is no such thing as absolute surety in science and that is the double standard you are using. You consider yourself gnostic with regards to the day-night cycle despite the fact that you just have empirical evidence without absolute surety. However, the same level of lack of surety in case of god makes someone agnostic.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...but I know none of the Gods that have been invented on Earth are real.

It would only take one example of a real god to undermine your empirical conclusion. Since it is practically impossible to investigate each and every god claim, you cannot have certain knowledge, as reasonable as it may seem.

It's obvious that there is no physical evidence for a God,..

...only deductions based on the nature of reality.

I choose not to believe in fate.

Are you sure you aren't just compelled by the initial conditions of the universe to believe you have that choice. ;-)

I...am definitely not a nihilist.

Do you or do you not believe in epistomological and/or moral absolutes?

I hope I'm not the only one on here that spends hours thinking about philosophy at a young age.

You are in good company. I started reading existentialist philosophy in high school. I'm 49 now and my interest has only grown. It's a wonderful way to approach life.

[genkaus]

It would only take one example of a real god to undermine your empirical conclusion. Since it is practically impossible to investigate each and every god claim, you cannot have certain knowledge, as reasonable as it may seem.

Not really - the specifics of each and every god claim don't matter. The commonalities do.

...only deductions based on the nature of reality.

Nope - deductions based on imagined nature of reality.

Do you or do you not believe in epistomological and/or moral absolutes?

Neither is a condition for nihilism.

[TreeSapNest]

1. I consider myself a "gnostic" atheist, by my definition of the term. I can't say that there is absolutely no God anywhere in the universe, but I know none of the Gods that have been invented on Earth are real.

Where do you stand on leprechauns? I only ask because the issue of super beings doesn't seem any more complicated. :-)