Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 3:03 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gnostics?
#1
Gnostics?
Are there any gnostics on here, theists or otherwise? I know I have seen a couple on here, but I have forgotten exactly who.

Gnostic atheists seem very elusive to me, so talking to one would be interesting.

Thanks!
Reply
#2
RE: Gnostics?
Awww now you make me wish I was special :c
Reply
#3
RE: Gnostics?
Well, I know I'm an atheist. Does that count?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#4
RE: Gnostics?
There is no god.  I know there is no god.  Is that good enough for you?  If you want that explained, it will take a bit, but if you have read all of my posts, you will already have all you need on that.

Here is an old post on this:

(July 28, 2015 at 9:29 am)Pyrrho Wrote:
(July 27, 2015 at 11:22 pm)ignoramus Wrote: ...
Since we cannot discount a "god" as a possible explanation of "things", we are agnostic.
...

What do you mean by "god?"  Do you mean anything that anyone might call a god?  If so, when someone says, "Brad Pitt is a god," my guess is that not only will you not deny the existence of Brad Pitt, but you probably positively believe he exists.

As for your title question, very often "God" (capitalized) is used for a narrower range of options than "god" (not capitalized); notice the distinction separating definitions 1 & 2:

Quote:God
Definition of God in English:
noun
1(In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2(god)(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:a moon godthe Hindu god Vishnu

2.1An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god:wooden gods from the Congo

2.2Used as a conventional personification of fate:he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

3(god)A greatly admired or influential person:he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god

3.1A thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god:don’t make money your god

4(the gods) informal The gallery in a theatre:they sat in the gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


I am confident that nothing exists that fits 1 or 2.  There are no gods in those senses of the word.  I am not agnostic about those.

In the case of 2.1, obviously, there are statues said to be gods, and 3, 3.1, and 4 obviously exist.  In the case of 2.2, I don't believe in fate, as typically understood, but it depends exactly on how one uses the term whether I would say that it is or is not possible.


In the context of this site, normally, definitions 1 & 2 are the only relevant ones.  And of them, I am confident that none exist.  Still, the exact degree of confidence varies, as I am certain that nothing exists whose proper description is self-contradictory, which eliminates the Christian God, as typically described.  The nonexistence of Zeus is less certain, as his description is not obviously self-contradictory.  But I am still practically certain that he does not exist.  If his home on Mount Olympus were found with his wine cup on his table, then it would be more reasonable to believe in him.  However, since lightning is understood (by some people, anyway), it can be known that Zeus is not the source of it, so his description is problematic and we can say very confidently that there is no Zeus as described, even if he were found on top of Mount Olympus.


When it comes to these sorts of things, when some people demand absolute certainty about God, and insist that otherwise one should be called an "agnostic," my reply is that the same standards should apply for God as anything else.  Are you an agnostic about leprechauns?  The tooth fairy?  Fairies living at the bottom of a well?  Whatever degree of certainty that is good enough to say, "no leprechauns exist," is good enough to say "no gods exist."

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#5
RE: Gnostics?
(August 30, 2015 at 3:06 pm)Exian Wrote: Well, I know I'm an atheist. Does that count?
Lets just call you a not very interesting gnostic atheist... no offense.
Reply
#6
RE: Gnostics?
(August 30, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: There is no god.  I know there is no god.  Is that good enough for you?  If you want that explained, it will take a bit, but if you have read all of my posts, you will already have all you need on that.

Here is an old post on this:

(July 28, 2015 at 9:29 am)Pyrrho Wrote: What do you mean by "god?"  Do you mean anything that anyone might call a god?  If so, when someone says, "Brad Pitt is a god," my guess is that not only will you not deny the existence of Brad Pitt, but you probably positively believe he exists.

As for your title question, very often "God" (capitalized) is used for a narrower range of options than "god" (not capitalized); notice the distinction separating definitions 1 & 2:


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all


I am confident that nothing exists that fits 1 or 2.  There are no gods in those senses of the word.  I am not agnostic about those.

In the case of 2.1, obviously, there are statues said to be gods, and 3, 3.1, and 4 obviously exist.  In the case of 2.2, I don't believe in fate, as typically understood, but it depends exactly on how one uses the term whether I would say that it is or is not possible.


In the context of this site, normally, definitions 1 & 2 are the only relevant ones.  And of them, I am confident that none exist.  Still, the exact degree of confidence varies, as I am certain that nothing exists whose proper description is self-contradictory, which eliminates the Christian God, as typically described.  The nonexistence of Zeus is less certain, as his description is not obviously self-contradictory.  But I am still practically certain that he does not exist.  If his home on Mount Olympus were found with his wine cup on his table, then it would be more reasonable to believe in him.  However, since lightning is understood (by some people, anyway), it can be known that Zeus is not the source of it, so his description is problematic and we can say very confidently that there is no Zeus as described, even if he were found on top of Mount Olympus.


When it comes to these sorts of things, when some people demand absolute certainty about God, and insist that otherwise one should be called an "agnostic," my reply is that the same standards should apply for God as anything else.  Are you an agnostic about leprechauns?  The tooth fairy?  Fairies living at the bottom of a well?  Whatever degree of certainty that is good enough to say, "no leprechauns exist," is good enough to say "no gods exist."
But no one "knows" there are no leprechauns. Knowing is a VERY strong word to use. I am agnostic to almost everything. I threw in the almost, because I know I don't know.
Reply
#7
RE: Gnostics?
I fear it's worse than that. I'm an agnostic atheist. Bor-ring!
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:

"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."

For context, this is the previous verse:

"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
Reply
#8
RE: Gnostics?
(August 30, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Shuffle Wrote:
(August 30, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: There is no god.  I know there is no god.  Is that good enough for you?  If you want that explained, it will take a bit, but if you have read all of my posts, you will already have all you need on that.

Here is an old post on this:
But no one "knows" there are no leprechauns. Knowing is a VERY strong word to use. I am agnostic to almost everything. I threw in the almost, because I know I don't know.

How do you know that you don't know?

Given your claim, you should probably give up on using the word "know" altogether.  I think pushing an extreme definition on such a common word is a mistake, and will continue to say that I know that there are no leprechauns and I know there is no god.  For more on why, see:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#9
RE: Gnostics?
(August 30, 2015 at 4:28 pm)Exian Wrote: I fear it's worse than that. I'm an agnostic atheist. Bor-ring!
psssssssst. I am too.
Reply
#10
RE: Gnostics?
(August 30, 2015 at 4:33 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:
(August 30, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Shuffle Wrote: But no one "knows" there are no leprechauns. Knowing is a VERY strong word to use. I am agnostic to almost everything. I threw in the almost, because I know I don't know.

How do you know that you don't know?

Given your claim, you should probably give up on using the word "know" altogether.  I think pushing an extreme definition on such a common word is a mistake, and will continue to say that I know that there are no leprechauns and I know there is no god.  For more on why, see:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all
Interesting, I will definitely think about it.
Reply





Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)