Does it make sense to be gnostic (a)theist?

[RadThaddeus]

So I've been doing some digging, and I've seen that overall, a lot of atheists don't wanna be gnostic. And I know that Gnostic means you "know"... that gods do or do not exist - in this case. So like, yeah. If you've chosen a side, there must be sufficient enough evidence to make that knowledge claim. Right? Is there any agnostic theists? If so, why? Again, Why believe or not when you do not have enough evidence. And I've heard (read) the argument that you can't prove that things that don't exist don't exist. But that's like saying: "Ya can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, so consider it a possibility". That's what agnostics are doing. Well that logic is clear and simply misleading. If you'd look at the idea at first, it seems flawless, but when you use your (I hope I'm using this in the right context) DEDUCTIVE REASONING, to eliminate why flying spaghetti beings do not exist in general, you realize that THE flying spaghetti monster isn't real. Then, you are gnostic...

[surreptitious57]

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge and atheism pertains to belief.  And so I am an agnostic atheist
because while I do not think that God exists I cannot prove that as such. I prefer to label myself an
apatheist as I have no absolute opinion on things that I do not know or cannot know. You believe in
something you do not need evidence or proof to validate that because belief is an article of faith that
requires nothing else. So you can then believe in God without being able to determine the truth value
of such a proposition because it does not require any. Those who do believe in something like God use
emotional reasoning to justify their belief. But emotional reasoning is not evidence of proof of anything
at all. Gnostic theists or atheists are convinced their positions are objectively true even though they can
not prove them as such. Where as agnostic theists or atheists allow for the possibility that their positions
may be wrong for exactly the same reason : lack of proof. And so those positions are more sound logically   

[Baruch]

If we take gnostic, as a secular term ... then it simply means someone who is rational and empirical IMHO.  Of course not all secular people are rational or empirical or either.  They could be agnostic (don't know) or ignostic (refuse to know).  And taking a decision has nothing to do with knowledge ... as pointed out ... it is a human thing, like choosing breakfast.  Do you have absolute deductive proof that you are making the one and only one rational and empirical choice for breakfast this morning?  Humans are not Vulcans.  Also the idea of proof is often misused.  Not all logic is deductive ... there is also the inductive (list of examples with no counterexample yet found) form for example and abduction (probability).  And reasoning is more than just logic, there is analogical reasoning.  Deductive logic is not a panacea either ... even when done properly (it usually isn't because ordinary language is a cesspool), the truth of the result depends on the truth of the assumptions (which are usually wrong too).  Proof usually refers to math ... and demonstration refers to empirical reality.  Depending on one's definition of G-d, one either can or can't demonstrate the reasonableness of the idea of G-d (either as an abstraction like math, or an existence like physics).  And nobody agrees on that definition.  Purely rational proofs of G-d (ontological proofs) always fail because of this ... the language used in the "proof" is as self destructive as a Mission Impossible CD.

[peacewithoutgod]

See the Dawkins scale of 1 to 7:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/atheism-easter-atheister
I'm a 6. Nobody has, nor can anyone be expected to produce satisfactorily empirical evidence for any sort of a deity. The very presence of the same to confirm the existence of something which has been asserted to be a deity would also prove that it is actually not supernatural, even if it is a power beyond human capability. That said, all claims to supernatural forces are non-falsifiable, therefore they are not entirely impossible.

So I've been doing some digging, and I've seen that overall, a lot of atheists don't wanna be gnostic. And I know that Gnostic means you "know"... that gods do or do not exist - in this case. So like, yeah. If you've chosen a side, there must be sufficient enough evidence to make that knowledge claim. Right? Is there any agnostic theists? If so, why? Again, Why believe or not when you do not have enough evidence. And I've heard (read) the argument that you can't prove that things that don't exist don't exist. But that's like saying: "Ya can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real, so consider it a possibility". That's what agnostics are doing. Well that logic is clear and simply misleading. If you'd look at the idea at first, it seems flawless, but when you use your (I hope I'm using this in the right context) DEDUCTIVE REASONING, to eliminate why flying spaghetti beings do not exist in general, you realize that THE flying spaghetti monster isn't real. Then, you are gnostic...

[surreptitious57]

Human beings are both emotional and logical. This is because we have a brain with two hemispheres and from a general
perspective the left hemisphere deals with logic and the right hemisphere deals with emotion. So the most logical human
being can sometimes be emotional for that reason. So is not surprising that some employ emotional reasoning instead of
logical reasoning. And particularly so when it comes to believing in God as that defies logic for his actual existence cannot
be proven. But no matter how much one believes in some thing they cannot prove they have to allow for the possibility in
theory that it might not actually exist. And there is not a single human being who can actually prove the existence or non
existence of God. There are many who have convinced them selves of either position. But this is why emotional reasoning
is inferior to but not equal to logical reasoning as a tool of deduction. Since logic by definition requires deduction or at the
very least induction while emotion requires neither of them. Then when those who do believe in God claim there are other
ways of knowing they are deceiving themselves. Since if something cannot be determined by either deductive or inductive
means that it cannot be determined at all. Now mathematics is deductive and science is inductive and between them they
are the best disciplines for determining what is and is not objectively true. And neither can be used to prove the existence
or non existence of God. Hence why the much inferior and less robust methodology of emotional reasoning is used instead

[Mike Cl]

I like the Dawkins scale as introduced by peacewithoutgod.  I'd say that I'd be something like a 6.5.  (Gotta love Hitchens!)  It has been demonstrated for me well enough that I can personally think there is no god.  The fact that the existence of god or not, cannot be put into a scientific theory--it simply cannot be tested by the scientific method.  And that makes the existence of anything supernatural highly suspect.  And while I absolutely have two sides of my brain working (and often times the emotional and rational go to war, so to speak), they both pretty much agree on this point.  There is no god. 

[Hakurei Reimu]

I'd put myself as a 6.999. The evidence is so strong against a god, and the concept of god itself is so dodgy that, it is a completely ridiculous proposition to begin with. The only room for a god-like-thing that remains in the current state of knowledge is one so far removed from its traditional antecedents that it would be better served by giving it a different name.

[stromboli]

I'd put myself as a 6.999. The evidence is so strong against a god, and the concept of god itself is so dodgy that, it is a completely ridiculous proposition to begin with. The only room for a god-like-thing that remains in the current state of knowledge is one so far removed from its traditional antecedents that it would be better served by giving it a different name.

^ Well stated. Any god now possible would have to be something completely outside the context of current religious belief.

[SGOS]

Way back when, I told a minister about my doubts (I guess that amounts to agnosticism, since if I could prove God's existence, I wouldn't have doubts).  Oddly, the minister concurred.  He said he too had doubts, but he still believed.  So assuming he told the truth about his doubts, then it's possible to be a agnostic theist.

I can understand that point of view.  I think it's missing a bit of logic somewhere before the conclusion, but I understand it.

[dtq123]

It makes enough sense to me, because the popular definition of god cannot exist; just look at the omnipotent paradox for an example. Yet any other definition might as well be irrelevant to my life. As a semi-pragmatist, if you cannot prove that god exists, but does not contradict itself and has no negative implications then who cares? Thus, because I do not know what can not be proven at this current time, I can assume it doesn't exist. Would you believe a floating teapot revolves around the sun, despite me not being able to prove it?

My belief on this is firm, go to my Signature if you don't believe me.

[drunkenshoe]

In another thread (The Question) I wrote these posts. I think it explains my opinion:

"What would change your position about the existence of god(s) (from lack of belief in gods to belief in gods / from belief in god(s) to lack of belief in god(s)"

a. Nothing.
b. Observable and verifiable evidence

I voted 'nothing'.

Because simply the idea of a god; any god, gods or deities are all one and it is completely based on human desires apart from the delusion itself. There is not a definition or a description of a god in human history that exists out of that profile. There can't be. Because there is no other narrative for god out of the profile of an absentee landlord. It's human, its as various as humans and its desires.  Therefore there is no such thing as evidence for existence of a creator. It's an invalid statement. It's fantasy of a fantasy. Any evidence anyone would try to imagine as 'what if' would have to be in the limits of describing some sort of a super MAN. Not some unimaginable supreme entity that mortals cannot fathom. Humans only constantly developed the language to describe it, invented imaginary concepts, powers they liked to have- to tell those stories attached to it, but narrative has always been the same. Like children playing make belief. Because gods and religions are functional. It has always, but always been beneficial and profitable. It's trade, its politics. It's a means to desired ends.

Infact, I am going to go further and claim that it's actually impossible to believe in a creator and that actually noone does.

Because god is also a still born concept, because the moment a hominid developed the ability to think and speak;describe any experience he had stepping out that reality he experienced it; voice what's in his mind about a possible creator, imagined stories of it, rather than just feel, love, fear, live and die with it, the idea of god died there at that moment. Because he alienated and seperated himself from that supposed omnipotent nature of that idea of supreme being and its supposed existence. He existed outside of it. He developed the consciousness regarding to his own existence apart from the nature. Process of intelligence. The kind of self awareness and consciousness only one animal on the planet that we know evolved to possess. The cognitive process we developed makes the idea of god impossible. Yes, I said impossible. And no this is not a belief.

If any of you can imagine a god outside the presented category, please come forward explain and then I'll reconsider 'The Question'. However, categories of human narrative doesn't change, because we are just simple animals with simple fixed needs and we don't have any need or use for another category of a god, that's why we invented it this way in the first place . Because there isn't one, there can't be and hence the fantasy needed to be maintained.

So, nothing.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 10, 2015, 04:41:27 PM
"I don't understand why it is impossible to believe that something created the universe."

Because god is an anthropomorphic figure that has developed into some abstract make up -transcendence- and all religions are anthropocentric in their nature. The idea of god does not come from a creator of the universe. It evolved to be the creator of the universe in time. It comes from fearing the thunder and lightening, fire, earthquake, floods, hurricanes, the mighty ocean, the mighty mountains and the powerful wild animals, famine, bad winter that threatened their lives. Everything human faces on the planet in nature.

Humans did not start 'believing' in a god because they thought some supreme being 'created' them. They arrived an understanding of a god that did the creating from mortal fears and simple daily needs. Because they worried about their own lives. Famine, hard winter, disease, fear of death. Why do we die? Why do we feel pain? Why do we get sick? Why do we starve? Human fear of its own nature. It's always 'what happened to me' or 'what is happening to me' or 'what will happen to me? Now and after I die'. It's first person, all about the human itself, first defined in the individual level, then for a society because we are social animals and cannot survive alone; we have to live together.

The idea of the creator of universe, esp. the universe as we undertsand now, today, is a last phase of a series of 'upgrades' and 'updates' of that primitive idea, adapted and modified in time. By development of language. Linguistics. First 'the universe' is the clan, then the village....then the cities, countries and what's around it. As the map starts to open, gradually the 'universe' has become the planet, then finally it has becaome the universe as we know today. Adaptation. Religions and gods get keep adapted by humans because they are functional. So they survive. Basic principle. As the general scale got larger, the scale of god followed it. But it is the same absentee landlord. Doesn't matter how or with what high language or concepts you decsribe it. It's human.

God is the rejection of nature because of mortal fear. That's why in all Abrahamic religions human is defined with something supernatural, an immortal element called soul. It's a symbolic way of refusing to die. It's why in all those religions human is defined as something proud and more than animals, first in the center of the world and that world as in center of the universe. Me, me, me, me, I, I, I, I.

This is not a belief or trust into some supreme being. It's only the BELIEF IN ONESELF in a twisted collective way; SIMPLE TRIBALISM and any other way of believing in a god cannot exist, exactly because of this reason. People who claim to believe in some god, actually believe in themselves, their special place.

And that god is not even a monotheistic god. It can't be. It's sum of fears of death, fears of pain and hoping to be rewarded above all whatever happens. It's 'I don't wanna die! I'm above nature, I have a precious soul, I refuse to die'. It's not trusting in some omnipotent divinity. It's not a belief, it's a claim, it's a wish rising from a make believe has gone so long, it is a fucking category. The whole thing is just a resentful pray.

Guys, there is NOTHING in human history that humans DID because they BELIEVED in some god. Everything, but everything that has been DONE has a REAL LIFE FUNCTION behind it, because humans believe in themselves above all and nothing else. The very reason they imagined gods an deities is this. This is how our cognitive process evolved and also why it actually doesn't allow some genuine belief in god. Otherwise, we couldn't have survived. Because whatever happens, human will act, consciously or unconsciously according to what functions for him. Rest is politics, literature, fantasy to carry this along time.