Poll: Are you an gnostic atheist?
Yes. I am atheist and I KNOW there is NO god.
No. I am atheist but am not 100% positive god doesn't exist.
I am a believer. And I KNOW god exist. I just KNOW
I am a believer. But I can't be sure.
[Show Results]
 
Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2012, 04:10 AM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 04:01 AM)scientician Wrote:  Theism insofar as it applies to a personal god, absolutely. You'd really be silly to think otherwise! Same category as unicorns and fairies.

Whoa! Hawd up there just a second! Unicorns exist.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...812AAjRtJ5

The top answer explains all:

Quote:The unicorns represent something deeper in the Scottish consciousness.

Originally Scotland had 2 unicorns, but when england took over and burned our houses, and killed our men and raped our children and wives, they also took one of our unicorns.

This is why you see the unicorn in chains on the British arms, the lion being england (a symbol of dominance, wrath and strength) with it's crown a top its head. The shield of course a symbol of protection with the 4 kingdoms of england, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The first unicorn lies in plain sight and notice it has only been chained, and does not lie dead, the second hides within the Scottish people, biding it's time until it may be reunited with its other half and be whole again.



I'm glad we could clear that up.

[Image: opforum1.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankiej's post
21-08-2012, 05:07 AM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
What does the first commandment say? Thou shalt have no god. There you go. Big Grin

Most times peeps talking about god, they're talking about religion; like my Gwynnies. Heart

She was on my Facebook this morning, and I go, whee! Big Grin

But that is both too much information and not enough. Does anybody say "god is love" without saying a bunch of other stuff? Does anybody love anything like I love my Gwynnies? People have their own Gwynnies. If Gwyneth Paltrow cannot be limited to concrete conception, to do such to god is ridiculous.

In 2005, I had no reason to believe the LC was not the creator of the universe. Today I have no reason to believe the LC exists beyond me. Nothing has changed where the point of intersection is I. Simple for this cat. Peeps talking about god, are talking about themselves. Their perceptions, their intersection. Like Lumi, like KC, like ideasonscribe... alla sudden, there's four gods....

Tooth fairy and Santa? That was my Ma. Unicorns? Stuck to the cover of my sister's schoolbooks. These are concepts that become concrete through the will of another. Like my Gwynnies. Which is not exactly Gwyneth Paltrow. And my silliness over that poor girl is a wonder to behold and quite beyond understanding. So there!

God cannot exist. All that could exist on that level is a reflection of something godlike.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 05:29 AM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 05:07 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Does anybody say "god is love" without saying a bunch of other stuff?
.....
God cannot exist. All that could exist on that level is a reflection of something godlike.

And peeps only say THAT because we exist to the East of Hollywood/ West of Bollywood. If Hollywood din't exist, humans would not be saying that shit either. (Well, maybe if they read the Grail Myth/Cretien de Troyes they might, but who's really read that these days.) 100 years ago, no one was runnin around sayin "god is love". That romantic shit exists as an ideal, ONLY cuz of all that movie shit, and Western "romantic" ideal/idealism....(including yer GP), sir.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-08-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 04:10 AM)frankiej Wrote:  Whoa! Hawd up there just a second! Unicorns exist.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...812AAjRtJ5

The top answer explains all:

Well I stand corrected.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

--Stephen Jay Gould
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(20-08-2012 08:57 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 04:31 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  This is almost certainly the example I'd use if I were trying to prove that you're equivocating the word "know". You were absolutely certain that there were 9 planets, even though there were 8? And now you're absolutely certain that there are 8, despite the fact that it changed in the recent past and could change with the discovery of another planet?

I don't think you mean that you're absolutely certain, which is generally what is meant by "gnostic" (meaning "knowing"). I think you're just saying that you accept the current consensus, and will accept it if it changes.

If you were a gnostic atheist, you'd still be an atheist if God shook your hand and introduced himself.

I have to admit that I'm getting more than a little depressed, now. In future, could you please actually read the words that I write, rather than the words you think that I write?

Knowledge doesn't require absolute certainty. Unless you're a skeptic. I addressed this several posts ago. Nor do I follow the consensus. If I did that, I'd be a member of whichever religion had the most followers and a supporter of whichever government is in power. But back to the thing about certainty...

Do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow? You can't be certain. Even if, in the full expanse of recorded human history, something has always happened a particular way... that does not give you certainty that it will always happen that way in the future.

Following that reason, knowledge (with the skeptical certainty that you seem to demand) is impossible. About anything. Ever.

So, we can either abandon the word "knowledge" altogether, eradicating it from our dictionaries, or we can understand that knowledge is something that maps on to our best current understanding of reality.

So, to repeat: knowledge can change when facts change.

I'd already told the OP to read David Hume. Allow me to ctrl-c ctrl-v some of his words on this:-

The sceptical objections to moral evidence, or to the reasonings concerning matter of fact, are either popular or philosophical. The popular objections are derived from the natural weakness of human understanding; the contradictory opinions, which have been entertained in different ages and nations; the variations of our judgement in sickness and health, youth and old age, prosperity and adversity; the perpetual contradiction of each particular man’s opinions and sentiments; with many other topics of that kind. It is needless to insist farther on this head. These objections are but weak. For as, in common life, we reason every moment concerning fact and existence, and cannot possibly subsist, without continually employing this species of argument, any popular objections, derived from thence, must be insufficient to destroy that evidence. The great subverter of Pyrrhonism or the excessive principles of scepticism is action, and employment, and the occupations of common life. These principles may flourish and triumph in the schools; where it is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible, to refute them. But as soon as they leave the shade, and by the presence of the real objects, which actuate our passions and sentiments, are put in opposition to the more powerful principles of our nature, they vanish like smoke, and leave the most determined sceptic in the same condition as other mortals.

The sceptic, therefore, had better keep within his proper sphere, and display those philosophical objections, which arise from more profound researches. Here he seems to have ample matter of triumph; while he justly insists, that all our evidence for any matter of fact, which lies beyond the testimony of sense or memory, is derived entirely from the relation of cause and effect; that we have no other idea of this relation than that of two objects, which have been frequently conjoined together; that we have no argument to convince us, that objects, which have, in our experience, been frequently conjoined, will likewise, in other instances, be conjoined in the same manner; and that nothing leads us to this inference but custom or a certain instinct of our nature; which it is indeed difficult to resist, but which, like other instincts, may be fallacious and deceitful. While the sceptic insists upon these topics, he shows his force, or rather, indeed, his own and our weakness; and seems, for the time at least, to destroy all assurance and conviction. These arguments might be displayed at greater length, if any durable good or benefit to society could ever be expected to result from them.

For here is the chief and most confounding objection to excessive scepticism, that no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigour. We need only ask such a sceptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches? He is immediately at a loss, and knows not what to answer. A Copernican or Ptolemaic, who supports each his different system of astronomy, may hope to produce a conviction, which will remain constant and durable, with his audience. A Stoic or Epicurean displays principles, which may not be durable, but which have an effect on conduct and behaviour. But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail. All discourse, all action would immediately cease; and men remain in a total lethargy, till the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their miserable existence. It is true; so fatal an event is very little to be dreaded. Nature is always too strong for principle. And though a Pyrrhonian may throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them.


David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Of the academical or sceptical philosophy Part II

I read your post. I always carefully read what others say before I comment on them.

I'm not saying that you weren't talking about having knowledge. I was saying that your definition -- having knowledge -- isn't generally what's meant by being gnostic (as opposed to agnostic). I'm quite certain it isn't what Atheist Chiefs fan meant.

You're arguing for skepticism, and when you do that you're pushing against an open door -- I'm a skeptic, too, so why are you trying to convince me? Skepticism is compatible with agnosticism... it's a stand on the default position (nonbelief) until you have better evidence. Skeptics are willing to change their minds when they get that better evidence. "Gnostic" atheists are not... unless you've made up your own definition of gnostic atheist, as it appears you have, which is what I already argued the first time.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 10:16 PM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 09:24 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I read your post. I always carefully read what others say before I comment on them.

(21-08-2012 09:24 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're arguing for skepticism

Is there an emoticon for slamming your head against a brick wall?

Where am I arguing for skepticism? Show me. Quote me. FTLOG!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 10:37 PM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
Red Celt.. We don't know that the sun will rise tomorrow.. As far as I know, it could of vanished out of space in this moment.

In the sense of having a level of near absolute knowledge, no I don't know the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I believe it will based on the repetition that it has done so every day I've been aware of in the history on Earth. At my latitude/longitude at least.

The question and stance of deity gnosticism implies an at or near absolute knowledge position. Anyone can have that stance, but that's where the position stands.

In the day to day stance of what we know, we know the sun will rise in the morning based on the various forms of reasoning.

About the only thing knowable to an absolute certainty are tautologies and such things we give the meaning to, like proper nouns.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 10:46 PM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 10:37 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  About the only thing knowable to an absolute certainty are tautologies and such things we give the meaning to, like proper nouns.

So, your position is a skeptical one, whereby knowledge requires certainty?

Then (as I said above) we can all just stop using the word, because it has just become meaningless. Cartesian skepticism allows for very little... and I'm not a skeptic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 11:25 PM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
I am a veteran of The Iraq War. While I was there, I watched as those scum murdered their own people. I saw three little girls get hit by a motor and had their heads and small bodies get blown to pieces, I witnessed children walk up to crowds of people and detonate themselves, I watched over time a pile of bodies decay to a pile sun bleached bones. I've killed the enemy and liked it. Now if there was an omniscient entity, and omnipotent "Creator" who knows both past and future and sees everything, who made us all in his perfect image, then he would have seen all these wars over religion and the evil and imperfect people that inhabit our planet beforehand. But they're still here today and the wars are still being waged. Therefore I know there is no god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2012, 03:23 AM
RE: Are there any gnostic atheist out there?
(21-08-2012 10:46 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 10:37 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  About the only thing knowable to an absolute certainty are tautologies and such things we give the meaning to, like proper nouns.

So, your position is a skeptical one, whereby knowledge requires certainty?

Then (as I said above) we can all just stop using the word, because it has just become meaningless. Cartesian skepticism allows for very little... and I'm not a skeptic.

At least that sounds a little better than what I've come to know as Radical Skepticism, where knowledge is impossible....Won't lie, it does annoy me.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: