|
Athiests/Agnostics: what would it take for you to become a believer? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| meriter |
the lack of belief is agnosticism
the firm belief that god does not exist is atheism
again I don't know when these 2 terms became interchangeable, it's just needlessly confusing. Just call yourself agnostic if you're not comfortable with a rigid ideology, instead of just changing what the word 'atheism' means
this is when someone will link to a wikipedia article explaining it. really I don't care, it's just easier to talk about this way |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by meriter
the lack of belief is agnosticism
the firm belief that god does not exist is atheism
|
No, you're wrong. The terms are NOT interchangeable.
The lack of knowledge is agnosticism.
Theism/Atheism deals with belief. |
|
|
| meriter |
| could you explain the difference between knowledge and belief, sorry im a bit slow |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
There IS a clear distinction between the two.
One deals with belief while the other deals with knowledge.
Theism and Atheism strictly describe whether one believes in God (theism) or not (atheism).
Gnosticism and Agnosticism strictly describe whether one knows there is or is not a God (Gnosticism) or whether one does not know (Agnosticism).
So starting from the most religious you would have more or less the following groups:
Gnostic Theist: Believes in God(s), and claims to know God(s) exists.
Agnostic Theist: Does not know if a God exists, but believes in God non-the-less (I would wager that this is actually where most moderate religious people land).
Agnostic Atheist: Does not know whether or not a God exists, and does not believe in a God (The vast majority of non-religious folk land here, closely related to the "I don't give a " group).
Gnostic Atheist: Does not believe in a God, and claims to know that God does not exist.
There is no "system" to either. |
Wouldn't a gnostic atheist by that logic be someone who knows there is a god but chooses not to believe in it anyway? This sudden change of definition suggests that there isn't a clear boundary between knowing and believing, but that one is simply the absence of the other. Making the extra term kind off pointless.
If you know there is a god what reason would you have to believe in it? You can only know something if it's there, knowing something isn't there is impossible since your always limited to your own perception. A Gnostic would always be a theist and an agnostic would be an atheist by default. What you really need to look at is a third factor: whether or not you want it to be there. Which is not the same as a belief.
Gnosticism isn't really a technical term, it doesn't just mean knowing something. Gnostics are people that embrace the spiritual world, this is done by seeking wisdom and enlightenment, practising philanthropy: The pillars of all religions. It's all about learning.
From a modern perspective it almost seems like a paradox, as knowledge now appears to be strictly linked to the material world, which comes to show how much we've changed in that aspect.
What does that make agnosticism? Hell if I know. But maybe it shows that it's something much deeper then whether or not you believe in deities. Is it simply the rock hard rejection of a spiritual dimension next to the material one? Doesn't sound right.
Maybe agnosticism is acknowledging the fact that we are both slaves and masters of our own perception, and therefore knowing anything at all in an absolute sense is rubbish. Otherwise you would be implying that such knowledge might well exist, but that you simply haven't found it yet. From there all that matters is whether or not you choose to form an opinion on it. |
|
|
| Redd |
| wow you guys are slow, it's all clear from Spams post |
|
|
| de+ |
Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
This definition fits most atheist |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
Wouldn't a gnostic atheist by that logic be someone who knows there is a god but chooses not to believe in it anyway? |
No, as clearly defined in my post, a Gnostic Atheist would claim that they know there is no god, and thus do not believe in one.
| quote: | | could you explain the difference between knowledge and belief, sorry im a bit slow |
Belief does not need to be based on any empirical evidence. To believe something, you need only to decide (either consciously or subconsciously) that you believe something to be true. An Agnostic Theist would tell you that they have no evidence to prove that God exists, but that belief feels right, or that they choose to believe in God, just in case. Usually it's an emotional decision, or a carrying of family tradition in these cases, but I'm heavily generalizing to make a point.
Knowledge is evidence-based. To acquire knowledge of something, there must be evidence that leads you to claim that knowledge. A religious, Gnostic Theist might claim knowledge of God's existence based on visions they've had at youth group, or because a prayer was answered or some other (usually circumstantial) evidence or experience they've had.
On the flip side of the coin, an Agnostic Atheist will tell you that while they've seen no evidence that God exists, they've been shown no proof that it's impossible for a God to exist either. They choose not to believe, usually due to a lack of evidence, but have left the door slightly ajar to have their minds changed, usually through evidence. MOST Atheists are Agnostic Atheists. (Actually, most atheists don't give a enough to think about Theology anyway and view the entire discussion as childish)
A Gnostic Theist will claim that they know there is no God, based on some collection of evidence. Usually their evidences are examples of things that used to be blamed on God or other supernatural beings, but whose mechanics were discovered to work naturally (disease, evolution, natural disasters, and the like). Additionally they will cite studies that show that prayer does not work, that supernatural processes are non-repeatable and either complete, as-yet-undefined flukes or nature, or phony claims.
I use the term claims knowledge for both cases because I really don't think we will ever be able to prove 100% the existence or non-existence of a higher Supernatural Power, and that the knowledge claimed really only ever adds up to a collection of evidence that sways belief one way or the other. But it's important to note that the terms DO mean different things, and are NOT interchangeable. |
|
|
| Bierheld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
No, as clearly defined in my post, a Gnostic Atheist would claim that they know there is no god, and thus do not believe in one.
|
Yes... my question was why the gnostic's knowledge suddenly changes when paired with a different belief. Or how he can know about a negative. If all you're saying is that gnosticism is having knowledge about something then you shouldn't be bastardising an ancient term that happens to encompass the very foundation of modern theistic religions and as such can not so easily be bound to an atheist.
Gnostics are people that believe a certain phenomenon exists beyond reasonable doubt, and will spend their life learning about it, slaving away in an attempt to unravel its secrets. This has become their only purpose in life, for it's importance transcends anything that happens in the material world.
You could argue that a modern scientist could also be a gnostic. This time the phenomenon is not god but the laws of nature, which serve a similar role as they are both an absolute explanation for everything that is and has been.
An atheist however could never be a gnostic, since he will find no knowledge on his phenomenon because it's a negative. Finding evidence for something that's not there is impossible, you'd be deluding yourself.
| quote: |
I use the term claims knowledge for both cases because I really don't think we will ever be able to prove 100% the existence or non-existence of a higher Supernatural Power, and that the knowledge claimed really only ever adds up to a collection of evidence that sways belief one way or the other. But it's important to note that the terms DO mean different things, and are NOT interchangeable. |
So what is it now? Is belief just something that follows knowledge around? If so, isn't a gnostic theist someone who believes in his own knowledge? redundancy much? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Bierheld
Yes... my question was why the gnostic's knowledge suddenly changes when paired with a different belief. Or how he can know about a negative. If all you're saying is that gnosticism is having knowledge about something then you shouldn't be bastardising an ancient term that happens to encompass the very foundation of modern theistic religions and as such can not so easily be bound to an atheist.
Gnostics are people that believe a certain phenomenon exists beyond reasonable doubt, and will spend their life learning about it, slaving away in an attempt to unravel its secrets. This has become their only purpose in life, for it's importance transcends anything that happens in the material world.
You could argue that a modern scientist could also be a gnostic. This time the phenomenon is not god but the laws of nature, which serve a similar role as they are both an absolute explanation for everything that is and has been.
An atheist however could never be a gnostic, since he will find no knowledge on his phenomenon because it's a negative. Finding evidence for something that's not there is impossible, you'd be deluding yourself. |
And yet the definition of a Gnostic Atheist does not change: One who not only believes there is no God, but claims knowledge that the lack of a God is an absolute certainty.
The knowledge does not change when paired with the belief, the belief is often paired with one's knowledge. I've listed the ideas that people claim as evidence for their Gnostic Atheism, there are more, but those are the ones I'm most familiar with. I'm not bastardizing anything, I believe you may have your definitions mixed up.
Gnostic: Adjective
Of or relating to knowledge, esp. esoteric mystical knowledge
Dictionary.com says:
gnostic
Use Gnostic in a sentence
gnosˇtic [nos-tik] Show IPA
adjective Also, gnosˇtiˇcal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.
So what exactly is being bastardized here?
| quote: | | So what is it now? Is belief just something that follows knowledge around? If so, isn't a gnostic theist someone who believes in his own knowledge? redundancy much? |
Belief is not specifically attached to one's knowledge, that's why there is a separation between what one believes, and what one KNOWS to be true. One's beliefs can often be based on emotions, traditions, culture, etc and don't necessarily need to have any relevant knowledge in order for the believer to justify said belief. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
9/11 was an inside job. |
Well if you say so... |
|
|
| de+ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
I really don't think we will ever be able to prove 100% the existence or non-existence of a higher Supernatural Power |
And the same could be said about santa claus. Ecualy non-existent evidence in both cases |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| agnostic means mincing faggot. |
|
|
|
|
