• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

gnostic atheism ?

PAB

New Member
arg-fallbackName="PAB"/>
If theism , the belief in god or many gods is 'obviously' taught via nurture and cultural environments, then simplified into a person saying to you -'there is a god -hence the life and the universe + additional mysticism' or anything along these lines

Then in terms of the atheist response of possibly
' i dont believe you know what your talking about' -the ambiguous agnostic ; 'what is your proof and rational discourse' etc . and here enters the many unfruitful atheist vs theist discussions

whereas it could be said
'you don't know what you are talking about'- this line of certainty as gnostic . Which for myself is completely acceptable.

In terms of scientific evidence to 'squash' religions line of argument is almost impossible as it constantly adapts and ''evolves'' around science in one way or another, even when it refutes something it may once have claimed. (i think there are cases of this in islam regards to the qur'an.)

The line of gnostic atheism is from cultural, anthropological evidence of religion: simply as a almost universal method of understanding the world, meaning, purpose and origin of humanity. Using faith systems rather than knowledge systems.

That by trying to debunk religion on its terms in regards to 'prove god doesn't exist, blah blah blah, ', the issue isn't that you are forced into lack of knowledge regards to there claims towards transcendental beings and non physical realms , but that we can debunk why they believe that and propose such arguments in the first place.


please correct any oversimplifications and absurdities :)
 
arg-fallbackName="ImprobableJoe"/>
PAB said:
whereas it could be said
'you don't know what you are talking about'- this line of certainty as gnostic . Which for myself is completely acceptable.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if it is what I think, I think you're barking up the crazy tree. :D

I can say that a theist is 100% dead wrong while still being an agnostic atheist. Are you saying that I'm taking a gnostic position?
 
arg-fallbackName="Anachronous Rex"/>
I suppose the distinction is one of correct vs incorrect justifications for a belief.

I have no problem saying that a theist is 100% wrong when it comes to why they believe what they believe. That they exercise poor reasoning, however, does not make their position necessarily false; and thus I cannot refer to myself as a gnostic atheist.

Of course, whenever possible I try to call myself an Igtheist in any case...
 
arg-fallbackName="PAB"/>
yes, i may well be barking up the crazy tree...hence the beauty of the internet and the league of reason , please tell me if i am talking rubbish

i would also say that a theist is 100% wrong - but perhaps i am confused on the terms agnostic and gnostic. if i am 100 % sure i thought this would come to place Gnostic as preface to atheist in terms of the meaning of 'Gnostic' as having knowledge...unless this is specifically concerning 'knowledge of god or the spiritual' ?

how is that you come to retain agnosticism ?

As for igtheist aka ignosticism ....never heard of that before ...googled it and its opened up a whole can of worms so to speak :)

Unless im misreading, for ignosticism, it would regard 'does god exist' a meaningless question is very much the direction im taking; this is what i mean by pointless debates with theists.

but,
Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

is surely ridiculous in terms of yes religion is irrational nonsensical. but this doesn't mean we can't define it and have knowledge of it as as human phenomenon....
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
What is your main concern with respect to gnostic atheism? If you can rank such from highest to lowest, maybe we can settle the issues faster. :D
 
arg-fallbackName="PAB"/>
lrkun said:
What is your main concern with respect to gnostic atheism? If you can rank such from highest to lowest, maybe we can settle the issues faster. :D

there's no main ''concerns'' regards gnostic atheism , rather a- check and gain- on understanding of the concepts in align with my own thought.

so this basically hinges on knowledge this is why im talking about gnosticism. knowledge 'of' religion and spiritualism rather than knowledge 'in' religion and spiritualism. For example the argument crudely that : 'all discussion is pointless until theists define god' again to put crudely is playing 'silly beggars'. We don't need to wait for some form of rational definition and explanation from theism on theistic grounds because we can establish and have knowledge of religion and spiritual/mysticism.

So:
1.what is the verdict on gnostic atheism (logically,)
2. regards to the first , this depends if gnostic is specific to knowledge on such matters of religion and spiritualism on there grounds so to speak.
 
arg-fallbackName="TheFlyingBastard"/>
PAB said:
As for igtheist aka ignosticism ....never heard of that before ...googled it and its opened up a whole can of worms so to speak :)
Unless im misreading, for ignosticism, it would regard 'does god exist' a meaningless question is very much the direction im taking;
It looks like ignosticism becomes useless once the theist defines his god.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
TheFlyingBastard said:
PAB said:
As for igtheist aka ignosticism ....never heard of that before ...googled it and its opened up a whole can of worms so to speak :)
Unless im misreading, for ignosticism, it would regard 'does god exist' a meaningless question is very much the direction im taking;
It looks like ignosticism becomes useless once the theist defines his god.

A christian defines his or her god as Jesus. With respect to other religions, I have no clue.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
With respect to gnostic atheism, do you criticize such? Do you mean to say that it is logical if you question a religion's pool of knowledge as long as it is contained within their own make believe world? or do you mean to say that even if the source is outside of their own make believe reality, it is still wrong? or do you mean to focus on the knowledge itself?
So:
1.what is the verdict on gnostic atheism (logically,)
2. regards to the first , this depends if gnostic is specific to knowledge on such matters of religion and spiritualism on there grounds so to speak.
 
arg-fallbackName="PAB"/>
lrkun said:
With respect to gnostic atheism, do you criticize such? Do you mean to say that it is logical if you question a religion's pool of knowledge as long as it is contained within their own make believe world? or do you mean to say that even if the source is outside of their own make believe reality, it is still wrong? or do you mean to focus on the knowledge itself?
So:
1.what is the verdict on gnostic atheism (logically,)
2. regards to the first , this depends if gnostic is specific to knowledge on such matters of religion and spiritualism on there grounds so to speak.
:shock:
NO haha. sorry i wasn't clear enough. im not criticising gnostic atheism but perhaps agnostic atheism. depending if gnostic atheism is : strong atheism, that is atheism which can claim evidence against the belief or acclaimed knowledge of god and spirituality.
im not sure if this is correct though.

well i would say that the knowledge in the make believe world is not knowledge.

But is it logical to claim knowledge against religion in the gnostic atheistic sense , not under the terms of religion (theology) but exclusively under reason or rational outside of theology, especially in context with agnostic atheism. (again this all depends on my understanding of these definitions as iv used them)

...which would mean, for example, it can be said rather than :
'we dont know if there is a god or not but there is probably , most defiantly no god -, or that god cannot be defined...etc so we cannot discuss it or examine it'

- we can rather take the line of we know there isn't a god rationally..

.not because there is evidence which refutes your claims on any form of genesis and origins and we now have a grand unifying theory of the universe...in which that is what it may take to efficiently throw religion as acceptable( and perhaps not even then)

But because we can understand religion as a human phenomenon, in which we don't need to debate individual cases as we can understand it as part of the paradigm of that phenomenon.
 
arg-fallbackName="lrkun"/>
pab said:
:shock:
NO haha. sorry i wasn't clear enough. im not criticising gnostic atheism but perhaps agnostic atheism. depending if gnostic atheism is : strong atheism, that is atheism which can claim evidence against the belief or acclaimed knowledge of god and spirituality.
im not sure if this is correct though.

well i would say that the knowledge in the make believe world is not knowledge.

But is it logical to claim knowledge against religion in the gnostic atheistic sense , not under the terms of religion (theology) but exclusively under reason or rational outside of theology, especially in context with agnostic atheism. (again this all depends on my understanding of these definitions as iv used them)

...which would mean, for example, it can be said rather than :
'we dont know if there is a god or not but there is probably , most defiantly no god -, or that god cannot be defined...etc so we cannot discuss it or examine it'

- we can rather take the line of we know there isn't a god rationally..

.not because there is evidence which refutes your claims on any form of genesis and origins and we now have a grand unifying theory of the universe...in which that is what it may take to efficiently throw religion as acceptable( and perhaps not even then)

But because we can understand religion as a human phenomenon, in which we don't need to debate individual cases as we can understand it as part of the paradigm of that phenomenon.

You mean to say that it is natural for man to believe in a god, therefore there is no god? Well, that is an interesting way to address the issue. To me, I reject the existence of one not because there is or there isn't evidence, it's because I chose to for some personal reasons. hehe
 
Back
Top