Gnostic Atheist

[Wertbag]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:20 AM, Joshpantera said:

At this point in the discussion do you see any better value in my proposition than you did on the first page? 

 

Yes.  The answer I'm leaning towards is that while gnostic beliefs can be valid, as long as the data set is finite in size, in the end it is irrelevant as knowledge is at its base subjective.  Knowledge is an individual thing, in that each of us has different education, experience and facts that our knowledge is based on.  Those facts are verifiable to a degree, but the quantity and quality of the evidence required is subjective.  That is why even the most widely supported scientific theories have people that disagree with them (gravity, age of the world, shape of the world, evolution etc).  Their facts may not stand up to scrutiny, but they are actually basing their idea on a form of fact which means it's not pure belief but a poor form of knowledge.

So knowledge can change, it can grow and gain more facts to either prove it wrong or solidify it.  Because of this base I would be fine with either theists or atheists using the term gnostic in the right situation, but really it is a term of little value because my facts aren't your facts, my experience isn't your experience and due to those differences we can reach different conclusions from what we have.

 

I'm still left not sure what term actually fits.  Probably anti-theist, but I have the feeling that using "anti" would make religious people think "hatred of".  You would be forever trying to explain what you mean before you could even have a conversation. 

[mymistake]

9 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

You would be forever trying to explain what you mean before you could even have a conversation. 

 

That is the biggest problem with a lot of these issues.  The words are preloaded with meaning and it's hard to get around that.

[Joshpantera]

The good thing is that all of these relevant arguments can be made by an agnostic atheist. We can argue from the extent of all known material. And we can conclude, finally, that we don't think god exists to any relevant degree to believe it. He may as well not exist, and more than likely does not. It doesn't very well matter if we technically can't get away with claiming to know it, because for all intensive purposes, we know enough to make the prospect of gods existence completely irrelevant. And, just as foolish as believing in any other thing we know was made up, like my celestial blue marlin, which, we only can't prove or know for sure doesn't exist, on the exact same technicality as god. 

 

Altogether, belief in god is still foolish with everything considered. 

[LogicalFallacy]

Hi all

 

I am rather late to this most interesting discussion thus most of what I contribute here has been munched over quite thoroughly. 

 

I tend to describe myself as an agnostic atheist. My general position on this topic is that evidentially we can claim Gnosticism, philosophically we can’t. What I mean by this is that in line with Wertbag and MM, there is sufficient evidence against all current defined gods, and lack of evidence for them that we can reasonably claim that we know that, say Yahweh, does not exist. However philosophically we cannot claim knowledge. Now I will caveat this and say that I probably need to brush up on philosophy more formally before being able to talk with confidence about it. There is no direct evidence for God. When theists try and prove God they use inferred evidence - Well look at this fine tuned universe, it infers a creator. This of course is borrowing from science where we take data and infer things from it.  They then mix this in with philosophical arguments like the KCA.

 

I will concede that we cannot know if some deistic god exists. But since a deistic god does not reveal itself, it’s the same as a god that does not exist. Therefore we can ignore a god defined this way

 

On 4/17/2018 at 12:22 PM, Wertbag said:

I thought having a rant about my personal label as a “gnostic atheist” will help me get all of my reasoning in line and let me consider the discussion as I write. 

 

So why gnostic?  To my mind the argument is whether you don’t believe in God because there is no evidence for Him, or whether you know there is no God because the evidence is clear that such a being does not exist.  I fall into the second camp, in that I believe there is so much evidence against a God existing that I cannot hold on to any doubt.

 

I think this greatly depends on the god being defined. On a deistic God I disagree with you, but once a person claims that god reveals itself to humans in some way we are dealing with reality that is testable and provable. So far all religions have failed at this point so here I agree with you.

 

On 4/17/2018 at 12:22 PM, Wertbag said:

So can you disprove God?  Yes, if the God in question is given characteristics that can be tested or if it is claimed that God interacts with the physical world.  As soon as a claim is made that God is more than an irrelevance then those claims can be tested.  Does He perform miracles?  Does he talk to people?  Does He take physical form?  Does He write His thoughts down?  Does He answer prayers?  Any such claims can be investigated and disproved.  All such claims ever made have been shown to be false.

 

 

As mentioned above it does depend on the definition as you outline. I agree with Wertbag above. Thus I think when in conversation or debate, make sure you get a definition and characteristics of the god being discussed. If the theist simply insists on a deist god then the conversation is irrelevant. As I said above a deistic god that does not reveal itself, it’s the same as a god that does not exist

 

On 4/18/2018 at 4:06 PM, mymistake said:

I think the evidence does the work once I stop the theists from "cheating".

 

Again it comes back to definitions. If a theist won’t defend anything other than a deistic God then adopting a claim of knowledge and the burden of proof that goes with it is doomed to failure from a philosophical standpoint. I think in order to soundly defeat the arguments of a theist when you are claiming a Gnostic position then you need a well defined God.

 

The theist will often try the line “It’s possible” to which I reply, sure I’ll concede God is ‘possible’ right after you concede my invisible pink transcendent unicorn is possible. Possibility is not probability.

 

Watch this debate with a gnostic atheist vs a gnostic theist. While essentially the atheist is right he loses the argument. He literally concedes defeat out the gate of his opening speech. This is because he is arguing (Rather well) against the Bible god. However the theist is defending a deistic god. Cheating? Yes, but in terms of convincing a crowd the theist won... admittedly it sounded like he was preaching to the quoir. There were many fallacies in his arguments that a decent critical Christian thinker should have identified.

 

 

 

 

On 4/18/2018 at 4:06 PM, mymistake said:

That leads to a world where knowledge is not possible.  Maybe that is your conclusion about knowledge.  I can't accept that.  To me knowledge is real, it has value, it has degrees, it can be overturned and it is limited. 

 

I actually tend to agree here. The claim to knowledge works, provided you are not claiming absolute certainty.  It seems to me that your definition of knowledge is what is causing the differences in opinions here. You are saying you are a gnostic atheist, but that your Gnosticism is not 100%. Doesn’t that make you agnostic by definition? Well maybe not. If one allows for a scale of knowledge in gnosticism similar to the scale of belief in God then 1 may be I know with a low confidence level, where 7 might be the dreaded absolute certainty. Have I got that right? Hence MM’s I know beyond reasonable doubt. It's not a claim to absolute knowledge, but neither is it agnosticism wherein one doesn't know.

 

Hmm I think I see why MM has adopted gnostic atheism.

 

But I agree with Disillusioned - it comes down to semantics. When people use the word "know" they generally mean know 100%. Thus in everyday conversation, where terms are not well defined or understood, the label gnostic atheist may be more a hindrance than a help to conversation.

[Guest]

On 4/17/2018 at 12:15 AM, mymistake said:

 

 Why would a strange being from deep in the multiverse take an interest in human lives?  that seems incredibly unlikely.  Gods come from the human ego.  We have a hard time imagining that we are not the center of attention.

 

Bingo. This has been my theory. We just can't face the fact that our tiny little blip of consciousness on this blue dot is going to be extinguished some day, and that's that. One of the most startling questions I ever got was "but do you want to live forever in the version of heaven you believe in?" Smart man, the therapist who made me wake up and start reading.

[mymistake]

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Again it comes back to definitions.  

 

Yes.  And I can't justify using my own private definitions.  

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I actually tend to agree here. The claim to knowledge works, provided you are not claiming absolute certainty.  It seems to me that your definition of knowledge is what is causing the differences in opinions here. You are saying you are a gnostic atheist, but that your Gnosticism is not 100%. Doesn’t that make you agnostic by definition? Well maybe not. If one allows for a scale of knowledge in gnosticism similar to the scale of belief in God then 1 may be I know with a low confidence level, where 7 might be the dreaded absolute certainty. Have I got that right? Hence MM’s I know beyond reasonable doubt. It's not a claim to absolute knowledge, but neither is it agnosticism wherein one doesn't know.

 

I want a theory of knowledge that better fits what we observe with the evolution of technology.  I think the older philosophy definitions don't work so well.  But it is a bit much for me to ask the world to change.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hmm I think I see why MM has adopted gnostic atheism.

 

Not anymore.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

But I agree with Disillusioned - it comes down to semantics. When people use the word "know" they generally mean know 100%. Thus in everyday conversation, where terms are not well defined or understood, the label gnostic atheist may be more a hindrance than a help to conversation.

 

And my critique is that when most people say they know something often they don't.  The claim might be knowledge beyond all doubt but in practice it really means they are experiencing the emotion of feeling certain.  This whole topic is still a problem area but I no longer think it justifies gnostic atheism.

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, mymistake said:

And my critique is that when most people say they know something often they don't.  The claim might be knowledge beyond all doubt but in practice it really means they are experiencing the emotion of feeling certain.  This whole topic is still a problem area but I no longer think it justifies gnostic atheism.

 

This is spot on. You've honed in on it. It's just too hard to justify in a complete sense. 

[Joshpantera]

On 4/24/2018 at 8:00 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Watch this debate with a gnostic atheist vs a gnostic theist. While essentially the atheist is right he loses the argument. He literally concedes defeat out the gate of his opening speech. This is because he is arguing (Rather well) against the Bible god. However the theist is defending a deistic god. Cheating? Yes, but in terms of convincing a crowd the theist won... admittedly it sounded like he was preaching to the quoir. There were many fallacies in his arguments that a decent critical Christian thinker should have identified.

 

I got around to watching the whole debate. It was frustrating at times. 

 

I think instead of admitting defeat out the gate, the affirming side should have started out with an outline of what taking a gnostic position on either consists of, which, as we've explored here, are arguments from inference. The apologist clearly makes his arguments for the existence of god, the only way he can, indirectly. That should have been made clear from the outset by the atheist. And then the audience should have been informed both sides of gnostic argument depend on the same type of evidence to make their cases, neither of which completely prove the claims or offer any absolute knowledge on the issue. This is important because the apologist was able to get a confession from the atheist that he can't prove a negative, and then proceeded to pretend that he could prove the positive assertion, even though his proof depended on very fallible and falsifiable appeals to inference. Which never proved the existence of god. The atheist did make a note that the apologist couldn't prove the positive assertion, either, but he said this as an aside and didn't focus in closely and found the entire premise of the debate on that point of fact. 

 

The only knowledge to be found of gods existence or non-existence, comes from knowledge of probability based on inference. And it can be shown that it's more probable that god stands in line with any number of myths which are equally foolish, and which also can't be established factually by proving a negative. The probability that god doesn't exist, seems quite high compared to the probability that god does exist, though, all things considered. 

 

The atheist should have had a slide ready, illustrating the cosmology of genesis as a multi layered universe, set to a non-literal and inconsistent creation myth sequence which is self contradicting. That's the YECist's foundation stone, it should have been illustrated beyond question. And then proceed to look at the YECist's cosmological arguments in the context of what they actually are. Then point out the problems with trying to assert a singularity, or the senseless assertion that a supernatural cause is needed to explain the natural universe. Not according to modern cosmology. Not according to inflation and multiverse cosmology. The audience should have been schooled on these points. The apologist would have been unprepared to deal with this direction. Infinite and eternal space needs no outside, supernatural cause at all. There's no outside or beyond, infinite and eternal space. And the BBT does not actually rule out such a possible natural reality behind the existence of the universe, as we discussed at length here in our science section across multiple discussions. 

 

Behind all of this, the apologist would have had a hard time trying to suffer such a blow to his cosmology and then run to god as a necessary explanation for the existence of morality, when, we'd already established that a god wasn't necessary for the existence of the natural universe in the first place, let alone morality in the universe. In terms of knowledge from inference, the gnostic atheist has a constant leg up over the gnostic theist in the area of Occam's Razor alone. All of the supernatural assertions are unnecessary and add complexity to the more elegant simplicity of the naturalist arguments. Morality evolving from natural causes is the simplest explanation. 

 

He could have wiped the floor with the apologist had he have been more clever about it. And presented his gnostic atheist handicap in a much better way going into it. The apologist was able to portray him as intellectually dishonest, which didn't help the debate. The poor guy meant well, but he's just not clever enough to present a gnostic argument debate it's full potential.