Quantcast

Does" Gnostic atheist " means--"god may exist but i dont believe in him ...!!!?? "

moi 2010/03/25 13:52:32
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • socokid 2010/03/25 15:35:28 (edited)
    socokid
    +3
    No, a "gnostic atheist" is one that claims he not only believes there is no God, but also claims to know for sure that there isn't one (and depends on which definition of "God" you speak of... see my last paragraph).

    Gnosticism is a claim of "knowledge", theism is a claim of "belief". They are different.

    Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
    Agnostic - Claim of not knowing

    Theist - Believes there is a God
    Atheist - Believes there is no God

    For example, I'm an "agnostic atheist". I believe there is no God, but also cannot prove this claim. There are:

    Gnostic theists - Believe there is a God, and claims to know this for certain.
    Agnostic theist - Believes there is a God, but does not claim to know for certain.

    Gnostic atheist - Believes there is no God, and claims to know this for certain.
    Agnostic atheist - Believes there is a no God, but does not claim to know for certain.

    To add, I would argue any gnostic that they are logically incorrect, in either the theism or atheism camp. However, most of the definitions for a "God" that most believe in, are logically impossible and can have people correctly claiming "gnostic atheism" towards them specifically... but in general, I stick with agnostic atheism, since it covers all claims of any "God".

    Hope this helps!

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Waiting 2010/03/26 16:49:13
    Waiting
    +1
    Gnostic means knowledge. It can refer to a specific religion or to the concept of knowing absolutely as in a gnostic atheist who knows there is no god. Personally for me it is far more the former.
  • socokid 2010/03/25 15:35:28 (edited)
    socokid
    +3
    No, a "gnostic atheist" is one that claims he not only believes there is no God, but also claims to know for sure that there isn't one (and depends on which definition of "God" you speak of... see my last paragraph).

    Gnosticism is a claim of "knowledge", theism is a claim of "belief". They are different.

    Gnostic - Claim of knowledge
    Agnostic - Claim of not knowing

    Theist - Believes there is a God
    Atheist - Believes there is no God

    For example, I'm an "agnostic atheist". I believe there is no God, but also cannot prove this claim. There are:

    Gnostic theists - Believe there is a God, and claims to know this for certain.
    Agnostic theist - Believes there is a God, but does not claim to know for certain.

    Gnostic atheist - Believes there is no God, and claims to know this for certain.
    Agnostic atheist - Believes there is a no God, but does not claim to know for certain.

    To add, I would argue any gnostic that they are logically incorrect, in either the theism or atheism camp. However, most of the definitions for a "God" that most believe in, are logically impossible and can have people correctly claiming "gnostic atheism" towards them specifically... but in general, I stick with agnostic atheism, since it covers all claims of any "God".

    Hope this helps!
  • Scott ヶ... socokid 2010/03/25 15:39:48
    Scott ヶBrony Of PHAETヶ
    +2
    How long did that take?
  • socokid Scott ヶ... 2010/03/25 15:48:45
    socokid
    +2
    LOL. 3 minutes?

    As Cartman would say, I type hella fast. ;-)
  • Scott ヶ... socokid 2010/03/25 16:08:14
    Scott ヶBrony Of PHAETヶ
    +1
    Lol, I type "hella" slow.
  • moi socokid 2010/03/26 09:01:26
    moi
    +1
    ya..thanks a lot. :)
  • Mojoreno socokid 2010/12/01 18:02:33
    Mojoreno
    +2
    "No, a "gnostic atheist" is one that claims he not only believes there is no God, but also claims to know for sure that there isn't one"

    A "gnostic atheist" does NOT have to claim to know FOR SURE that there isn't one (a God), she just has to claim to know that there isn't one. In other words, it is not the case that knowledge implies certainty.
  • socokid Mojoreno 2010/12/01 18:15:10
    socokid
    Well, of course not. Within general definitions of a "God", I can claim gnostic atheists are just as illogical as gnostic theists for that very reason. This is why I'm usually an agnostic atheist.

    However, the more you define a "God", the more likely I can become a gnostic atheist. Some "Gods" truly do defy logic.
  • Bob Barker socokid 2013/09/25 22:35:13
    Bob Barker
    +4
    "I would argue any gnostic that they are logically incorrect"

    Technically true in an absolute sense, that is no one can be absolutely sure of anything, but not very useful for a working definition of knowledge. I would wager that the majority of agnostic people believe in innumerable things with absolute certainty, and yet could not technically prove it to be absolutely true. Technically you don't know that I exist and yet we will assume so for the sake of this argument.

    In another words we have to make assumptions that things are true if we believe in them with great certainty.

    ...but the devil is in the details.

    Does someone have great certainty for a conviction because they read it was the case in an ancient collection of stories that also describes unicorns, satyrs, talking snakes, dragons, with some people getting knocked up without intercourse and others turning into salt pillars, and finishes like a Godzilla knock-off with a Seven-Headed Beast of Armageddon, or because the most highly trained scientists in the world working in state of the art laboratories conducted multiple experiments and demonstrated a difference at a certain high level of statistical confidence?

    Now falsification of supernatural creatures is not possible, but certainly one doesn't believe in something ...
    "I would argue any gnostic that they are logically incorrect"

    Technically true in an absolute sense, that is no one can be absolutely sure of anything, but not very useful for a working definition of knowledge. I would wager that the majority of agnostic people believe in innumerable things with absolute certainty, and yet could not technically prove it to be absolutely true. Technically you don't know that I exist and yet we will assume so for the sake of this argument.

    In another words we have to make assumptions that things are true if we believe in them with great certainty.

    ...but the devil is in the details.

    Does someone have great certainty for a conviction because they read it was the case in an ancient collection of stories that also describes unicorns, satyrs, talking snakes, dragons, with some people getting knocked up without intercourse and others turning into salt pillars, and finishes like a Godzilla knock-off with a Seven-Headed Beast of Armageddon, or because the most highly trained scientists in the world working in state of the art laboratories conducted multiple experiments and demonstrated a difference at a certain high level of statistical confidence?

    Now falsification of supernatural creatures is not possible, but certainly one doesn't believe in something solely due to unfalsifiability. Even the gnostic theist knows this to be true as they are themselves gnostic atheists with regards to all religions other than their own.
    (more)
  • socokid Bob Barker 2013/09/26 03:07:51
    socokid
    Technically true in an absolute sense
    This was the sense and the only way I could make the claim. This post is 3 years old, and I am not certain I would use those terms today precisely due to the unnecessary complication.

    I can, and do, claim gnostic atheism with regard to some definitions of a God (some usual suspects), breaking this absolute "sense". There is my admission. ;-)

    You are correct in your understanding that the true worth of an idea is measured in how much faith is used, coupled the assumed importance of the topic itself.

    For example. using nothing but pure and utter faith to believe in something you hold absolutely dear, something you chose to be pervasive in your life, seems outwardly counter to discovery... in the least.

    Utter faith instantly produces unresolvable differences with other humans. Differences that cannot be reasoned away, or they would not be utterly faith based. Make these beliefs "part of your soul", and we get many stains in hour history books.

    I thank you for your post, as it was welcome. Have a wonderful night, Bob!
  • Scott ヶBrony Of PHAETヶ 2010/03/25 14:16:44
    Scott ヶBrony Of PHAETヶ
    +3
    No it means a strong atheist.
  • TaVeAct Scott ヶ... 2012/01/12 02:35:37
    TaVeAct
    +1
    A Richard Hawkins type atheist- one who believes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anyone who believes in the traditional meaning of god is delusional (some deity who created the universe dominated by dark matter/energy just for you to live on a tiny blue speck in the middle of nowhere). They want everyone to be atheists and believe the world would be a better place.

    "like the famous Richard Dawkins, you are an atheist, and you're pretty damn sure that that's the way the Universe functions. If you could convince the world to drop its religions and beliefs in God (or the flying spaghetti monster), you would do so at the drop of a hat.

    After all, as far as you see it, the world would be a better place without religion and without people going for all this hokey-pokey abracadabra nonsense. If they're too brainwashed to see it, that's just too bad, but at least you know what's going on."


    "Standard Atheist

    When people say "I'm an atheist," this is usually what they mean. They're pretty certain that the Universe works in a specific way (which DOESN'T revolve around your God, thank you very much), but they're not completely stuck in those beliefs. You're willing to change if something else makes sense, and you're not about to try to convert all of their friends an...

    A Richard Hawkins type atheist- one who believes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anyone who believes in the traditional meaning of god is delusional (some deity who created the universe dominated by dark matter/energy just for you to live on a tiny blue speck in the middle of nowhere). They want everyone to be atheists and believe the world would be a better place.

    "like the famous Richard Dawkins, you are an atheist, and you're pretty damn sure that that's the way the Universe functions. If you could convince the world to drop its religions and beliefs in God (or the flying spaghetti monster), you would do so at the drop of a hat.

    After all, as far as you see it, the world would be a better place without religion and without people going for all this hokey-pokey abracadabra nonsense. If they're too brainwashed to see it, that's just too bad, but at least you know what's going on."


    "Standard Atheist

    When people say "I'm an atheist," this is usually what they mean. They're pretty certain that the Universe works in a specific way (which DOESN'T revolve around your God, thank you very much), but they're not completely stuck in those beliefs. You're willing to change if something else makes sense, and you're not about to try to convert all of their friends and family to Atheism. That being said, you're not going to take too kindly to people trying to convert YOU either."

    Agnostic means you are vocal in your belief that a unobservable room-temperature breathing dragon might be in the room with you who produces no evidence of his existence and it really doesn't matter if he does or doesn't- you will still be vocal about that belief that it might be there.
    (more)
  • LeifEriksson 2010/03/25 14:14:58
    LeifEriksson
    Richard Dawkins

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/22 21:48:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals