Idk i think atheism is just as presumptuous and asinine as theism.
Atheists don’t tend to fall down the nationalism - fascism hole quite as frequently, but they can be just as annoying.
I just don’t know what’s wrong with admitting we don’t know. We can’t perceive everything and there is still too much mystery for me to subscribe to anything. That being said, I do not use the promise of an afterlife to live well, I justify that by making happiness my goal, I just can’t say definitively there is nothing going on beyond what we know, spiritually speaking. I don’t think any religion has gotten it right because how could they if we can’t perceive everything?
The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, and “we don’t know” is that in a nutshell. Gnostic atheists who “know” there is no god are rather rare but very loud.
gnostic or agnostic, atheists are just not convinced. Like I dont believe you, that you have a unicorn at home. If I am gnostic or agnostic about that matter isnt really too important to anyone.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable.
So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic?
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Edit: they certainly look like they’re opposites, but just like deontology and ontology aren’t opposites, these two words are just awkwardly related. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism which is not just “believing in a god”. I’d say a proper antonym for atheism is theism/deism.
respectfully, your edit made it even more clear that you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of the terms in this case. agnostic / gnostic atheism needent necessarily have anything to do with gnosticism as a general term.
True enough, but even still I don’t see that “gnostic atheism” is obviously the opposite of “agnostic atheism”. In any case it’s not what I claimed. The terminology is confusing and I was hoping to be helpful, although I see now I was far too glib.
Offtopic: What in gods name is that wiki? https://hmolpedia.com/page/Main_Page
I understand almost every word but dont get the combination of them at all. Am I crazy?
right, one type of atheism and another type of atheism arent “opposites” and no one said they were.
the prefix in question and how it functions in this case are indeed opposites. one is a position of certainty about the topic, and one is a position of a lack of that certainty.
no no … its like this … within the context of atheism the prefixes gnostic and agnostic refer to the following term “atheism”.
atheist refers to belief
gnostic / agnostic refers to certainty
no one claimed anything about gnosticism at all, let alone that its the opposite of atheism. thats doubly wrong. also, iirc you are the one who introduced opposites into this conversation. i do agree the whole situation is semantically confusing. :)
Oh, I see. “Gnostic” has more than one meaning. It can mean “A believer in Gnosticism”, but it can also mean “Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.” I’m using the American Heritage Dictionary, but you can find similar definitions in other dictionaries.
In this case, I’m sure that most people can figure out that a gnostic atheist isn’t an atheist who believes in Gnosticism.
Totally right. Worse again though, there is a lesser known term “gnostic atheist”, but it doesn’t quite mean “a spiritual believer in the absence of a god”, nor any other straightforward guess.
because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing.
You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
I figured this was the case. The loud ones tend to set the stage, unfortunately. I’d personally just consider myself to be fully agnostic, but I’m sure I share a significant base of beliefs with most agnostic atheists.
I say there isn’t a god the same way I say the sun will rise tomorrow and the universe won’t blink out of existence. In truth, nothing is certain or absolutely knowable; there’s always the unknown unknowns and axioms which are untestable. But I have no reason to believe that lawn gnomes come alive when they’re not being watched; just because I can’t be absolutely certain to exactly 100% certainty doesn’t mean I also can’t confidently state that claim’s full of shit.
if enough people started saying so, would you think theres a chance that shoelaces are sentient even though theres no evidence to support that and all reasonable evidence supports the opposite conclusion? ofc not, so why should i entertain the idea of gods. hmu when you have some evidence.
Idk i think atheism is just as presumptuous and asinine as theism.
Atheists don’t tend to fall down the nationalism - fascism hole quite as frequently, but they can be just as annoying.
I just don’t know what’s wrong with admitting we don’t know. We can’t perceive everything and there is still too much mystery for me to subscribe to anything. That being said, I do not use the promise of an afterlife to live well, I justify that by making happiness my goal, I just can’t say definitively there is nothing going on beyond what we know, spiritually speaking. I don’t think any religion has gotten it right because how could they if we can’t perceive everything?
The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, and “we don’t know” is that in a nutshell. Gnostic atheists who “know” there is no god are rather rare but very loud.
gnostic or agnostic, atheists are just not convinced. Like I dont believe you, that you have a unicorn at home. If I am gnostic or agnostic about that matter isnt really too important to anyone.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable. So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites!
Edit: they certainly look like they’re opposites, but just like deontology and ontology aren’t opposites, these two words are just awkwardly related. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism which is not just “believing in a god”. I’d say a proper antonym for atheism is theism/deism.
“I know” and “I don’t know” aren’t opposites?
They are of course, but that’s not the meaning I attach to those words.
respectfully, your edit made it even more clear that you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of the terms in this case. agnostic / gnostic atheism needent necessarily have anything to do with gnosticism as a general term.
True enough, but even still I don’t see that “gnostic atheism” is obviously the opposite of “agnostic atheism”. In any case it’s not what I claimed. The terminology is confusing and I was hoping to be helpful, although I see now I was far too glib.
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Gnostic_atheist
Offtopic: What in gods name is that wiki? https://hmolpedia.com/page/Main_Page I understand almost every word but dont get the combination of them at all. Am I crazy?
No, no you aren’t. I’m worried about the creator of the site, though. Y I K E S
(ETA: Y’all, I think we’re being trolled.)
They aren’t, but that wasn’t the claim. Here’s what you said:
The article you linked explains how they’re opposites. Gnostic and agnostic are opposites, just like theism and atheism are opposites.
deleted by creator
right, one type of atheism and another type of atheism arent “opposites” and no one said they were.
the prefix in question and how it functions in this case are indeed opposites. one is a position of certainty about the topic, and one is a position of a lack of that certainty.
in this context, i think they are. aka certainty / uncertainty
I take your point. For the record if you do claim that gnosticism and atheism are indeed opposites, them isn’t “gnostic atheism” an oxymoron?
no no … its like this … within the context of atheism the prefixes gnostic and agnostic refer to the following term “atheism”.
atheist refers to belief gnostic / agnostic refers to certainty
no one claimed anything about gnosticism at all, let alone that its the opposite of atheism. thats doubly wrong. also, iirc you are the one who introduced opposites into this conversation. i do agree the whole situation is semantically confusing. :)
Oh, I see. “Gnostic” has more than one meaning. It can mean “A believer in Gnosticism”, but it can also mean “Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.” I’m using the American Heritage Dictionary, but you can find similar definitions in other dictionaries.
In this case, I’m sure that most people can figure out that a gnostic atheist isn’t an atheist who believes in Gnosticism.
Totally right. Worse again though, there is a lesser known term “gnostic atheist”, but it doesn’t quite mean “a spiritual believer in the absence of a god”, nor any other straightforward guess.
because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing. You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
deleted comment -
i had misread this part here “To be a gnostic atheist” and attempted to politely correct what i misread as “agnostic atheist” my bad. good comment!
I figured this was the case. The loud ones tend to set the stage, unfortunately. I’d personally just consider myself to be fully agnostic, but I’m sure I share a significant base of beliefs with most agnostic atheists.
I say there isn’t a god the same way I say the sun will rise tomorrow and the universe won’t blink out of existence. In truth, nothing is certain or absolutely knowable; there’s always the unknown unknowns and axioms which are untestable. But I have no reason to believe that lawn gnomes come alive when they’re not being watched; just because I can’t be absolutely certain to exactly 100% certainty doesn’t mean I also can’t confidently state that claim’s full of shit.
Right? There is some hubris is this absolute certainty without room for doubt. Thats just not scientific to me, either.
if enough people started saying so, would you think theres a chance that shoelaces are sentient even though theres no evidence to support that and all reasonable evidence supports the opposite conclusion? ofc not, so why should i entertain the idea of gods. hmu when you have some evidence.
You are walking, talking evidence of militant atheists being asinine.
I will not be elaborating.
thats not kind
I don’t know you and I have no obligation to be kind to strangers. You’ll live, I’m sure.
just dropping an ad hominem and peacing is a poor way to engage in my opinion. be well.
I’ll give that, I shouldn’t have called you asinine. I will rephrase.
Your behaviour is asinine – and not making me any less annoyed at militant atheists.
im just enjoying lemmy