What does ''agnostic atheist'' mean?

[Desert Snake]

I am a gnostic atheist because I despise agnosticism (lol).

If agnosticism means suspending judgement until evidence is available, then I am agnostic about an infinity of things. Which sounds a bit odd. Especially when I solemnly declare my agnosticism about blue fairies, Mother Goose and intergalactic emperors, titans and Thor.

Try that at a party and check how people look at you. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

This is a good example how the usage of either gnostic, or agnostic, in front of either theism, or atheism, is arbitrary, and lacks coherent relational position to the adherence//atheism or theism.

 

[McBell]

This is a good example how the usage of either gnostic, or agnostic, in front of either theism, or atheism, is arbitrary, and lacks coherent relational position to the adherence//atheism or theism.

The same can be said about the terms atheist and theist.
Especially when so many people make up their own definitions for them

 

[Desert Snake]

The same can be said about the terms atheist and theist.
Especially when so many people make up their own definitions for them

True, that is why I propose a very broad definition for said terms, as in, any ''god'', from any pantheon, etc.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am a gnostic atheist because I despise agnosticism (lol).

So you made the determination of your philosophical position based completely on one emotion, your despisition of agnosticism, rather than referring to any reason?

If agnosticism means suspending judgement until evidence is available, then I am agnostic about an infinity of things. Which sounds a bit odd. Especially when I solemnly declare my agnosticism about blue fairies, Mother Goose and intergalactic emperors, titans and Thor.

Try that at a party and check how people look at you. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

I'm sure they take it to mean that you're not serious, as I just did. But there's really just one principle thing on which there is no evidence at all, pro or con, so far--the existence of God. There is however strong evidence against Mother Goose etc as there is against all the revealed gods. There's only two reasonable positions on God, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism.

 

[prometheus11]

This is a good example how the usage of either gnostic, or agnostic, in front of either theism, or atheism, is arbitrary, and lacks coherent relational position to the adherence//atheism or theism.

LOL!!

That's like saying a woman can only chose to be called a wife OR a mother.

I'm an agnostic atheist just like a woman can be a wife and a mother. Simple.

 

[McBell]

LOL!!

That's like saying a woman can only chose to be called a wife OR a mother.

I'm an agnostic atheist just like a woman can be a wife and a mother. Simple.

I suspect his actual problem with the terms is that it is confusing enough with all the humpty dumptying of the words theist and atheist that to add another humpty dumptied word to the phrase does little or nothing to help clarify

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I suspect his actual problem with the terms is that it is confusing enough with all the humpty dumptying of the words theist and atheist that to add another humpty dumptied word to the phrase does little or nothing to help clarify

Claiming certainty or not is a simple on or off declaration that applies to any belief system, and is the best indication of one's rationality. Of course if somebody want's to be absurd and nit pick the degree of their certainty in a label, then yeah, the humpty dumpties would apply.

 

[ArtieE]

I suspect his actual problem with the terms is that it is confusing enough with all the humpty dumptying of the words theist and atheist that to add another humpty dumptied word to the phrase does little or nothing to help clarify

An agnostic doesn't know whether god exists and he doesn't know whether god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An atheist doesn't believe god exists and he doesn't believe god doesn't exist. He is simply not a theist.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

An agnostic doesn't know whether god exists and he doesn't know whether god doesn't exist. A theist believes god exists. An atheist doesn't believe god exists and he doesn't believe god doesn't exist. He is simply not a theist.

After checking several dictionaries I could find none that included the underlined definition. And "he is simply not a theist" is literally someone who is not a believer in God, which also contradicts the underlined part. If you don't know, you're an agnostic, and if you don't care, you're a materialist or nihilist. Mostly what is going on here, and has been for 25 years or more, is atheists trying to defend their position while at the same time insinuating that the burden of proof is on theists by not declaring a belief. But "atheist" is a position whether you can defend it or not.

 

[ArtieE]

After checking several dictionaries I could find none that included the underlined definition.

It's not a "definition". I explained it this way to emphasize that an atheist is a person who is not a theist, that he does not believe in the existence of god, but that he doesn't necessarily believe god doesn't exist either. Those who do that we call "strong atheists" instead of just "atheists".

And "he is simply not a theist" is literally someone who is not a believer in God,

Correct.

which also contradicts the underlined part.

No it doesn't.

If you don't know, you're an agnostic, and if you don't care, you're a materialist or nihilist.

And if you don't believe you're an atheist. A person who doesn't care is an apatheist.

Mostly what is going on here, and has been for 25 years or more, is atheists trying to defend their position while at the same time insinuating that the burden of proof is on theists by not declaring a belief. But "atheist" is a position whether you can defend it or not.

A theist believes god exists and has taken a position. A "strong atheist" believes god doesn't exist and has taken a position. Just an atheist has taken no position and sits on the fence until he decides which position to take.

 

[viole]

So you made the determination of your philosophical position based completely on one emotion, your despisition of agnosticism, rather than referring to any reason?



I'm sure they take it to mean that you're not serious, as I just did. But there's really just one principle thing on which there is no evidence at all, pro or con, so far--the existence of God. There is however strong evidence against Mother Goose etc as there is against all the revealed gods. There's only two reasonable positions on God, agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism.

I am perfectly serious. I am a gnostic atheist because I possess knowledge that there is no god. That does not entail that I have certainty that god does not exist. Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing.

I have knowledge of a lot of things, but rarely certainty about them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[prometheus11]

I am perfectly serious. I am a gnostic atheist because I possess knowledge that there is no god. That does not entail that I have certainty that god does not exist. Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing.

I have knowledge of a lot of things, but rarely certainty about them.

Ciao

- viole

Is it esoteric knowledge?

 

[Desert Snake]

I am perfectly serious. I am a gnostic atheist because I possess knowledge that there is no god. That does not entail that I have certainty that god does not exist. Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing.

I have knowledge of a lot of things, but rarely certainty about them.

Ciao

- viole

And I have knowledge that there is a God. //Hene my theism, belief in God.
Yet, you will not notice me writing ''gnostic theist'', next to my religious label, because my belief in God insinuates that I do not think it is an unfounded belief. (obviously).

 

[viole]

Is it esoteric knowledge?

Nope. It is the same knowledge that I have concerning the absence of planets that repel each other gravitationally. Which entails my knowledge that gravity is an attractive force between planets.

Do I have certainty that there is no planet in the whole Universe that repels other planets gravitationally? No. But that does not entail that I should claim agnosticism about the properties of gravity.

In the same way, do I have evidence that there is no God at all? No. But that does not entail that I should claim agnosticism about the absence of gods.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

Well-put. I'm an agnostic theist. I don't know why qkonn is having so much trouble with this concept, as it seems pretty straight forward.

It isn't straight forward until you //if and when, in context or argument, etc., explain what definition of ''agnostic'' you are using. So, does that mean, you think that God cannot be known, by anyone, or merely by you, and what sort of parameters are you setting for ''knowledge of God'', so forth. It isn't very straight forward at all.

 

[viole]

And I have knowledge that there is a God. //Hene my theism, belief in God.
Yet, you will not notice me writing ''gnostic theist'', next to my religious label, because my belief in God insinuates that I do not think it is an unfounded belief. (obviously).

why do you believe in god, if you know that god exists. I do not believe that the earth is round, I know it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[prometheus11]

Nope. It is the same knowledge that I have concerning the absence of planets that repel each other gravitationally. Which entails my knowledge that gravity is an attractive force between planets.

Do I have certainty that there is no planet in the whole Universe that repels other planets gravitationally? No. But that does not entail that I should claim agnosticism about the properties of gravity.

In the same way, do I have evidence that there is no God at all? No. But that does not entail that I should claim agnosticism about the absence of gods.

Ciao

- viole

Gnosis typically refers to spiritual knowledge. Not plain knowledge.

 

[leibowde84]

It isn't straight forward until you //if and when, in context or argument, etc., explain what definition of ''agnostic'' you are using. So, does that mean, you think that God cannot be known, by anyone, or merely by you, and what sort of parameters are you setting for ''knowledge of God'', so forth. It isn't very straight forward at all.

The existence of God cannot be "known" by anyone due to lack of verifiable evidence. God's existence at best can be strongly believed based on subjective experience, but subjective experience, on its own, is not a valid basis for knowledge in this context. That is what I believe.

 

[Desert Snake]

why do you believe in god, if you know that god exists. I do not believe that the earth is round, I know it.

Ciao

- viole

Because the word belief, especially in the religious context, is not an opposite, or counterpoint, to 'knowledge'. 'Belief', describes religious adherence, regardless of whether there is presumed knowledge of such, and in what manner, etc., is involved. For example one would use belief /or faith, sometimes/, for differing concepts, in the religious capacity, or personal adherence.

 

[Desert Snake]

The existence of God cannot be "known" by anyone due to lack of verifiable evidence. God's existence at best can be strongly believed based on subjective experience, but subjective experience, on its own, is not a valid basis for knowledge in this context. That is what I believe.

This is a poor usage of the word, contextually. We formulate our beliefs, based on personally objective or rather hence, subjective by necessity, basis. You are using the word subjective in a manner which somehow according to you, differs it from an arbitrary ''objective'', which is actually subjective, as well. You are presuming knowledge that you don't have in the first place; what you have is ''evidence'', (according to you), then you formulate it into your opinions, beliefs, etc.