What does ''agnostic atheist'' mean?

[viole]

Gnosis typically refers to spiritual knowledge. Not plain knowledge.

There are no spiritual things. Does that force me to be an agnostic a-spiritualist? For, how can I get spiritual knowledge, whatever that means, for the non existence of the spiritual?

Kidding, sort of, lol. With gnosis I mean knowledge. In the Greek sense. Not necessarily the sense hijacked by religious people.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Valid evidence to support a claim of knowledge must be verifiable. Do you disagree? If so, what differentiates strong belief from knowledge?

 

[Willamena]

If agnosticism means suspending judgement until evidence is available, then I am agnostic about an infinity of things.

It doesn't. It refers to those people who believe the truth about god's actuality is unknown and unknowable.

It's opposite would be someone who believes that the truth of god is known or will someday be known. The term "gnostic" is inappropriate for that. The term "realist" would serve better.

 

[viole]

It doesn't. It refers to those people who believe the truth about god's actuality is unknown and unknowable.

It's opposite would be someone who believes that the truth of god is known or will someday be known. The term "gnostic" is inappropriate for that. The term "realist" would serve better.

Well, then I am still a not-agnostic. For if God exists and sends me to hell, or anywhere else, I would know by that time the truth about Him. Which would entail that the truth about Him is not unknowable, in principle.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Well, then I am still a not-agnostic. For if God exists and sends me to hell, or anywhere else, I would know by that time the truth about Him. Which would entail that the truth about Him is not unknowable, in principle.

Ciao

- viole

Wear your realism proudly.

 

[Desert Snake]

Valid evidence to support a claim of knowledge must be verifiable. Do you disagree? If so, what differentiates strong belief from knowledge?

You are creating a word inference /and differential, that isn't there, in a practicality sense, and in a communication sense, as well. *When someone says, say, 'I believe in Jesus', this does not infer that they do not have 'knowledge', of the validity of their adherence; they might think they do, or, they might think that they don't; it isn't what is being communicated, in that expression, or statement.
*//of course in common discourse, we assume that the person would not adhere to a belief if they thought it unfounded, etc., as well, but that is a side point.

Aside from that, your idea encounters the problem of 'valid evidence'. This is a /necessarily/ ie by reality, a subjective thing. We have different measurements, or parameters, for what constitutes valid evidence. One person might consider valid evidence to be simply what they are taught, or read in a holy book, etc.; another might consider valid evidence to imply that said deity must tattoo a mermaid on their shoulder, in order to be considered real, etc. It's entirely personal, and subjective.

 

[leibowde84]

You are creating a word inference /and differential, that isn't there, in a practicality sense, and in a communication sense, as well. When someone says, say, 'I believe in Jesus', this does not infer that they do not have 'knowledge', of the validity of their adherence' they might think they do, or, they might they don't, it isn't what is being communicated, (solely), in that expression, or statement.

Aside from that, your idea encounters the problem of 'valid evidence'. This is a /necessarily/ ie by reality, a subjective thing. We have different measurements, or parameters, for what constitutes valid evidence. One person might consider vaid evidence to be simply what they are taught, or read in a holy book, etc., another might consider valid evidence to imply that said deity must tattoo a mermaid on their shoulder, in order to be considered real, etc. It's entirely personal, and subjective.

My point is that my BELIEF is that knowledge cannot be attained without verifiable evidence. Subjective experience on its own cannot provide knowledge, but, instead, can provide a strongly held belief. This is because subjective experience left unchecked can easily fall victim to biases and the unreliable nature of our senses.

 

[Desert Snake]

My point is that my BELIEF is that knowledge cannot be attained without verifiable evidence. Subjective experience on its own cannot provide knowledge, but, instead, can provide a strongly held belief. This is because subjective experience left unchecked can easily fall victim to biases and the unreliable nature of our senses.

You are again making an arbitrary and non-existant differential between ''strongly held belief'', and ''knowledge''. This doesn't work in a religious context, and usually doesn't even work in an everyday dialogue context, either. As I pointed out earlier, theism, /ie the 'belief' part in the description of theism, does not infer evidence, or ones personal ''knowledge'', etc.

This is why ''theism'' applies to a belief in /a deity or deities, regardless of said ''evidence'', or what you are calling ''knowledge''.

Your getting caught up in a word semantics mess that isn't applicable, essentially.

 

[leibowde84]

You are again making an arbitrary and non-existant differential between the ''words'', strongly held belief, and ''knowledge''. This doesn't work in a religious context, and usually doesn't even work in an everyday dialogue context, either. As I pointed out earlier, theism, /ie the 'belief' part in the description of theism, does not infer evidence, or ones personal ''knowledge'', etc.

This is why ''theism'' applies to a belief in /a deity or deities, regardless of said ''evidence'', or what you are calling ''knowledge''.

Your getting caught up in a word semantics mess that isn't applicable, essentially.

OK, I'll try to explain my position a bit better to avoid confusion. First, "belief" in the context of theism refers to the acceptance that God exists even though God's existence is disputable/debatable. As I said, the FACT that subjective experience is often flawed/unreliable, it cannot be used as evidence without some kind of verification.

Agnosticism, otoh, is the belief that knowledge of God's existence (among other things) is (to the best of my knowledge and the claims of theists) unattainable, in that we cannot know God's existence to be "factual", as for something to be "fact" it has to be "indisputably the case". Faith is "trust" that something is true. Knowledge is an understanding that something is true based on conclusive facts/evidence. By knowledge of God, I simply mean God's will, God's existence, God's nature, etc. These are all concepts that, imho, cannot be claimed to be "known" by anyone. Conflicting beliefs in regards to these things illustrates this.

Now, I have not heard a single argument in my entire life that supports the claim that the existence of God is indisputable. In fact, it is disputed every day by various people. For God's existence to be indisputable, it would require valid/verifiable evidence that rises above our flawed and unreliable subjective experience. Sure, subjective experience could play a part. But, subjective experience, being unreliable, must be corroborated with independent, verifiable evidence to be considered "indisputable".

That is my reasoning.

 

[leibowde84]

You are again making an arbitrary and non-existant differential between ''strongly held belief'', and ''knowledge''. This doesn't work in a religious context, and usually doesn't even work in an everyday dialogue context, either. As I pointed out earlier, theism, /ie the 'belief' part in the description of theism, does not infer evidence, or ones personal ''knowledge'', etc.

This is why ''theism'' applies to a belief in /a deity or deities, regardless of said ''evidence'', or what you are calling ''knowledge''.

Your getting caught up in a word semantics mess that isn't applicable, essentially.

In other words, "knowledge" is an incredibly high bar, no matter what the subject of that knowledge is. Certainty is not required, but the fact in question must be indisputably the case. We can have knowledge of our beliefs, knowledge of the beliefs of others, etc. But, we can't "know" anything about God with certainty ... thus, we are left with strongly held beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

In other words, "knowledge" is an incredibly high bar, no matter what the subject of that knowledge is. Certainty is not required, but the fact in question must be indisputably the case. We can have knowledge of our beliefs, knowledge of the beliefs of others, etc. But, we can't "know" anything about God with certainty ... thus, we are left with strongly held beliefs.

That assessment works in a practical sense, ie for debate or dialogue, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

That assessment works in a practical sense, ie for debate or dialogue, etc.

Thanks, I think so too.

 

[McBell]

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.

What I see most often is the theist making the claim god exists and when asked to show it by an atheist the theist, instead of showing that god exists, asks the atheist to show that god does not exist.
This scenario has played out numerous time right here on RF.
In that scenario, yes, it is the theist who has the burden of proof.

As for atheism being a position that needs defended, I am atheist because of the lack of convincing (to me) evidence for god.
What is there to defend?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

While "atheism" is a position (at least explicit atheism is), I think it fair for the burden to be placed on those that make a claim of God (an ill-defined, supernatural entity) existing.

 

[leibowde84]

What I see most often is the theist making the claim god exists and when asked to show it by an atheist the theist, instead of showing that god exists, asks the atheist to show that god does not exist.
This scenario has played out numerous time right here on RF.
In that scenario, yes, it is the theist who has the burden of proof.

As for atheism being a position that needs defended, I am atheist because of the lack of convincing (to me) evidence for god.
What is there to defend?

In the interest of clarity, do you actively believe that God's existence is an impossibility? Or, are you merely saying that you have yet to be convinced, but still allow the possibility?

 

[McBell]

In the interest of clarity, do you actively believe that God's existence is an impossibility? Or, are you merely saying that you have yet to be convinced, but still allow the possibility?

I have no active belief either way.
I accept the possibility exists for either way.
Regardless of how slim said possibility may be

 

[leibowde84]

I have no active belief either way.
I accept the possibility exists for either way.
Regardless of how slim said possibility may be

Thank you for sharing. You are a shining example of why the general meaning of the term "atheism" must be "lacking belief in the existence of God" rather than an "active belief that God doesn't exist".

 

[Desert Snake]

Thanks, I think so too.

One thing to note, however. That assessment, works, not because there is a differential of belief to knowledge, there, but in the practicality of communication, and ideas. There is no workable ''knowledge'', or proof, that is part of your equation. What that 'proof', etc is, again, is subjective, hence making it a moot point. It's like an unnecessary idea, in general, regarding how one might present proposals/positions/arguments.

 

[leibowde84]

One thing to note, however. That assessment, works, not because there is a differential of belief to knowledge, there, but in the practicality of communication, and ideas. There is no workable ''knowledge'', or proof, that is part of your equation. What that 'proof', etc is, again, is subjective, hence making it a moot point. It's like an unnecessary idea, in general, regarding how one might present proposals/positions/arguments.

Well, I am referring to those who say "I don't believe God exists, I know God exists". If they claim to "know" rather than "believe", they should be ready and willing to provide the evidence that gives them this certainty. If it is based merely on subjective experience, they should re-examine their claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, I am referring to those who say "I don't believe God exists, I know God exists". If they claim to "know" rather than "believe", they should be ready and willing to provide the evidence that gives them this certainty. If it is based merely on subjective experience, they should re-examine their claim.

Then you (should) have parameters, for ''examining their claim''. Simply proposing that their claim is false, because it is subjective, is not a valid argument, because it relies on your subjective opinions as to whether their certainty, is founded, or unfounded. It's a slippery slope, if one decides to not count subjective evidence for knowledge, as well. This is pretty much never consistently upheld in argumentation, aside from being a sketchy standard in the first place. The catch 22 is subjectivity, what I call the 'necessary subjectivity', or even 'personal objectivity'. These words .'subjective and objective', are problematic in this context, in general.