Is Gnostic Atheist different from Agnostic Atheist?

[Sheldon]

The agnostic atheist says, "I do not know if any gods exist or not, but I am choosing to presume that they do not".

The emboldened part is bs. Again why this bothers you so much isn't clear. My atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and I disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic about them.

Hope this helps you, to come to terms with the fact not everyone fits onto the categories your bias wants them to.

 

[Sheldon]

Agnosticism is the state of being undetermined do to a lack of sufficient information.

An agnostic a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. They can also either believe or not believe that a deity or deities exist.

Atheism, however, like theism, is a choice. Regardless of the information available, or the lack of it.

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it may or may not be based on a choice, it's still atheism either way. If it's a choice then it quite obviously must be based on the available information.

 

[Sheldon]

But without a proof of the major claim of atheism.

Atheism does not contain any claim, major or otherwise.

 

[Sheldon]

But is it lack of knowledge as well?

No, it is simply the lack or absence of belief. Why do we need multiple threads to confirm a simple word definition?

 

[firedragon]

My position is that there might be a God, IDK.
That if there exists a God, then the attributes of this God is beyond all human knowledge.
That people who claimed knowledge of God were other folks like myself that were fooled into thinking they had a line of communication with God by their own unconscious mind.
IOW, I see no reason to trust those claiming to be prophets of God.

So for myself, agnostic in that there is imo, no trustworthy knowledge about a God, atheist in that since no reliable knowledge about God exists there is nothing claimed about that is God worthy of belief.

Very interesting post.

I would like to ask you a question. Hypothetically, lets say there is a God. You have to take this methodologically if you understand what that entails. What would this God's attributes be. Logically.

Just apply your logical mind and if you dont mind, and have some time, put it across here in a post.

I would really appreciate it.

P.S. Please try to negate the English meaning of God, and what ever concepts you have been taught or influenced into.

 

[Nakosis]

Very interesting post.

I would like to ask you a question. Hypothetically, lets say there is a God. You have to take this methodologically if you understand what that entails. What would this God's attributes be. Logically.

Just apply your logical mind and if you dont mind, and have some time, put it across here in a post.

I would really appreciate it.

P.S. Please try to negate the English meaning of God, and what ever concepts you have been taught or influenced into.

Ok, so the main attribute I would assign is that of unknowable. Which may negate anything I'm about to say, but unknowable in the sense of purpose/motivation.
IOW, does God care about man?
Is God all-powerful, all-knowing, all present?

If such a being does exist. I'd compare it as man is to a single cell in our body. A single cell in our body goes about its business surviving as best it can.
Now there are trillions of cell in the human body that all work together to create your existence/consciousness.
About 50 billions of your cells die everyday.
How much do you morn the loss of a single cell?

I could see "God" as the consciousness of the entire universe. While you may examine single part of the universe, you can't from this examination discern this universal consciousness. It would be as incomprehensible to us as our self consciousness is to a individual cell of our own body.

While many have claimed a connection/line of communication to this universal consciousness, too many. Not a lot of consistency there. While folks have their reasons for explaining this inconsistency, I see this
inconsistency as a lack of knowledge. If this universal consciousness decided to communicate with us, I'd expect it to make sure it was consistent, accurate and verifiable. Verifiable to you, to me, to anyone who wished to verify whatever message this universal consciousness choose to communicate.

Since this is not the case, I assume no such communication has occurred.

 

[Audie]

I don't believe much of anything. Honestly. Belief is just the pretense of our own righteousness, and I can't see how that really helps me beyond satiating my ego. I don't even "believe in" God. I simply trust in the idea of "God" that I have formulated for myself, when it's helpful, because it's helpful. If you want to have a serious conversation with me, you're going to have to get your head above the childish level of "belief". And enter the realm of practical faith. If you can't do that, you're not going to understand anything I say.

Really?
Thats no fun, you just making things
up, as if thats the best level of retortation
you can come up with.

Im worth no better effort than that
sad lil attempt at a put down?
Way to hurt a girl's feelings!

 

[Audie]

Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known, or can be known, about (a) god.

You seem to be torturing these definitions to fit your own bias against atheism. Who knows why you care how an atheist arrives at their atheism, it doesn't lend any credence to theism, even an atheist tosses a coin to get there.

Its a weird thing. And not a one would
consider for a second just taking an atheist's
word for it.

 

[blü 2]

1. Gnostic Atheist says: "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. Agnostic Atheist says: "I do not believe, that there is God."

The gnostic atheist does declare Lord nonexistent,
but without a proof of the major claim of atheism.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
But is it lack of knowledge as well?

What is this belief?

It is conviction, assurance, that there is no God.

So, there is no much different to say:
1. "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. "I do not believe, that there is God."
3. "I believe, that there is no God."

If you can tell me what a real god is, such that if I find a real candidate I can determine whether it's a god or not, I'll be in a better position to answer your question.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, so the main attribute I would assign is that of unknowable. Which may negate anything I'm about to say, but unknowable in the sense of purpose/motivation.
IOW, does God care about man?
Is God all-powerful, all-knowing, all present?

If such a being does exist. I'd compare it as man is to a single cell in our body. A single cell in our body goes about its business surviving as best it can.
Now there are trillions of cell in the human body that all work together to create your existence/consciousness.
About 50 billions of your cells die everyday.
How much do you morn the loss of a single cell?

I could see "God" as the consciousness of the entire universe. While you may examine single part of the universe, you can't from this examination discern this universal consciousness. It would be as incomprehensible to us as our self consciousness is to a individual cell of our own body.

While many have claimed a connection/line of communication to this universal consciousness, too many. Not a lot of consistency there. While folks have their reasons for explaining this inconsistency, I see this
inconsistency as a lack of knowledge. If this universal consciousness decided to communicate with us, I'd expect it to make sure it was consistent, accurate and verifiable. Verifiable to you, to me, to anyone who wished to verify whatever message this universal consciousness choose to communicate.

Since this is not the case, I assume no such communication has occurred.

A lot of that is irrelevant. But I will take what information I can.

Thanks a lot.

 

[questfortruth]

If you can tell me what a real god is

God is Love itself.

 

[blü 2]

God is Love itself.

So God is hormonal biology? An interesting usage, and overall I'm relieved that you're not talking about imaginary or purely conceptual things.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Gnostic Atheist says: "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."

That would be an argument from ignorance.
Positive claims require positive evidence.

The gnostic atheist need evidence that god does not exit.
Point to having no evidence that a god does exist, "therefor god doesn't exist", is epicly an argument from ignorance.

2. Agnostic Atheist says: "I do not believe, that there is God."

Correct.

The gnostic atheist does declare Lord nonexistent,
but without a proof of the major claim of atheism.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
But is it lack of knowledge as well?

What is this belief?

I'ld say that knowledge is a subset of belief.
You believe the things you know.
But you don't necessarily know the things you believe.

Kind of like thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
Not all beliefs qualify as knowledge.

So, there is no much different to say:
1. "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. "I do not believe, that there is God."
3. "I believe, that there is no God."

There's a big difference.
2 isn't dealing with the same claim as 1 and 3

2 is a response to the claim "god exists".
1 and 3 deal with the claim "god does not exist".

So there is a difference.
Just like there is a difference between:

"There isn't enough evidence to consider him guilty, therefor I rule not guilty. "
and
"I believe he is innocent".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism, however, like theism, is a choice.

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Very interesting post.

I would like to ask you a question. Hypothetically, lets say there is a God. You have to take this methodologically if you understand what that entails. What would this God's attributes be. Logically.

Just apply your logical mind and if you dont mind, and have some time, put it across here in a post.

I would really appreciate it.

P.S. Please try to negate the English meaning of God, and what ever concepts you have been taught or influenced into.

Considering that this god is already defined as unknowable, and considering how weird reality by itself already is, I'ld say that whatever list @Nakosis comes up with, would fall in the same category as all the prophets that @Nakosis has just dismissed, for the same reason as the reason they were dismissed.

 

[Tiberius]

1. Gnostic Atheist says: "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. Agnostic Atheist says: "I do not believe, that there is God."

The gnostic atheist does declare Lord nonexistent,
but without a proof of the major claim of atheism.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
But is it lack of knowledge as well?

What is this belief?

It is conviction, assurance, that there is no God.

So, there is no much different to say:
1. "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. "I do not believe, that there is God."
3. "I believe, that there is no God."

Lacking a belief in a God is different from believing there is no God.

 

[Tiberius]

***MOD EDIT***

I don't see how it's a choice.

I think it's safe to assume that you don't believe there's a mouse sitting in your kitchen. However, it's entirely possible that there is a mouse sitting in your kitchen, mice are found nearly everywhere, and it's perfectly possible one could have found its way into your house.

But I don't think that you could CHOOSE to believe that there MUST be a mouse sitting in the middle of your kitchen to the point that you are utterly convinced of it. Not unless you went and checked.

Likewise, atheists can't CHOOSE to believe in God or not. It's not a choice, it's a conclusion we are inescapably led to by the evidence or lack thereof.

 

[Sheldon]

God is Love itself.

A demonstrably false claim, since atheists experience love.

 

[PureX]

I don't see how it's a choice.

I understand that you don't see how it's a choice. Nevertheless, you can choose your truth. All you have to do is understand that truth is subjective and the criteria is whatever you decide it is. If you can't understand this, or you won't acknowledge it, then I guess you don't have a choice. But who's fault is that but your own?

I think it's safe to assume that you don't believe there's a mouse sitting in your kitchen. However, it's entirely possible that there is a mouse sitting in your kitchen, mice are found nearly everywhere, and it's perfectly possible one could have found its way into your house.

I have no reason to assume anything either way ... about a great many things. I don't have to 'know' everything about everything all the time. In fact, the truth is that none of us know much of anything, much of the time. We just pretend we do, because it makes us feel safe, and 'in control'. And we call that pretense "belief". When we choose to pretend that we know this and that, we say we "believe" it to be so. But all "believing" really is, is our presuming that we're right about what we think is so. But there's no law that says we have to assume that we're right. We can think that "X = X" without assuming that it has to, because we (have to) be right. We don't have to be right, and we aren't a huge majority of the time. We're right enough to get by, but usually not enough to actually understand anything.

But I don't think that you could CHOOSE to believe that there MUST be a mouse sitting in the middle of your kitchen to the point that you are utterly convinced of it. Not unless you went and checked.

We could, but we don't, because there's no need. If we really wanted or needed to believe it, we would find a way. You say you wouldn't, but you would. Because you're no different than the rest of us.

 

[Sheldon]

you're no different than the rest of us.

You are not "the rest of us", you are one type of theist among many thousands. Atheists are just people who don't believe in any deity or deities.