• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does ''agnostic atheist'' mean?

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
You could explain. Or you could show how the points of others aren't logical with maybe a few sentences instead of one or two cryptic words every other day.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Read it again. It clearly says "don't believe" not "believe".

Gnostic Atheist on the top chart, says: "I don't believe any God exists. And I know they don't exist"

If you possess or claim to have knowledge (certainty), then belief is irrelevant.

On the bottom one under gnostic atheist, it says (correctly), "100% certain there is no God or Gods".
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
So what does Gnostic mean now? Can you explain what the word gnostic means, please.

As it is being used more here, it means possessing knowledge of (something). And knowledge imparts certainty since knowledge is fact(s).

But that's not what I was referring to. You said, "The gnostic atheist believes and lack(s) belief in God and gods at the same time." I believe the missing "s" clarifies your meaning. If so, then you're in error. To believe in God and lack belief (not believe) in God at the same time is not a cogent thought and is contradictory. I think some philosophy professor at Harvard or somewhere came up with this as an explanation to some skulls-full-of-mush for how atheists have their cake and eat it too--for why they don't have a burden of proof for claiming God doesn't exist, when what they're really saying is that God doesn't exist because the universe came to be spontaneously. For that they have a burden of proof, OR, they have to admit God is possible, which is what we're seeing among several former atheists.

Deism, the other reasonable philosophy. :)
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
On the bottom one under gnostic atheist, it says (correctly), "100% certain there is no God or Gods".
Both are equally correct. On the bottom one he probably just didn't bother to write in "doesn't believe in the existence of God or Gods" since that is a given since they are talking about "gnostic atheists". On the top one it was written in probably just to emphasize that we are talking about "gnostic atheists".
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
So what does Gnostic mean now? Can you explain what the word gnostic means, please.

Gnostic, the term, refers to spiritual knowledge.

Theism, the term, refers to belief.

I am agnostic (I don't have certain knowledge) as to whether my car will crank the next time I expect it to.

I am theistic (I believe) that it will start when I make the attempt.

I don't know for certain, yet I still believe.

I am gnostic that my cat is not a dog. I am atheist that my cat is a dog.

I know my cat isn't a dog. I believe my cat is not a dog.
 
Last edited:

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
As it is being used more here, it means possessing knowledge of (something). And knowledge imparts certainty since knowledge is fact(s).

But that's not what I was referring to. You said, "The gnostic atheist believes and lack(s) belief in God and gods at the same time." I believe the missing "s" clarifies your meaning. If so, then you're in error. To believe in God and lack belief (not believe) in God at the same time is not a cogent thought and is contradictory. I think some philosophy professor at Harvard or somewhere came up with this as an explanation to some skulls-full-of-mush for how atheists have their cake and eat it too--for why they don't have a burden of proof for claiming God doesn't exist, when what they're really saying is that God doesn't exist because the universe came to be spontaneously. For that they have a burden of proof, OR, they have to admit God is possible, which is what we're seeing among several former atheists.

Deism, the other reasonable philosophy. :)


A gnostic atheist should be able to prove god does not exist.
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
To believe in God and lack belief (not believe) in God at the same time is not a cogent thought and is contradictory. I think some philosophy professor at Harvard or somewhere came up with this as an explanation to some skulls-full-of-mush for how atheists have their cake and eat it too--for why they don't have a burden of proof for claiming God doesn't exist,
How many gods don't you believe exist? List some of them and please provide proof showing they don't exist.
 
Last edited:

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
As it is being used more here, it means possessing knowledge of (something). And knowledge imparts certainty since knowledge is fact(s).
Sure.

But that's not what I was referring to. You said, "The gnostic atheist believes and lack(s) belief in God and gods at the same time." I believe the missing "s" clarifies your meaning.
Ah. I typed it quickly on my phone. Didn't check it for grammar. :)

If so, then you're in error. To believe in God and lack belief (not believe) in God at the same time is not a cogent thought and is contradictory. I think some philosophy professor at Harvard or somewhere came up with this as an explanation to some skulls-full-of-mush for how atheists have their cake and eat it too--for why they don't have a burden of proof for claiming God doesn't exist, when what they're really saying is that God doesn't exist because the universe came to be spontaneously. For that they have a burden of proof, OR, they have to admit God is possible, which is what we're seeing among several former atheists.
When I made the mistake of pointing out that "gnostic" was referring to "knowledge" only in its root words in another thread, I was sharply corrected that. Let me find the posts for you and see if you agree with what was said.

Deism, the other reasonable philosophy. :)
I prefer pantheism. :)
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Gnostic, the term, refers to spiritual knowledge.

Theism, the term, refers to belief.

I am agnostic (I don't have certain knowledge) as to whether my car will crank the next time I expect it to.

I am theistic (I believe) that it will start when I make the attempt.

I don't know for certain, yet I still believe.

I am gnostic that my cat is not a dog. I am atheist that my cat is a dog.

I know my car isn't a dog. I believe my cat is not a dog.
So what about the picture with the squares earlier where there was a "gnostic atheist"? That's an atheist with spiritual knowledge? But it has nothing do with "Gnostic" as in the old religious Gnosticism?
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
A gnostic.
atheism.jpg
In other words, GNOSTIC ATHEIST has nothing to do with "Spiritual Knowledge" here, or?
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
So what about the picture with the squares earlier where there was a "gnostic atheist"? That's an atheist with spiritual knowledge? But it has nothing do with "Gnostic" as in the old religious Gnosticism?

The way the term has been used for centuries is "esoteric knowledge"/absolute and indisputable knowledge from a higher source. No debate about it is possible.

The original word mean "certain knowledge."

People make charts and argue for and against various definitions.

However, neither chart presents ideas which disputes my explanation.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
In other words, GNOSTIC ATHEIST has nothing to do with "Spiritual Knowledge" here, or?

Gnostic as it's being used here means to have knowledge, thus a gnostic atheist claims knowledge/certainty of atheism. An AGnostic atheist, claims no certainty of his atheism. That doesn't mean there aren't confused atheists, or those who try to confuse others, by putzing with the dictionary as anarchists, nihilists and socialists are wont to do--and do here from time to time. ArtieE made the mistake of posting two contradictory posters. The problem with putzing with the dictionary is you've got to keep all your different stories separate. As Mark Twain said, if you stick to the Truth you don't have to remember anything.:)
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Nothing wrong with a person saying "I don't believe gods exist, I'll even go so far as to say I know they don't exist."

Sure, you can say anything you want; however, since theism, does not indicate a position of what, how, etc., one considers to 'know' something, it's pretty much irrelevant without further context. People have different methodology for determining what they ''know'' etc, as well, that is why it is recognized, that for communication purposes, everyone is expressing a belief. Then if they want, they can argue evidence for said belief /or not/, etc. This is also why 'belief', in the religious context, is not a counterpoint or differential to 'know'.
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Sure, you can say anything you want; however, since theism, does not indicate a position of what, how, etc., one considers to 'know' something, it's pretty much irrelevant without further context. People have different methodology for determining what they ''know'' etc, as well, that is why it is recognized, that for communication purposes, everyone is expressing a belief. Then if they want, they can argue evidence for said belief /or not/, etc. This is also why 'belief', in the religious context, is not a counterpoint or differential to 'know'.

Correct. That's why both terms are needed. One referring to belief (or lack of belief). One referring to a claim of knowledge (or lack of knowledge).

I'm an agnostic atheist, for example. I neither claim to have spiritual knowledge nor do I believe in God.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Correct. That's why both terms are needed. One referring to belief (or lack of belief). One referring to a claim of knowledge (or lack of knowledge).

I'm an agnostic atheist, for example. I neither claim to have spiritual knowledge nor do I believe in God.

Both terms aren't needed. Belief is expressing a position of adherence, and since that adherence can be formulated from any variety of 'knowing' this or that, or lack of it, it is a different context from when you write ''agnostic'', or ''gnostic''. It's essentially apples and oranges.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
ArtieE made the mistake of posting two contradictory posters.
Nonsense.

"An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/

"Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist."
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm
 

prometheus11

Well-Known Member
Nonsense.

"An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/

"Gnostic Atheism: disbelief in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist."
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/whatisatheism.htm

Nonsense. Both terms are needed to address the dilemma YOU indicated.
 
Top