Agnostic.com

20 6

Are there any Gnostic Atheist out there besides me?

In case you're asking WTF is that, I'll explain.
Agnostics believe there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God of some kind. Atheist is simply anyone that doesn't believe in a God of any kind.

I do not believe in a God of any kind so I am atheist, there's just no evidence to support belief in a God.

The Gnostic part works like this for me:

If there's an undetectable God out there then the only way I as an individual will ever know anything about this God is if this God provides a direct revelation. Sort of like Paul but could be by any type of phenomena.

While I do not believe such revelation EVER happens, but if a God exist then this would be the sole mechanism that such a God would reveal itself. So preaching, teaching, epistemology, and philosophy are all useless in the study of God.

Should a person think such a revelation has been made in their life, even if it that person were myself, a psychologists should be consulted because there's a 99.997% chance you've fooled yourself.

Just a little extra reason for me to ignore every single thing shared by random people trying to shape my opinion on things not even they know thing one about.

Novelty 8 May 11
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

20 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I am certain that God does not exist form all my understanding and experience.m I am athiset.

If God is unknowable, I can not claim to "know" What I by definition can not know. I am agnostic.

0

There are agnostics such as myself who deny the existence of God simply because there is no evidence yet to prove or disprove such an entity. That does not mean there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. We just do not have the science to answer that question yet. Perhaps you should read about T.H.Huxley who is considered to be the modern founder of Agnosticism.

[en.wikipedia.org]

In response to your question about finding another person or group that thinks like you, try this. Read your post above and replace all instances of the word revelation with the word evidence. After you do this you may realize you are an agnostic allowing a small chance for future evidence to conclusively answer the question of God. Because an Atheist believes there is zero chance that gods exist despite the fact there is no evidence to support this line of thought.

0

I just read a book where a gay wolf shifter gave birth to twins. I rank the existence of god(s) to be just as probable.

3

Well, as an agnostic (and a scientist), I first acknowledge there are many things I don't know. Then I embrace Carl Sagan's wisdom; Incredible claims require incredible evidence. Is there a god? Beats me! I suspect that if we could truly know all truths about the universe, we would all be shocked at how different it is from what we believe. So...boiling it all down... Show me the money!

0

I am also a gnostic atheist. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable position. We could make up anything we want and say it exists, and immediately it is an unfalsifiable claim. So, as gnostic atheists we actually cannot definitively prove there are no god/s, pixies, dragons, unicorns or etc. However, not being able to disprove does not give any ounce to proof.
I would simply pose a question as the form of an answer... "did god/s create us, or did we create many gods?" We know the latter is true, everyone in every belief recognizes that. However, we cannot disprove the former. But do we really need to?

@TheMiddleWay. We do know we created many gods. Most Christians don't believe in Zeus or Odin. I think it's safe to say that everyone rejects at least a few gods. So, it is a fair statement that everyone probably thinks that most gods are fictitious. I can make one up right now, and i doubt many people would believe me, but it still couldn't be falsified. I'm using circumstantial evidence. Everyone rejects some unfalsifiable gods and therefore we can all recognize examples of man made gods, but we have no evidence of a God that wasn't man made.

@Ringo6 Well, I covered my argument above with my analysis of "did god/s create us, or did we create many god/s." Second, agnostic is just a claim of not knowing, it is not a claim of belief. Theist = belief in god/s. If your answer to whether or not you believe there are god/s is anything but "Yes," you are an atheist. As I explained above it is a binary question, you either are or you are not..."A" is "A" and "A" is not "not A."

0

I don’t believe any gnostics exist, unless they worship themselves.

0

For the life of me I cannot understand why a position of saying I'm an atheist because there's not a scrap of evidence for God, past or present, and I'll only change my position if some clear evidence is presented, and leave the rest of the hypothesising and speculating to what may or may not exist, be supernaturally knowable, unknowable, detectable, undetectable, or cosmically floatable every third leap year, to those with too much time on their hands. Honestly I don't.

But there is evidence of a possible god all around us. It's called the universe. No one has proven how, or who, or what created it! At this point it is unknowable only because science has not developed the tools to explore black holes or determine exact location(s) and causation to the origin of the universe. Since that fundamental question remains unanswered then you must take a leap of faith (albeit a small one) to declare or believe there are no gods.

@kensmile4u first, huge developments in cosmology and quantum theory have gone a long way to explain the origin of the universe. Read the experts on this, which I am not, but you find the inclusion of a god is a supernatural leap that helps nothing. Who created God? Everything must have a creator, this premise assumes. Why not just say a Cosmic Duck laid the egg of the universe? One supernatural explanation is as good an another. Second, no leap of faith is EVER required to reject a proposition that cannot be verified by evidence. This most definitely includes the proposition of a god.

@David1955 I've studied all existing theories about the origin of the universe. Here are links to two leading ideas at moment. You didn't read what i wrote carefully. I said there is evidence of a "possible" god. I further qualified that by saying "no one has proven how, or who, or what created" the universe. The "who" reference was to the longstanding intelligent design theory. I will not venture to say any more about who that may be. But you must admit that a sentient being or beings that could create a universe has (or have) godlike powers. I never suggested any kind of preconceived omnipresent interactive god was involved. The word god can mean anything beyond our reason or imagination. So i'll finish by saying once again there is no evidence that a god does not exist. As a scientist i know that any time you draw a conclusion (rejecting or affirming) without evidence (which you have done) it is a leap of faith to creating a belief and the result is NOT a fact. Enjoy the read. I hope this helps.

[en.wikipedia.org]

[en.wikipedia.org]

@kensmile4u I've heard these arguments before. They don't impress. And I don't like being told what I "have to admit". And I am sick sick sick of agnostics and pseudo agnostics claiming there is no evidence that God does not exist. Like there has to be. And I haven't drawn any conclusion without evidence. Certainly no leap of faith. The absence of evidence of any God is a fact. Prove otherwise. I don't have to disprove it. Believe what you want, but don't mischaracterise my position, or atheism. Thank you.

@David1955 Like it or not there is no evidence to support the existence or the absence of a god. If you chose to believe one of those two positions then you must recognize that you have a belief. You are not entitled to your own science or your own facts.

@kensmile4u it is not my own science to state the simple proposition that a negative does not have to be proven. You think you are right, OK, well then try this: like it or not there is no evidence to support the existence or absence of leprechauns. If you believe that leprechauns do not exist you have a belief. Another leap of faith too, I suppose.

@David1955 Now you're getting the idea. Since there is no evidence to support the existence or absence of leprechauns, we can not affirm or reject their existence with 100% certainty. If you claim they do not exist due to a lack of evidence then that is a belief and not a fact. In other words you can't make a factual claim that something does not exist just because you have not seen one. Look at the arc of knowledge over time and you will see countless examples of ideas once thought of as fact which were obliterated by science. You must leave room for our collective scientific efforts to discover truths and facts using the scientific method. Until then all we can accurately say is I don't know for sure.

Ok i've let you have your fun with this false equivalent argument because i was trying to demonstrate a point that a systematic method of scientific research is required to conclusively establish facts. So I took the time to establish that there is a difference between a mythological fictitious creature that has documented origins in folklore dating back to the 1600's and the unknown catalyst of the universe. I have used the scientific method over the last hour to discover evidence of the origins of the Leprechaun in folklore. I present the two attachments as part of the body of evidence that Leprechauns do not exist. Reading these will allow you to research the citations in the bibliography which provide further documentation and supporting evidence. So in conclusion there is no comparison between a fictitious creature well documented in folklore and a possible creator of the universe because there is no evidence that a creator of the universe does not exist. Please provide evidence(not theories) that a creator of the universe does not exist if you have it.

[en.wikipedia.org]
[livescience.com]

@Ringo6 You are finally proving my point. The final answer is we don't know! There is no evidence to conclude who or what did or did not create the universe. Therefor you can't rule anything in or out. So saying there is no god because there is no evidence is wrong! If there is no evidence either way then you stop right there and don't make the mistake of trying to conclude anything. If you do step forward to a conclusion without evidence then you have just created a belief.

@kensmile4u you use a lot words, and you are pretty full of yourself I'm sorry to say, but when one cuts through your pronouncements it comes down to the same argument a lot of agnostics use: you demand others prove a negative. No, I don't have to, and that's bad science. But, at least I now know that you are an A-leprechaunist as well. Good luck with that.

@David1955 You should read what I added to my Leprechaun statement at least a week ago. I guess you may never face what i know about you. You are an Atheist who believes there is no God. I know this because of the hundreds of words you have written in this post that serves as evidence about your belief. At least we are relatively on the same side. You seem to be suffering from a conflicted logical deficit. Read up on the philosophy of truth. It might be a liberating experience. I'm done here. Adding more words won't be constructive.

@kensmile4u what you know about me! Duh! I'm an atheist who believes there is no evidence for any God. At least try to get that. But yes, we are done.

0

Oh! Let us never, never doubt
What NOBODY is sure about!

(THE MICROBE by: Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953))

Agnosticism, taken as an absence of belief, whether from lack of evidence, temperament, or whatever, has always seemed to me to be more rigorous that poor strident atheism. The atheist denies the existence of a god even when introduced to one, while the agnostic will at least try to determine why the poor creature thinks it should be considered to be a god, and how its being a god should influence our behaviour towards it. Judaeo-Christian theology has lumbered us with God as Creator, but in most pantheons I have heard of most of the gods are not creators, but patrons of some sort, absolving most of them from a horrid responsibility.

Agnostic protocols:
The correct form on being introduced to a god is:
a) falling to your knees and babbling whatever you can remember of childhood religion,
b) complaining about the state of the world (the "argument with design" ) or,
c) uttering a simple "So?" or "And...?".

The chosen definition of god will determine what it is for which the agnostic lacks evidence.

Atheist protocols:
The correct form on being introduced to a god is:
a) falling to your knees and babbling whatever you can remember of childhood religion,
b) complaining about the state of the world - the "argument with design" - or,
c) sticking fingers in each ear and singing "La,la, la" very loudly until the inconvenient entity withdraws, smites, begets, forgives or does whatever a god is supposed to do.

P.S. Is there anyway of preventing this program inserting idiot emoticons whenever parentheses are employed?

0

I would contend that if such a "God" existed then we or you are living in a simulation. Thus, it ultimately doesn't solve anything anyway. So yes, I guess I'm the same perhaps.

2

My life is so complicated! 😟

1

"I see no evidence" implies that one knows all there is and that since one sees no evidence, there is none. What was it Shakespeare said? "There are more things in heaven and earth than exist in your philosophy." You know the quote. Whatever super intelligence there may be who designed this whole infinity...it makes sense that he/she/it doesn't give a fig whether we "believe" in or acknowledge. What is - is. However, it does make perfect sense that whatever designer there is might just want us to appreciate what is provided for us - this Earth, the air, the water, our bodies - and might just want us to respect all life around us that shares the same right to exist. One thing I do believe in, is the principle of "cause and effect," in that we either pay for our actions or reap the rewards of our actions. It's a magnificent system that works. Some of us have had "signs." Those "signs" are only meant for the one who receives these "signs." It doesn't matter if the next fellow believes it or not. That is very unimportant. Humility and Gratitude go a long way. It's a good way to create a basis for life and for thinking.

@Mortal I'm so lucky because I never equated God with Jesus. No disrespect intended.

@TheMiddleWay Thank you so much for your reply. I am not a scientist and I immediately make a quick look-see for Higg's Boson. The phrase "I do not know," for me, is so powerful and so right. First, to live in it's acceptance is so comfortable for true seekers. Second it opens one up to fill the void and learn and therefore, paves the way for greater knowledge and understanding. Besides, it is honest. I think one needs a proper degree of humility and gratitude to accept "I don't know." When coupled with high intelligence...look out!

0

I can't agree with this. "Agnostics believe there's no way to prove or disprove the existence of a God of some kind"

It hasn't been proven, so no need to consider the claim.

3

I never thought of Agnosticism meaning that there is no way to prove there is a god or not a god, although when I google, I do see that listed in some definitions. I may use the term incorrectly, but to me I apply it personally - in that I cannot prove or disprove there is a god or goddess. Some people believe in god because they think they should. Others believe because they feel as though they have had just the sort of experience you speak of - direct revelation. I have not had that experience but in my view, I am in no position to invalidate the experiences of others. Therefore - agnostic "personally"

This makes sense to me, I like your addition of cannot personally......

1

I am not sure that epistemology and philosophy are entirely useless, just indeterminate. In fact, you have just given your epistemological basis for determining the existence of God. Philosophy can help one examine and clarify your own and others assumptions, just as you have apparently done.

2

I see no evidence for the existence of any god or gods.......The End

So it's not a question of belief, there's nothing there to believe in, so the notion of whether you can prove or disprove is a non sequitur. So I am an atheist and agnosticism cannot apply to me although it may for someone else..

Yup

@TheMiddleWay I'm not sure what you're saying but my comment applies to me, if others agree then great, but there isn't a massive debate to be had for me, it's not about science it's about proof/evidence, i don't see any. It's not a belief or a faith, it's me.

And my claim, although I'm not claiming anything, is totally different to a theists. They claim the existence of something that they think they have proof for, I don't agree.

@TheMiddleWay Ok, gotcha.

I would be happy to accept scientists' claims that the Higgs does exist because I trust the procedures and practices of scientific method to prove or disprove a theory.

I do not accept the evidence of god from a theist because it has not been put through the same rigourous methodology. And that is where the 'faith' bit comes in, lack of fact plonk in faith.

Look at it from the other way round. If you apply religious 'proof; to the Higgs it exists not because of tried and trusted methods of proving or disproving the theory of its existence, it exists because some bloke says so. It doesn't work.

@TheMiddleWay I take your point but that said any belief, and I don't mean religious, can only be based on what the individual believes to be the right way to do something. So for me, show, repeat, prove, disprove etc. So I'm happy that dinosaurs existed because I trust the archaeological method, I don't trust 'religious faith' method. But I concede the point that a theist would say the opposite but.......I don't have faith in a bloke (my phrase lol) I have faith in a method. The problem will I suppose come down to interpretation and semantics which is where I usually get off. But I shall ponder this further 🙂

@TheMiddleWay You're most welcome and thx 🙂

0

There's an undetectable God out there and the only way I as an individual will ever know anything about this God is if this God provides a direct revelation. Then is that actually a god in any way shape or form, or just some cosmic dwelling arsehole?
There may be an undetectable porridge monster living on the far side of the sun orbiting at exactly the same rate as the earth, who we can never see or detect because it is always hidden from us, unless it decides one day to stretch out its essential porridgieness and say hello.
That does not mean it is the creator of anything, it certainly has demonstrated no god like abilities and chances are is not a deity at all.
Without being the proclaimed God in one form or another then this undetectable god of whom you speak has more in common with the porridge monster than with any deity of any ever.
So think of it as a potential god at all?
This is basically an argument from ignorance fallacy, "You have not revealed yourself yet, therefore you are God."

You post taken as a whole does not paint you as a Gnostic Atheist, just as an atheist plain and simple with a bit more than the average imagination.

If there is s god out there that is undetectable, then it is no different to a god that doesn't exist.

When a god/s becomes detectable, then I will believe it exists.

Until then, I will remain an atheist as I do not believe the claims that a god/s exists.

1

Before a belief in God can be established you have to define God. If God is an eternal being in the clouds - then no. If God is the natural forces that created life? - then yes

gater Level 7 May 11, 2018

@Mortal Could you be more specific?

@Mortal I gave you my definition of God

0

I'm not sure I'm following this, so I'd like some clarification...

Are you saying you have knowledge that it is impossible that there is any deity? Or are you saying your belief that there isn't a deity is 100% because of the lack of evidence for the deity?

1

Well damn I thought I was agnostic until I looked up what you said. I don’t see why there needs to be a god but if there is then surely this god can reveal himself to me without any prerequisite of faith. And if that happened I’d hope this god would understand my apprehension to believe even my own experiences and account for the doubt, leaving me 100% sure.

zing Level 6 May 11, 2018
0

On the issue of a god, as you say there is no evidence, so I have no belief. I do have a belief about an afterlife, or rather a belief that there is none because of information theory. There is no way a soul or spirit can survive one's death physically.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:78904
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.