For language to have any meaning, you need consistency. When you start making up your own definitions, you no longer have that.
The term "gnostic" isn't even used anymore outside of talking about gnostic Christians. To the extent anyone does still use the term in the broader sense however, it applies mainly to mystical traditions in various faiths. Although as I said, it now is synonymous with gnostic Christianity.
Oooo, it's not a "thing" is it? Really? It's an entire branch of philosophy.
That's probably as good an explanation as any for why it's no longer used. But atheists seem intent on redefining the English language to suit their own purposes. And for people who don't know any better, it seems to work.I don't recall seeing the term 'gnostic' used before except in reference to gnosticism. I learned something today.
Given the extremely negative impact of gnosticism during the early church, the term 'gnostic theism' is never used in the Christian community.
Yes. That tends to happen with language. And maybe in another 10 or 20 years, the dictionaries will recognize such nonsense as 'agnostic atheist.' Just like they've now recognized 'literally' to mean both 'literally' in the traditional sense as well as not literally - or what used to be called figuratively.Hmm. So the definition seems to have changed.
You really aren't getting it are you?Show Evidence of its' existence.
You really aren't getting it are you?
You are free to use any word you like in any way you see fit. The fact is however that the dichotomies are pretty well-understood, and more useful and descriptive -- and consistent -- when used as such.Agnosticism is indeed a third leg between theism and atheism.
Why would I do that? Pantheism is just a subset of theism. It's already included. That's the thing about dichotomies -- they are exhaustive.Except it is broader than either. The latter 2 are primarily concerned with the existence of a god or gods. You should probably include pantheism in there somewhere as well.
This "Gnosticism" is a proper title given to a particular set of beliefs. We're talking about gnosticism with a little "g".Gnosticism, at least in the Christian sense, hasn't existed since about 2nd or third century AD/CE. The Gnostics were effectively killed by the early church. Athanasius of Alexandria was probably the writer who did the most to quell the "gnostic heresy." It was because of this pogrom of competing beliefs by the early church that the books of the Nag Hamadi library were buried in the desert for us to find.
You seem like a person that isn't frequently involved in religious debates. If you were, you'd know that the above simply isn't true.The term "gnostic" isn't even used anymore outside of talking about gnostic Christians. To the extent anyone does still use the term in the broader sense however, it applies mainly to mystical traditions in various faiths. Although as I said, it now is synonymous with gnostic Christianity.
Not even so much as an acknowledgement of this argument, hmm?You seem to think that atheism is the belief that exactly zero gods exist. In fact, it is rather the lack of belief that a god exists.
In other words, where X = a god exists, atheism is "I don't believe X."
You think atheism is "I believe not-X."
Those are not the same thing, and the latter only represents a subset of atheists.
I understand what you're saying...although used rarely it seems, the term 'gnostic atheiest' is used from a secular perspective and you must not forget that you're dealing with secular people who likely have little exposure to the complexities and nuances of this subject matter. As such, I doubt that their intention is to promote disinformation. Probably best to talk to them at their level of understanding and assume they're being honest to the best of their ability. Also, I personally would ignore those talking 'at' you as well....as opposed to those who genuinely want to talk 'with' you. That's my two cents...don't spend it all in one place!That's probably as good an explanation as any for why it's no longer used. But atheists seem intent on redefining the English language to suit their own purposes. And for people who don't know any better, it seems to work.
I don't know if their intention is disinformation. I suspect for most it's not and they just get brainwashed by the fact that someone has posted a pretty graphic for them, neatly summarizing certain aspects of the debate. But it's not only inaccurate, it also ignores huge swaths of metaphysics. The world of belief isn't nearly as simple as they try to make it out to be. But the sad fact is that people like 'simple' over truthful or accurate.
What you don't get is that metaphysics is about things like existence, ontology, morality, etc. Over time, science has replaced metaphysics on a variety of topics. But there are many other that are beyond the reach of science. Some by definition such as whether or not other planes of existence are real. Some by default.No, I "get" it alright. It doesn't exist because there is a term/word for it. It doesn't exist because billions believe it exists. It doesn't exist because there are countless often contradictory Claims about it. It doesn't exist because many people anecdotally claim to have experienced it either.
So, how does it exist?
That's a good point. I guess I expect people to be more open minded if they don't understand something and to ask questions rather than gloss over it.I understand what you're saying, but you must not forget that you're dealing with secular people who likely have little exposure to the complexities and nuances of this subject matter. As such, I doubt that their intention is to promote disinformation. Probably best to talk to them on their level of understanding and assume they're being honest to the best of their ability. Also, I personally would ignore those talking 'at' you as well....as opposed to those who genuinely want to talk 'with' you. That's my two cents...don't spend it all in one place!
What you don't get is that metaphysics is about things like existence, ontology, morality, etc. Over time, science has replaced metaphysics on a variety of topics. But there are many other that are beyond the reach of science. Some by definition such as whether or not other planes of existence are real. Some by default.
You seem to use the word in its secondary sense of meaning things that don't or can't exist. But that is not the primary definition.
If you don't understand something, wikipedia is your friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
It doesn't fit. But I'm not talking about just theism. There is vast, almost incomprehensible spectrum of belief beyond that.Ok, fair enough. Not sure how that fits into the Theist/Atheist discussion. Philosophy and Theism are not the same thing.
It doesn't fit. But I'm not talking about just theism. There is vast, almost incomprehensible spectrum of belief beyond that.
Those are not "incomprehensible" though. They are very comprehensible and have been for centuries. I really don't understand where you are trying to go with this. You seem to be equating Conceptual things with Spiritual things. That's nonsensical.
Reason is all it takes as the proof that gods are nothing but monsters from fairy tales created when man had no concept of where the sun went at night.I believe their are very few actual atheists that are die hard about it. Basically they would have to have proof a god doesnt exist. Since they cant, they are fooling themselves. Most non-believers would fall into Agnostic Atheists as myself.
I think that the confusion here is rooted in the labels used and the meaning poured into them from various perspectives. To me, an agnostic is an agnostic...doesn't know is doesn't know. But some pour significant meaning beyond this which I personally don't perceive as especially relevant...but some do perceive this as highly relevant and will argue the point, apparently unwilling to discuss anything of much of any significance beyond it.That's a good point. I guess I expect people to be more open minded if they don't understand something and to ask questions rather than gloss over it.
The problem with talking to people on their level though is that they tend not to appreciate the broader issues. For example, atheists seem to be conditioned to only argue with theists. So from their point of view, that's the beginning and end of what they see as the opposing view. Trying to get them to understand the issues are much, much broader tends to be difficult because they don't have a flexible mindset.
I think that the confusion here is rooted in the labels used and the meaning poured into them from various perspectives. To me, an agnostic is an agnostic...doesn't know is doesn't know. But some pour significant meaning beyond this which I personally don't perceive as especially relevant...but some do perceive this as highly relevant and will argue the point, apparently unwilling to discuss anything of much of any significance beyond it.
Substantive discussion is virtually impossible when some prefer a combative approach over (what I consider to be) a point of such relative minutia. But, on the other hand, the secular likely perceive the phrase 'gnostic theist' as completely innocent...unaware of the highly negative connotations to many theists. Labels and splitting hairs over them tends to end discussion before it can begin in any meaningful manner.
Something like that. The idea is that knowledge and certainty aren't fixed points but exist on a spectrum. There have been countless times through history where people "knew" certain things to be true only to find they were wrong. This still happens. The guy who came up with the idea of prions was ridiculed when he first published his theory. It was only after about a decade of research that his claims were finally validated.The only thing i can think of as to where he may be going with this is that people can experience/perceive some sort of altered state and claim it as fact. Almost like you are high on LSD or something and hallucinating then trying to claim everything you saw as 100% real and factual just because you yourself perceived it. Which is obviously false. I guess he will have to try to elaborate better.
Something like that. The idea is that knowledge and certainty aren't fixed points but exist on a spectrum. There have been countless times through history where people "knew" certain things to be true only to find they were wrong. This still happens. The guy who came up with the idea of prions was ridiculed when he first published his theory. It was only after about a decade of research that his claims were finally validated.
People have biases. You're programmed to look at things in a certain way and then it becomes impossible to see them any other way. It's like an optical illusion where once you see it a particular way, you have to make a conscious effort to see it differently.
If you are willing to recognize that our understanding of nature, the universe, even reality is incomplete, then you are obliged to accept that things beyond your current reality can also exist. It doesn't prove that they do, but you are obliged to recognize the possibility.
But that's really just one small part of what I'm trying to say. It goes much further than that to recognize that human perception and reason may not be up to every possible task. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The same here. When the only way of thinking your recognize is reason and logic, it becomes almost impossible to recognize that any other approach to reality is even possible.
Apparently so for agnostics...in the common usage of the term. But I do find it curious that Wikipedia has no entries for 'gnostic theist' or 'gnostic atheist'.One can not Know, yet Believe. There is a difference between Know and Believe.
OK, that's sort of what I'm getting at but I have to boogie for now. Will come back to this when I get home.Consider this though: The Spiritual/Religious perception of Reality has been shrinking, while the Scientific perception of Reality has been expanding.
It is possible that a Spiritual/Religious Reality exists, but it's probability now is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.
Consider this though: The Spiritual/Religious perception of Reality has been shrinking, while the Scientific perception of Reality has been expanding.
It is possible that a Spiritual/Religious Reality exists, but it's probability now is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.
I'm back. What you're saying does indeed describe how religion has become more compartmentalized if not denigrated over time. But that wasn't the primary point I wanted to make. The bolded part in your quote of me wasn't drafted as artfully as it should have been.Consider this though: The Spiritual/Religious perception of Reality has been shrinking, while the Scientific perception of Reality has been expanding.
It is possible that a Spiritual/Religious Reality exists, but it's probability now is a tiny fraction of what it used to be.
What I really meant was that because human intellect is both finite and limited, it may never be possible to have a complete understanding of existence, reality, other universes or planes of reality, etc. That's not necessarily true but it's a possibility. If it is true however, and it is certainly true now, then you have to admit the possibility of supernatural, paranormal phenomena are real. It doesn't prove that they are, only that they can't rationally be excluded.
Yes, but what does he believe?I think that the confusion here is rooted in the labels used and the meaning poured into them from various perspectives. To me, an agnostic is an agnostic...doesn't know is doesn't know.
In the bulk of the situations where the silly idea that agnosticism is incompatible with atheism comes up (and I've seen it a lot), it is when a theist is attempting to shift the burden of proof to an atheist. Claims along the lines of "atheism takes faith too!" or "atheism is false because you can't know there are no gods" are common in such situations.But some pour significant meaning beyond this which I personally don't perceive as especially relevant...but some do perceive this as highly relevant and will argue the point, apparently unwilling to discuss anything of much of any significance beyond it.
Frankly I find it hilariously ironic that a person can insist agnosticism should be considered mutually exclusive to atheism for reasons of "consistency" -- completely oblivious to the utterly anomalous usage it represents vis-a-vis the standard etymological construction of dichotomous terms, not to mention the way it shoehorns a position with respect to knowledge into a dichotomy of belief. Yeah, that's "consistent."Substantive discussion is virtually impossible when some prefer a combative approach over (what I consider to be) a point of such relative minutia. But, on the other hand, the secular likely perceive the phrase 'gnostic theist' as completely innocent...unaware of the highly negative connotations to many theists. Labels and splitting hairs over them tends to end discussion before it can begin in any meaningful manner.