Total Posts:157|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gnostic Atheism is a faith based position?

jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:44:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Arguably it depends on the specifics of their belief. That someone makes a knowledge claim when you think they don't have basis just means you disagree. But I think most could probably be put in the faith category.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:01:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The kind of mental poison that pervades anti-theist reasoning.

That it is even rational to accept something as true without any knowledge. That's ignorance.

Knowledge is the result of an active process, belief the acceptance of a result as "truth".
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)

the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.

I don't remember you always being an atheist. When did this happen?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:37:34 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.

I don't remember you always being an atheist. When did this happen?

I was paraphrasing an agnostic atheist reasoning behind shifting burden of proof, under the pretense that despit the statement they make, they are not making an assertion or claim. Using the agnosticism as a cover to avoid supporting thier beliefs.

I'm a classical deist that thinks all reasonable belief comes from the active search for truth. Belief is contingent emergent from a persons knowledge. The words defined as they are from any english dictionary.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:47:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:44:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:37:34 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.

I don't remember you always being an atheist. When did this happen?

I was paraphrasing an agnostic atheist reasoning behind shifting burden of proof, under the pretense that despit the statement they make, they are not making an assertion or claim. Using the agnosticism as a cover to avoid supporting thier beliefs.

I'm a classical deist that thinks all reasonable belief comes from the active search for truth. Belief is contingent emergent from a persons knowledge. The words defined as they are from any english dictionary.

Oh, awesome. I was just hoping.

I enjoy seeing people change beliefs on this site. It gives me hope that maybe most people aren't as ignorant and stuck in their ways as I think.

I feel bad when they change opinion based on me playing devil's advocate but I also like it because it shows they're not stubborn.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:48:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:44:41 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Arguably it depends on the specifics of their belief. That someone makes a knowledge claim when you think they don't have basis just means you disagree. But I think most could probably be put in the faith category.

I ask this question based on the degrees of atheist that we have here in this forum. I am an agnostic atheist. I hold no belief for or against the possibility of a God. Something I have noticed is that gnostic atheists tend to be the ones who will argue most vehemently against theism. They are in fact opposite but they hold one thing in common with the gnostic theist and that is a faith in their belief that is emotionally charged in debate.

I want other opinions on this as my theory may not hold water. What I interpret from my observation of the behaviors here may not be correct. But it appears to be the common denominator.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Since I believe we can't experience anything objectively I'd say yes.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:56:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.

I'm not asking about the agnostic atheist. That is what I am. I hold no strong beliefs for or against the existence of a God. A gnostic atheist is adamant that there is no God. I see lack of evidence for that claim and thus the gnostic position in atheism is faith based.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:58:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)


the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith

Agnostic atheism is lack of faith. But a gnostic atheist believes for sure that there is no God or high power even though evidence does not exist to support such a claim. That would make it a belief in something not proven and therefor faith based.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:59:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Yes, definitely.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:01:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:51:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

makes no sense to me. I think it is rhetorical jargon to make escaping arguments easier, or shifting the burden of proof.

I'm an agnostic atheist, so when i say "god doesn't exist" I'm not really making a claim and do not need to support anything.

Agnostic atheists don't say that. They just say "no" any time they're asked if they believe a god claim.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

How does one accept something as "true" WITHOUT knowledge of the matter. Without facts, information, experience, education, theory, experiment, on the subject.

One can hold something as "true" with reservations or doubt, as being not 100% certain. But that still is not a "belief" held without "knowledge".

If you have no knowledge of a subject then you have no belief. So a real agnostic does not accept "god exists" as true, nor would they accept "god doesn't exist" as true.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:01:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:01:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The kind of mental poison that pervades anti-theist reasoning.

That it is even rational to accept something as true without any knowledge. That's ignorance.

Is this not what theists do? This seems a bit hypocritical.

Knowledge is the result of an active process, belief the acceptance of a result as "truth".

This part is not clear to me.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:51:02 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Since I believe we can't experience anything objectively I'd say yes.

What do think about the differences between the agnostic atheist and the gnostic atheist? I see that gnostic atheists seem to hold stronger to their arguments and debate with as much passion as a gnostic theist will. I think it's because they are defending a faith based position. Agnostic theists and atheists alike seem to be less emotional in religious debate. Just my observation. What do you think?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:18:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Making an existence claim with certainty, whether for or against god, is beyond what we can know and requires faith. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in logic between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. They are both unreasonable.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:23:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:18:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Making an existence claim with certainty, whether for or against god, is beyond what we can know and requires faith. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in logic between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. They are both unreasonable.

I have observed that both debate with more emotional verve than do agnostic atheists and/or agnostic theists. I think it is because they are emotionally defending a faith based belief. Maybe I'm wrong.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:12:47 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:51:02 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Since I believe we can't experience anything objectively I'd say yes.

What do think about the differences between the agnostic atheist and the gnostic atheist? I see that gnostic atheists seem to hold stronger to their arguments and debate with as much passion as a gnostic theist will. I think it's because they are defending a faith based position. Agnostic theists and atheists alike seem to be less emotional in religious debate. Just my observation. What do you think?

I think agnostics are generally more rational than gnostics. Gnostic atheists usually go to the point of mocking other beliefs, and generally come off as anti-theist. Gnostic theists are plain intolerant and irrational. You need to approach subjects like this without much emotion since you have to look at it at all sides. Religion, to me, is not chosen, rather it is developed over time by looking at fact and then trying to fill in the gaps with more fact and faith.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:23:14 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:18:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Making an existence claim with certainty, whether for or against god, is beyond what we can know and requires faith. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in logic between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. They are both unreasonable.

I have observed that both debate with more emotional verve than do agnostic atheists and/or agnostic theists. I think it is because they are emotionally defending a faith based belief. Maybe I'm wrong.

I would agree both argue from an emotional standpoint rather than from an intellectual one. Have you seen the thread "a topic of intellect"? It questions whether theistic belief is an emotional or intellectual position. You might find it pertains to gnostic atheism as well.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:47:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:29:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:23:14 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:18:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Making an existence claim with certainty, whether for or against god, is beyond what we can know and requires faith. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in logic between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. They are both unreasonable.

I have observed that both debate with more emotional verve than do agnostic atheists and/or agnostic theists. I think it is because they are emotionally defending a faith based belief. Maybe I'm wrong.

I would agree both argue from an emotional standpoint rather than from an intellectual one. Have you seen the thread "a topic of intellect"? It questions whether theistic belief is an emotional or intellectual position. You might find it pertains to gnostic atheism as well.

Yes, I've seen it and you may have a valid point. Although I've seen extremely intelligent people from both sides debate their stand. It usually becomes very charged. Maybe it's any strong belief system that causes the emotional outbursts. Have you ever been to the society forum and read the threads for feminists vs the supporters of male rights? Woah! ;) I was called birdsh!t there. Lol! And I'm anything but a feminist.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 10:58:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:58:26 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)


the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith

Agnostic atheism is lack of faith. But a gnostic atheist believes for sure that there is no God or high power even though evidence does not exist to support such a claim. That would make it a belief in something not proven and therefor faith based.

again let me break it down

atheist - does not believe in god
gnostic - believes his/her position is absolute -

It is pure semantics, if you want to call it faith go right ahead, it looks like you are determined to do so. Now in what way does that help to prove the existence of ANY GOD let alone yours.
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:47:08 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:29:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:23:14 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:18:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

Making an existence claim with certainty, whether for or against god, is beyond what we can know and requires faith. As far as I am concerned, there is no difference in logic between a gnostic atheist and a gnostic theist. They are both unreasonable.

I have observed that both debate with more emotional verve than do agnostic atheists and/or agnostic theists. I think it is because they are emotionally defending a faith based belief. Maybe I'm wrong.

I would agree both argue from an emotional standpoint rather than from an intellectual one. Have you seen the thread "a topic of intellect"? It questions whether theistic belief is an emotional or intellectual position. You might find it pertains to gnostic atheism as well.

Yes, I've seen it and you may have a valid point. Although I've seen extremely intelligent people from both sides debate their stand. It usually becomes very charged. Maybe it's any strong belief system that causes the emotional outbursts. Have you ever been to the society forum and read the threads for feminists vs the supporters of male rights? Woah! ;) I was called birdsh!t there. Lol! And I'm anything but a feminist.

I am not suggesting those who hold emotional beliefs are unintelligent. The nature of the belief has nothing to do with the intellectual ability of the believer. Forgive me for this tangent, but I wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

I haven't been to the society forums, but I'm not surprised. You are definitely onto something. I bet you are right about the strong belief systems. If you think you are right and without a doubt about it, then being unable to convince another person who is obviously wrong must be maddening! ;-) I think we have all had discussions like this, though.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:05:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 10:58:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:58:26 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)


the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith

Agnostic atheism is lack of faith. But a gnostic atheist believes for sure that there is no God or high power even though evidence does not exist to support such a claim. That would make it a belief in something not proven and therefor faith based.


again let me break it down

atheist - does not believe in god
gnostic - believes his/her position is absolute -

It is pure semantics, if you want to call it faith go right ahead, it looks like you are determined to do so. Now in what way does that help to prove the existence of ANY GOD let alone yours.

What makes you think I'm trying to prove the existence of a god. Get to know me before you judge. I'm an atheist. On the agnostic end of the spectrum. I have no faith that there is a God and none that there isn't. I felt like your response was grouping gnostic and agnostic atheism into the same category, and to be honest they can't be. I think gnostic theists and gnostic atheists both base their beliefs on faith because the evidence is just not there either way. That was the OP.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:07:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:01:54 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The kind of mental poison that pervades anti-theist reasoning.

That it is even rational to accept something as true without any knowledge. That's ignorance.

Knowledge is the result of an active process, belief the acceptance of a result as "truth".

very well said my brother
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

I suppose saying someone who knows, without a doubt, that God does not exist, has faith in his/her knowledge. But in light of the fact that a universal negative cannot be proved, it might be more correct to say that a gnostic atheist has an absolute "anti-faith" in the existence of God.

In other words, if somehow a universal negative could actually be proved, but the non-existence of God could still not be proved, then I suppose one could accuse a gnostic atheist of having faith in their own knowledge that no god(s) exist. But since that is clearly not the case, it may be more accurate to state that a gnostic atheist's (dis)belief is the polar opposite of the faithful belief of the gnostic theist, hence, "anti-faith."

Since "anti-faith" isn't a commonly accepted term, it can be dismissed, and one can simply say that a gnostic atheist does not need to rely on faith to disbelieve in God's existence.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 11:49:21 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

I suppose saying someone who knows, without a doubt, that God does not exist, has faith in his/her knowledge. But in light of the fact that a universal negative cannot be proved, it might be more correct to say that a gnostic atheist has an absolute "anti-faith" in the existence of God.

In other words, if somehow a universal negative could actually be proved, but the non-existence of God could still not be proved, then I suppose one could accuse a gnostic atheist of having faith in their own knowledge that no god(s) exist. But since that is clearly not the case, it may be more accurate to state that a gnostic atheist's (dis)belief is the polar opposite of the faithful belief of the gnostic theist, hence, "anti-faith."

Since "anti-faith" isn't a commonly accepted term, it can be dismissed, and one can simply say that a gnostic atheist does not need to rely on faith to disbelieve in God's existence.

But they have no proof to support their claims. They are taking it on faith that there is no God. As an agnostic I never take that on faith. I'm not at all believing there is a God. But on the same token I don't claim their isn't either. I honestly think it is a faith based position to assert that there is absolutely no god with lack of evidence.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:01:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 11:05:28 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:58:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:58:26 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)


the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith

Agnostic atheism is lack of faith. But a gnostic atheist believes for sure that there is no God or high power even though evidence does not exist to support such a claim. That would make it a belief in something not proven and therefor faith based.


again let me break it down

atheist - does not believe in god
gnostic - believes his/her position is absolute -

It is pure semantics, if you want to call it faith go right ahead, it looks like you are determined to do so. Now in what way does that help to prove the existence of ANY GOD let alone yours.

What makes you think I'm trying to prove the existence of a god. Get to know me before you judge. I'm an atheist. On the agnostic end of the spectrum. I have no faith that there is a God and none that there isn't. I felt like your response was grouping gnostic and agnostic atheism into the same category, and to be honest they can't be. I think gnostic theists and gnostic atheists both base their beliefs on faith because the evidence is just not there either way. That was the OP.

This is usual reason that people try to force the word faith into non belief, it is an attempt to put belief in things with little or no evidence for them on an equal plane with simple non belief.

but again being an atheist does not require any faith, people who have never heard of the concept would not believe, and would not require faith of any kind to have this stance.
those who have heard of the concept but still find the evidence either non existent or simply lacking and thus feels certain that a god does not exist is not relying on faith to establish his stance. many people assert that with the classical definition of a god the personal man in the sky who cares about X and does Y ............... can be proven to not exist through simple logical contradictions, if this god can be shown to be logically inconsistent then the belief that he absolutely doesn't exist is based on evidence. logical contradiction = square circle due to the necessary laws of logic need no evidence to be proven not to exist

so a simple question to someone with a classical definition for their god omniscient - all knowing and omnipotent all powerful, and omnipresent all present.

so If one were to ask the question Can god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?
if the believer says no then of course this god cannot exist because he does not have the power to create a stone that heavy disproving all powerful
if the believer says yes because god can do anything and so yes he can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it he all powerful is again disproven since he is unable lift said stone
in this case the certainty would necessarily be based on evidence
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...
I have to disagree.

This is where people tend to misunderstand the difference between "evidence" and (so-called) "proof", (which is better phrased "conclusive evidence"). One needn't have conclusive evidence to support a position in order to avoid having a faith-based belief. Any time the objective evidence is consistent with the conclusion, that conclusion is evidence-based, rather than faith-based. The complete lack of objective evidence to support a conclusion is consistent with disbelief in that conclusion. Any form of atheism is evidence-based because the conclusion that gods do not exist is consistent with the complete lack of objective evidence for gods.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 12:12:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 12:01:48 AM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 11:05:28 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:58:14 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:58:26 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/28/2014 9:29:47 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:
At 12/28/2014 8:38:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
For the gnostic theist faith is the solid belief in an unseen God. It is a faith based position. The gnostic atheist believes the opposite to be true even though current scientific evidence cannot disprove the existence of an unseen God. It is also a faith based position.

Correct?

http://www.debate.org...

no -- since the opposite/antonym of faith is disbelief, then faith cannot be equal to disbelief.

whether you be talking agnostic or gnostic, they would simply be adjectives used to describe the thing (atheist) which is simply someone who does not believe. His position is based on a lack of evidence, not based on any faith (which is belief in something regardless of the amount of evidence for it or against it)


the real question is why Christians want so badly to say that atheists rely on faith. By continually doing so all you do is affirm how silly you realize "having faith" really is. So you want to say that we are just as silly as believers are because we use faith too.

disbelief is the lack of faith

Agnostic atheism is lack of faith. But a gnostic atheist believes for sure that there is no God or high power even though evidence does not exist to support such a claim. That would make it a belief in something not proven and therefor faith based.


again let me break it down

atheist - does not believe in god
gnostic - believes his/her position is absolute -

It is pure semantics, if you want to call it faith go right ahead, it looks like you are determined to do so. Now in what way does that help to prove the existence of ANY GOD let alone yours.

What makes you think I'm trying to prove the existence of a god. Get to know me before you judge. I'm an atheist. On the agnostic end of the spectrum. I have no faith that there is a God and none that there isn't. I felt like your response was grouping gnostic and agnostic atheism into the same category, and to be honest they can't be. I think gnostic theists and gnostic atheists both base their beliefs on faith because the evidence is just not there either way. That was the OP.

This is usual reason that people try to force the word faith into non belief, it is an attempt to put belief in things with little or no evidence for them on an equal plane with simple non belief.

but again being an atheist does not require any faith, people who have never heard of the concept would not believe, and would not require faith of any kind to have this stance.
those who have heard of the concept but still find the evidence either non existent or simply lacking and thus feels certain that a god does not exist is not relying on faith to establish his stance. many people assert that with the classical definition of a god the personal man in the sky who cares about X and does Y ............... can be proven to not exist through simple logical contradictions, if this god can be shown to be logically inconsistent then the belief that he absolutely doesn't exist is based on evidence. logical contradiction = square circle due to the necessary laws of logic need no evidence to be proven not to exist

so a simple question to someone with a classical definition for their god omniscient - all knowing and omnipotent all powerful, and omnipresent all present.

so If one were to ask the question Can god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?
if the believer says no then of course this god cannot exist because he does not have the power to create a stone that heavy disproving all powerful
if the believer says yes because god can do anything and so yes he can create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it he all powerful is again disproven since he is unable lift said stone
in this case the certainty would necessarily be based on evidence

I understand your argument. There is validity to it, however the emotional response from the gnostic atheist is what I am interested in. Something that is common in this forum is that the gnostic atheist is more likely to support their claims in an emotionally heated way. Much like a gnostic theist might support the existence of a God. The conclusion that I have come to is that they are emotional for the same reason. They are supporting a position that is not supported be actual physical evidence in an argument. It becomes a belief system... faith in their assertions that something doesn't exist event when it can't be completely proven. Forgive me, but I think in black and white... on or off.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."