- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,681
- Reaction score
- 1,219
- Location
- Rhode Island
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I don't think it has to be 100% to be considered gnostic. If that is our criteria then you can't know anything. I am a gnostic atheist in regard to the Abrahamic God and the gods of the religions I have heard of. I am as certain they don't exist as I am of anything.
I am an agnostic atheist in regard to the deistic God or any other God concepts I have never heard of.
Where is the line drawn then between gnosic and agnostic?
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
I understand what you're saying. But just a heads up that gnostic does not mean what you seem to think it means. Gnosticism refers to a very specific set of beliefs. You seem to use that term as a way of referring to a general belief in some gods. Theism is the term you're looking for.
The term Gnosticism refers to a set of specific religious beliefs, however, the term gnostic refers to knowledge verses belief. Gnostic does not neccesarily refer to the set of religious beliefs known as Gnosticism.
That doesn't seem to be the way it has been used in this thread either. To make matters worse it seems some people are using it in one way and others in another. You, for example did use the term gnosticism as the opposite of agnosticism. Thus it's a problematic term.
Define, 'god(s)'.
Whether I'm gnostic or agnostic depends on the god.
Zeus? Gnostic. Yahweh? Gnostic. Deistic God? Agnostic (albeit unconvinced).
One estimate is that 24,000 people are killed by lightning strikes around the world each year and about 240,000 are injured.[5]
You're mistaking knowledge for a level of certainty that isn't achievable. For example, I'd say we know that Zeus and friends do not inhabit Mount Olympus. But that doesn't mean there is a 0% chance we could be mistaken about that. That level of certainty isn't a requirement for knowing.
I understand what you're saying. But just a heads up that gnostic does not mean what you seem to think it means. Gnosticism refers to a very specific set of beliefs. You seem to use that term as a way of referring to a general belief in some gods. Theism is the term you're looking for.
That doesn't seem to be the way it has been used in this thread either. To make matters worse it seems some people are using it in one way and others in another. You, for example did use the term gnosticism as the opposite of agnosticism. Thus it's a problematic term.
The way I've used the term, and apologies if I've gone against conventional usage, is in the gnostic vs agnostic sense as the thread title suggests, gnostic meaning "I know with certainty gods do not exist", agnostic meaning "I believe gods do not exist, but I am not 100% sure". I tried to make it clear that I was referring to atheists who are 100% certain gods do not exist.
If I've set the bar too high on "Gnostic" or "Knowing", my bad. Most who follow this philosophy seem to debate and argue as if they were 100% certain, that's for sure.
Remember it can be laid out like an X - Y axis, Theism vs Atheism on one axis, and gnostic vs agnostic on the other.
The statement has no meaning, because a term is undefined.
Are you certain? Are you 100% sure? This is of course after answering no to the question "Do you think 1 or more gods exist?"
I've brought this tangent up in a few threads, I'm giving it a home here.
I am 99.99% sure that god(s) do not exist. I'm being hyperbolic, and keep in mind 97% of all statistics are made up on the spot. At any given time I'm in the 90+%, but for the sake of making a point, I will sit at 99.99% and ponder how to achieve the goal of 100%, how to get past that last .01%.
You can take the position that it doesn't matter, because practically speaking, it doesn't. Every day I assume that gods do not exist, as I go through my work day, come home and play with my kids, or surf internet forums. Being 99.99% sure, I'm comfortable making that assumption and basing decisions on it.
But when it comes down to being gnostic or agnostic, I find that being 100% certain is a lofty goal indeed when dealing with something that so little is known about. That last .01% is in fact impossible without resorting to definition twisting, defining god in a way that he can not exist. But even this will result in the same problem theists run into when they do the opposite: the gap problem (Connecting the thing you proved/disproved to some meaningful definition of god). But there is no way to assert anything about what exists in the universe when we haven't even managed to get an unmanned space exploration probe into .... something close to ..... 99.99% of it. Nevermind the existence of a being who could deceive us so thoroughly that we would be completely unaware of them standing next to us. Given 5 minutes I could come up with a handful of theories and hypothetical entities that would be impossible to disprove with certainty.
So unlikely the possibility can be ignored? Sure, in the practical sense. Impossible? 100% certainty? It turns out 99.99% is light years away from 100%.
Are there any 100%ers out there that can explain how they got past the last .01%?
This is a common misunderstanding. But this isn't how meaning works. A word doesn't need to have a definition to have a meaning. A definition is not what gives a word its meaning. A definition is just an attempt to convey the same meaning (or a very similar meaning) as a word using a collection of different words. Consider the fact that definitions aren't even possible until we already understand the meanings of a great many words. How could these words have meaning if they don't yet have definitions?
The point you want to be making is not that 'god' is undefined but that 'god' has different meanings (or may be used in a way that is incoherent, literally has no meaning). In order for us to have a discussion about 'god' we need to be in agreement about what we mean when we speak 'god'. When a person says they are an atheist they do not mean they are an atheist in regard to whatever meaning someone assigns to the syntax 'g-o-d'. Instead the atheist means that he is an atheist in regard to some meaning of 'g-o-d' that he has in mind, such as the Christian God, or Zeus, some broader notion along the line of 'conscious being that created the universe'.
Well unless you are a ignostic atheist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?