- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,891
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
ag·nos·tic/aɡˈnästik/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- 1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Some people will, at times, use the term "agnostic" in a derisive fashion.
Why is that?
When you hear someone claim to be agnostic what's your reaction to that, and why?
Because "agnostic" doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. Because "agnostic" when it comes to religion is only half of the story and some people want to pretend it describes a complete position. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism or theism deals with belief. You are both either gnostic or agnostic *AND* either theist or atheist. You can't just take one half of the equation and pretend you've described your entire position on theology. Unfortunately, some people do that and often, pretend to be superior because of it.
...Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism or theism deals with belief. You are both either gnostic or agnostic *AND* either theist or atheist....
Sorry this makes no sense.
How can a Gnostic also be an Atheist ?
How can a Gnostic also be a Theist ?
It seems to be commonly believed that a Theist says there is a god, an Atheist says there is no god and an Agnostic says he/she doesn't know if there's a god or not.
This is wrong.
To understand what an Agnostic is, you have to understand what a Gnostic is. A Gnostic professes knowledge of god. He/she doesn't believe in god in the same way that a man wearing a white shirt doesn't believe he's wearing a white shirt. He KNOWS he's wearing a white shirt.
To understand we must assume that go does in fact exist. A Gnostic knows this to be so because he/she has had a personal connection.
Now many Theists claim to have proof that god exists but the bottom line is they don't. Not incontrovertible proof. UNLESS they claim to have spoken to god or interacted in some way...and then they're a Gnostic (again assuming that god does in fact exist)
So a Gnostic is someone with absolute certainty that god exists
A Theist claims to have convincing evidence that god exists...sometimes that's a flimsy as "I Just Know"
An Agnostic is someone without knowledge of god...without the absolute certainty of his existence...BUT who is looking for it.
The Agnostic may kind of think god exists but they cannot be sure...their level of v]certainty is less than the Theist because they're aware of the Gnostics and therefore know here is absolute certainty out there
In short an Agnostic doesn't believe that god exists, but wants to
An Atheist doesn't believe god exists. He/she is willing to accept they may be wrong and the day they die, if they wake up in heaven, they'll be overjoyed to find they were wrong.
However, they are resigned to the fact that when they die, it will be the end of their existence.
This is my take on what it means to be Atheist V Agnostic, and Gnostic V Theist.
I always thought of Agnostics as those who say we can never have knowledge of gods. I don't think it says anything about their desire to believe gods exist, one way or the other.
I always thought the agnostic does not feel that there is enough evidence to say that God does or does not exist...he reserves judgment or says that if God does exist he is unknown and unknowable...
Sorry this makes no sense.
How can a Gnostic also be an Atheist ?
How can a Gnostic also be a Theist ?
It seems to be commonly believed that a Theist says there is a god, an Atheist says there is no god and an Agnostic says he/she doesn't know if there's a god or not.
This is wrong.
No, a Gnostic church would be one where its members are guided to god through their leaders. They will literally claim to interact with god.
The Cathar hearsay preached this.
In the Cathar religion/faith you didn't need priests to act as a go-between for man and god. God connected to each and every individual. The Agnostics weren't people who didn't believe or accept this idea, they were people who had yet to make the connection with god.
Naturally the Catholic church crushed this idea and even launched an official crusade against them in the part of South West France where the Cathar religion was focused.
I'm going with the modern version of agnostic.
You mean the popular version.
By all means do so, but you'd be wrong.
The term “agnostic” (from the Greek word agnostos, “unknown”) was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who also helped to popularize the Darwinian theory of evolution. Huxley noted that the churches claimed to have a special gnosis (knowledge) about God and the origin of things. He gave one reason why he could not accept this gnosis, and hence was an agnostic:
“If we could only see, in one view, the torrents of hypocrisy and cruelty, the lies, the slaughter, the violations of every obligation of humanity, which have flowed from this source [the churches] along the course of the history of Christian nations, our worst imaginations of Hell would pale beside the vision.”
Doubtless Huxley’s faith in the existence of God was shaken by his acceptance of the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, his faith was further shaken by the conduct of those who should have been in a position to help him, the churches. Their record through the centuries was no recommendation for belief in God.
Socialist Harold Laski, political theorist and educator, wrote in a similar vein. “I was brought up in an orthodox Jewish household; but I cannot even remember a period in which either ritual or dogma had meaning for me,” he confessed. Why? He explained: “Both in England and America I have never been able to see in any of the organized churches a faith in its principles sufficient to make it do serious battle for justice.”
Again, he said: “I cannot see, in the historic process, that the churches have been other than the enemies of reason in thought and of justice in social arrangements.”
the shortcomings of established religion are no reason to conclude that God does not exist. If a sick person has been cheated by a quack doctor, he should not thus conclude that no cure is possible. Rather, he should look around for a genuine doctor. Similarly, the fact that the established churches have turned many people away from God does not mean that God cannot be found. It merely means that you have to look somewhere else for him.
Gnostics, outside of the religious order, are those who believe that it is possible to know whether or not gods exist....
...most theists are gnostics. They think they *DO* know gods are real. It all depends on exactly how the word is defined whether most atheists would fit into the gnostic or agnostic mold....
...the problem is that how the word is used is often nonsensical. Some claim that agnostics are those who do not know gods exist and I'd argue nobody knows because there is no basis upon which to claim knowledge....
...if you define it as the potential to have knowledge, even though you do not now have it, then virtually all atheists would be gnostics because most, at least the ones that I've talked to, think that in order to believe in gods, they would have to know, or at least potentially know, that said gods are real....
...Theists BELIEVE there is a god of some sort. Atheists LACK belief in any gods....
...Agnosticism is not a third position. It is an answer to a completely different question, that about knowledge, not about belief. This is where most people get it wrong....
According to this article agnosticism was brought on largely because of religion...
Not really. The word agnostic has nothing to do with ancient gnostic religions.
A Gnostic professes knowledge of god...the ones who acknowledge that it's possible but have yet to make a personal connection with god are called Agnostics.
Again no, if a person gains a personal knowledge of god, they no longer simply believe in his existence, they KNOW he exists.
(Again to understand you have to assume for the sake of argument that god does in fact exist - otherwise you'd have to say Gnostics are deluded individuals)
An Agnostic doesn't know if god exists, I would argue that neither do Theists.
You are again failing to understand Gnosticism. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that god does in fact exist, then yes an individual could make personal contact with god.
Moses and the burning bush, Lot outside Sodom and Gomorrah, Jonah in the belly of the great fish...
How can that be the case ?
A Gnostic is someone with knowledge of god.
An Agnostic is someone without that knowledge. It is not someone who rejects that knowledge of god is possible.
A gnostic CLAIMS TO HAVE knowledge. They do not actually have knowledge. They have no basis whatsoever to claim knowledge. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Someone can claim to have knowledge about unicorns too. Doesn't make it so....
...there is no such thing as personal knowledge. That's belief. That's not knowledge. I can claim to have personal knowledge of the Loch Ness Monster. That doesn't make it valid....
...because they are....
...nobody does, claims about knowledge mean nothing without actual knowledge....
...if you cannot back up your supposed knowledge with objective demonstration that it is at least likely true, then your claim is false....
...you are entirely misunderstanding the whole concept. This isn't a bald assertion that gods do not exist or gods do. This is a recognition that no one ought to believe anything for which there is no good, independent, demonstrable, objective evidence....
No one demonstrably has any knowledge about god. No one....
As I said you have to, for the sake of argument, assume that god does in fact exist (and an Atheist, when they think about it, have to accept that god or a god(s) might exist)
A Gnostic professes to KNOW god exists.
That is they have interacted with god.
If you say categorically that they cannot know that god exists, you're really saying categorically that god does NOT exist and you cannot say that.
Because if god exists, then he can communicate and converse with a human on Earth.
Do you have personal knowledge that your parents exist ? On thew assumption that you met them and talked with them and touched them, THAT is knowledge, it is not belief.
Do you have personal knowledge of what color the shirt your wearing is ?
So are you saying categorically, 100% that god does NOT exist ???
Because if you're not, how do you know Gnostics are deluded ?
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?