If God has created any religion, it means He needs to add this in Earth.
@clousems
> Atheism literally means “without theism”. It is, by definition, the polar opposite of theism. Atheists are those who believe god > does not exist. Agnostics are the skeptics.
The first part of the sentence i already addressed, i missed the second one.
Gnos.- "comes from Greek and Latin, where it has the meaning "knowledge."
While the gnostics were a cult like organization. The real root and meaning of the word is about knowledge.
The skeptics were another philosophical school. but skeptic = a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement). Which in essence is the same definition as an atheist, just that atheist term is very specific and addresses only the god matter but you can use the "skeptic about a god claim" term and its the same result as you can see.
So check this out.
The gnostics are related to knowledge. The theist are related to belief. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
While the gnostic have knowledge, the "A" = whithout in many Greek words, so Agnostic = without knowledge.
Same with theist = belief in a god. Atheist = Without belief in the theist god.
Notice how also the polar opposite of gnostic = knowledge, is literally ignorance. but as in the previous case, there is an intermediate point, which is, without knowledge or Agnostic.
So you can be an agnostic theist = doesnt KNOW a god exist, but he BELIEVES in one.
and the are others so full of themselves that claim to be gnostic theist. They know a god exist (dont ask me how), and they also believe in it.
But you also have the same case with atheists, like, who are agnostic atheist, we dont know if a diety exist, but we are skeptics about the claim it does.
And you have the gnostic atheist, those who claim to know a god doesnt exist (again, dont ask me how), therefore, they dont believe in one.
So gnostic is related to a knowledge definition, but it is also used to describe a philosophical current that it does actually believe in a diety in a weird form, You just need more context to know which definition people are using.
If you are confused, think about this other example. There are carnivorous animals and there are animals that are carnivorous.
The first group refers to a taxonomical clade in the taxonomical classification in the mammal side with some specialized teeth,
the group involves canines, felines and many other related from them, like otters, bears (some which are actually vegetarian), racoons, weasels and others.
The animals that are carnivorous are the ones that have mostly a diet of meat, like sharks, other mammals, reptiles, birds and even insects.
So, there are many words with different definitions or uses that may even be polar opposite. So get the context first to know of which ones they are talking.
In this case, the gnostics-agnostics you are talking about are the ones that are have a claim about the knowledge they have.
So, no, Agnostic is not a synonym of skeptic. However, since the terms are not mutually exclusive, you can find an agnostic skeptic, like me.
Though there are many tags to add to describe, so agnostic atheist for clarification, and atheist for short.
> Atheism literally means “without theism”. It is, by definition, the polar opposite of theism. Atheists are those who believe god > does not exist. Agnostics are the skeptics.
The first part of the sentence i already addressed, i missed the second one.
Gnos.- "comes from Greek and Latin, where it has the meaning "knowledge."
While the gnostics were a cult like organization. The real root and meaning of the word is about knowledge.
The skeptics were another philosophical school. but skeptic = a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement). Which in essence is the same definition as an atheist, just that atheist term is very specific and addresses only the god matter but you can use the "skeptic about a god claim" term and its the same result as you can see.
So check this out.
The gnostics are related to knowledge. The theist are related to belief. The terms are not mutually exclusive.
While the gnostic have knowledge, the "A" = whithout in many Greek words, so Agnostic = without knowledge.
Same with theist = belief in a god. Atheist = Without belief in the theist god.
Notice how also the polar opposite of gnostic = knowledge, is literally ignorance. but as in the previous case, there is an intermediate point, which is, without knowledge or Agnostic.
So you can be an agnostic theist = doesnt KNOW a god exist, but he BELIEVES in one.
and the are others so full of themselves that claim to be gnostic theist. They know a god exist (dont ask me how), and they also believe in it.
But you also have the same case with atheists, like, who are agnostic atheist, we dont know if a diety exist, but we are skeptics about the claim it does.
And you have the gnostic atheist, those who claim to know a god doesnt exist (again, dont ask me how), therefore, they dont believe in one.
So gnostic is related to a knowledge definition, but it is also used to describe a philosophical current that it does actually believe in a diety in a weird form, You just need more context to know which definition people are using.
If you are confused, think about this other example. There are carnivorous animals and there are animals that are carnivorous.
The first group refers to a taxonomical clade in the taxonomical classification in the mammal side with some specialized teeth,
the group involves canines, felines and many other related from them, like otters, bears (some which are actually vegetarian), racoons, weasels and others.
The animals that are carnivorous are the ones that have mostly a diet of meat, like sharks, other mammals, reptiles, birds and even insects.
So, there are many words with different definitions or uses that may even be polar opposite. So get the context first to know of which ones they are talking.
In this case, the gnostics-agnostics you are talking about are the ones that are have a claim about the knowledge they have.
So, no, Agnostic is not a synonym of skeptic. However, since the terms are not mutually exclusive, you can find an agnostic skeptic, like me.
Though there are many tags to add to describe, so agnostic atheist for clarification, and atheist for short.
@Alientcp allow me to pose a question: wouldn’t any theist be agnostic in that case? There is no concrete evidence to prove the existence of a god.
@clousems said in #53:
> @Alientcp allow me to pose a question: wouldn’t any theist be agnostic in that case? There is no concrete evidence to prove the existence of a god.
That is indeed correct. There is no evidence of a god. And it such thing indeed doesnt exist, you cant prove it doesnt exist either.
They technically cant know if a diety exist, but they always say they speak directly to it. So they "know" it does. A madman sees what he sees. On the strict sense, they cant demonstrate the knowledge, so they dont really know. But there are people that genuinely think that they can throw kamehamehas. They will say they know, you will say they dont. The best thing you can do is to agree with them and walk away to end the pointless discussion.
The opposite position, the gnostic atheist, while it is also technically wrong, its a bit more defensible. You cant prove the diety itself doesnt exist if it in fact doesnt exist or if it does exist, but refuse to show up and leave no evidence of existence,
As a wise man once said (Matt Dillahunty). A god that exists but refuses to show itself in reality is identical to a god that doesnt exist. You cant differentiate them.
So. if a theist makes a claim about the diety doing something, say the global flood that killed everyone but a family. You can actually check if there was a global flood or the effects from it. We do know that a global flood did not happened. Then the diety that "made the flood" cannot exist. Maybe the flood version diety is derived from a "real one", but the flood version diety cannot exist, its an invented iteration based on a real one. Or maybe just made up from thin air, how can you tell?
Think of it this way. Say you and me met to play chess yesterday at 12 pm. Today, you did something else at 12 pm.
If i tell people i played chess with you today at 12 pm. I cannot be talking about you. You werent there today. That "you" doesnt exist. Maybe im making something up derived from you, But what im describing is a "you" that played chess with me today at 12 pm. that "you" doesnt exist. It cant exist, due to the law of identity.
But they keep adding properties to the diety, omnipotent, omniscient, just, forgiving, along many other claims. And once you put the the claims or the properties to the test, they result in either logically inconsistent, evidently impossible, and at best, inconclusive. And they have like 1000 different denominations. So there may actually be a diety that doesnt let itself to be spotted and all the iterations come from that, but such diety cannot be the same in all versions due to contradictory claims, or the law of identity again. so most versions of the "base god" (if any) definitely dont exist, but you can, to a degree, conclude that the described diety didnt do, couldnt do, or cant have x attributes, and hence, "know" that that specific iteration of the god doesnt exist.
So, if you make the claim that a god did a global flood, im a gnostic atheist regarding that specific claim. I know that a diety couldnt have done the global flood because such thing never happened, and im not convinced about diety claim either.
And, as you can see, while calling yourself a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist is a bit iffy, there are people that do embrace both tags. But again, There are grandmasters in the no touch martial arts and people supporting them.
As Tywin Lannister said: "Madness, madness and stupidity"
> @Alientcp allow me to pose a question: wouldn’t any theist be agnostic in that case? There is no concrete evidence to prove the existence of a god.
That is indeed correct. There is no evidence of a god. And it such thing indeed doesnt exist, you cant prove it doesnt exist either.
They technically cant know if a diety exist, but they always say they speak directly to it. So they "know" it does. A madman sees what he sees. On the strict sense, they cant demonstrate the knowledge, so they dont really know. But there are people that genuinely think that they can throw kamehamehas. They will say they know, you will say they dont. The best thing you can do is to agree with them and walk away to end the pointless discussion.
The opposite position, the gnostic atheist, while it is also technically wrong, its a bit more defensible. You cant prove the diety itself doesnt exist if it in fact doesnt exist or if it does exist, but refuse to show up and leave no evidence of existence,
As a wise man once said (Matt Dillahunty). A god that exists but refuses to show itself in reality is identical to a god that doesnt exist. You cant differentiate them.
So. if a theist makes a claim about the diety doing something, say the global flood that killed everyone but a family. You can actually check if there was a global flood or the effects from it. We do know that a global flood did not happened. Then the diety that "made the flood" cannot exist. Maybe the flood version diety is derived from a "real one", but the flood version diety cannot exist, its an invented iteration based on a real one. Or maybe just made up from thin air, how can you tell?
Think of it this way. Say you and me met to play chess yesterday at 12 pm. Today, you did something else at 12 pm.
If i tell people i played chess with you today at 12 pm. I cannot be talking about you. You werent there today. That "you" doesnt exist. Maybe im making something up derived from you, But what im describing is a "you" that played chess with me today at 12 pm. that "you" doesnt exist. It cant exist, due to the law of identity.
But they keep adding properties to the diety, omnipotent, omniscient, just, forgiving, along many other claims. And once you put the the claims or the properties to the test, they result in either logically inconsistent, evidently impossible, and at best, inconclusive. And they have like 1000 different denominations. So there may actually be a diety that doesnt let itself to be spotted and all the iterations come from that, but such diety cannot be the same in all versions due to contradictory claims, or the law of identity again. so most versions of the "base god" (if any) definitely dont exist, but you can, to a degree, conclude that the described diety didnt do, couldnt do, or cant have x attributes, and hence, "know" that that specific iteration of the god doesnt exist.
So, if you make the claim that a god did a global flood, im a gnostic atheist regarding that specific claim. I know that a diety couldnt have done the global flood because such thing never happened, and im not convinced about diety claim either.
And, as you can see, while calling yourself a gnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist is a bit iffy, there are people that do embrace both tags. But again, There are grandmasters in the no touch martial arts and people supporting them.
As Tywin Lannister said: "Madness, madness and stupidity"
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.