JFHermes t1_irccpyp wrote
Reply to comment by BeaverFur in David Mitchell on Atheism by Huntstark
> You can be an agnostic atheist (in fact, most atheists are): someone who doesn't believe that there's a god, but doesn't claim that they know with certainty that god doesn't exist.
This is just atheism. What class of atheist can prove god doesn't exist? No one can know with certainty that god doesn't exist.
BrettMoneyMaher t1_ircf79q wrote
No, it's not. It's agnostic atheism. You can't just eliminate words because you disagree with their definition, lol.
No one can prove that a god does exist (gnostic theism), but billions of people worldwide are still 100% certain that there is a god. Atheism would be the same thing, but the opposite. The "agnostic" part of "agnostic atheism" is a critical component.
JFHermes t1_ire29g9 wrote
If you are agnostic: you believe that there could or could not be a god. Basically it's unknowable if there is or there is not a god. That makes perfect sense to me, as religion is based on a system of faith and not logic (verifiable truth). Take that distinction as you may but that's not my point.
My point is that all atheists are agnostic - there isn't yet a way to disprove the 'existence' of god. There isn't a special class of atheist that has the ability to disprove god, therefore it's only reasonable to conclude that there only exists one type of atheist - the one that doesn't believe in god but also cannot prove/disprove it's existence.
What's more, gnosticism (is this what you mean by gnostic theism? - I looked it up but only found some dodgy quora answers using your terminology) is based on an inward looking acceptance that there is a divine force in the universe. It's not provable because the idea of god in this sense is purely spiritual and operates through the actions of people.
The interesting thing about Gnosticism is it's relation to greek/roman polytheism and their influences on early Judaism and Christianity. Much like one of the core components of the reformation - they believed that the channel between humans and god(s) were irrespective of organised religion and was a deeply personal projection of the forces of the universe (god).
I don't have to believe in god to be called a moron by an atheist because I feel a connection to a divine force that underpins the passage of time. I feel sorry for people who get organised religion tangled up with spirituality - I can feel there is something larger at play I just don't think it's personifications should be taken as gospel.
If an atheists prime example of disproving religion is taking a personification of god(usually intended for children because they don't have the mental capacities to understand more abstract concepts) as a way of invalidating everything ELSE that comes from texts/studies on religion then they are also like children.. unable to see the forests from the trees.
This is the whole point of the video - don't trip up on religion's gaps and throw the baby out with the bathwater. For a lot of people, they find a deep sense of contentedness when they believe in God, Religion, Unicorns... whatever. That is the point of Religion, not scientifically debugging texts from 2000 years ago.
ign_lifesaver2 t1_irchgn4 wrote
This is mostly semantics but If you told me you believed in a god that was irrational like a squared circle God I could be certain that particular God does not exist but It wouldn't prove no god exists.
klavin1 t1_ircl2de wrote
> This is mostly semantics
Or, ya know... epistemology.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments