G'day newjanivev2, I'm sure that we have chatted before. I pretty much agree with what you say. Would an agnostic atheist be some kind of a deist?
Science is starting to get on board with a higher level of energy supporting the universe. There's a lot now written about the "zero point field". Ultimately this will have philosophical implications...

@puck61
None of which is ever actually presented


I have no expectations of any unsupported postulation


faith is merely pretending to know something that you do not really know.
I try to avoid such deceptive pretence.

Yes, fddlpej, it has always seemed to me that news items along the line of 'father of 3 dies while rescuing strangers from a burning house' address a level of sacrifice that, in comparison, make the whole 'Jesus sacrificed his life for you' claim seem trite and trivial.

Gnostic theists seem to have been backing off their claims that their magical entity is 'both omniscient and omnipotent', because it leads to difficult questions. For example, such an entity would not be able to change its mind (because it would already know that it would change its mind), But if it can't change its mind, then it's not omnipotent.

Maybe the wrong place to ask this but if God is all powerful and all knowing then didn't he know that people would kill Jesus and that he would resurrect him so he didn't have to worry about death correct so what was the sacrifice?

So if a theist could prove that gods are necessary, he'd be making a more cogent argument. This is the basis of the Argument From Design, which seems to be the argument I run into most often now (maybe the churches are pushing it?).

The problems with it include that while it's possible to tell that a wristwatch is designed and a rock isn't by comparing them to each other, we can't do that with a supposedly designed universe because there's no "undesigned" universe to compare it to. Assuming that the universe is designed because some natural objects within it appear to be designed is a logical fallacy.

Another problem is that assuming arguendo that the universe was designed by a God, the concept for its design must have existed in that God's mind before he executed it (this is a tenet of Kabbalah, by the way). So the question arises, where did that design come from? Possiblities are, from a still greater designer who taught the creator God how to design and create things (i.e. Gnostic Christianity), or "it's one of God's attributes that he didn't need a teacher."

This last is merely a semantic stopsign, akin to saying "you must not ask that question." It's astonishing how many seemingly intelligent religious people, including philosophers, seem satisfied with this.

You wrote that an agnostic atheist has no need for a god. Ok But if you are agnostic atheist then maybe there is a little doubt about some things. So I just want to say that there is a story in the Bible that I'd like to share with you. I know you will say the Bible is just a man made story, but I wanted to share it with you. its a story how a man was mad at God for asking him to warn a city of it's own destruction. The man ran away from God because he didn't really want to warn anyone at all.

Jonah’s Anger at the Lord’s Compassion for Jonah to warn a city of their destruction unless they repent.
4 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

4 But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy plant[a] and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the plant?”

“It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant, though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

*lol
Your last paragraph is painfully true of far too many people we talk to on here. They aggressively approach the conversation "Where's YOUR proof?" and we just calmly sit here sipping our wine.

*sits back stunned* Wow. I'm impressed. I had never considered these terms nor this set of arguments before. I'm going to have to digest this one! lol

I think what people believe is God is someone or something from another planet or something to do with time travel. If you showed up on earth at Jesus time with a flashlight and a gun you would be a god every one points to the sky when they speak of God and now women can have a surgery to become a virgin again think of what technology will be like in 100 years is that any crazier than an invisible being that loves us but let's the world have such horrific happenings go on

Well I really enjoyed reading this and now no longer have to say I'm agnostic or atheist but the combo of the two. Thanks for sharing.

there's no burden of proof. We are not asking for your approval. Call it a fairytale or whatever. It's the Creationists'faith in Something that they can't see or sense or comprehend. Atheists have faith in science the way we know it. Science has countless limits. You need to stop acting like Science has all the answers.

There's a world of difference between necessity arising from personal preference, and compelling necessity arising from the realities of the world,
Chocolate vs food comes to mind.

I care not one whit whether or not theists feel provoked... it's not my role to indulge their fantasies.

What's surprising about this story is the lack of argument... maybe it's just the calm before the creationism?

You've put a lot of reasoned thought into this and have expressed yourself well, but the four camps you outlined are not the four camps for possible beliefs and burden of proof is only one half of a proper onus system. These two major oversights throw your conclusions way off. I'm not at all surprised that people feel you are right about this, for your understanding is consistent with what was taught up until the mid twentieth century.

Within the modern, fairer, and more stringent understanding of onus the following things are so:

The agnostic atheist by affiliation to the gnostic atheist incurs basic onus to prove sole correctness and advantage.

The non-existence of God is proven when a belief adversarial to the existence of a magical plane satisfies its onus or onuses.

This is a very reductionistic analysis which I find well structured and technically accurate.

As far as spirituality goes, I don't think the fundamental question really is about whether god or gods exist. I find people who use the idiom or metaphor of god/gods a little odd at times, but find that often the beliefs that come with it (creation, afterlife, unctions to goodness, etc.) to be highly utilitarian to them. To whit, it makes them better people. I find those who wear their atheism on their sleeve to often be cold and passionless, sometimes judgemental and dismissive. I tend to agree with *their* analysis of the specifics of the situation but somehow they let it take the richness out of their life (not all of them).

fortunately you seem to still admit plenty of wonder and richness into your life... good on ya for that!

Great post!

Very good summary. You write brilliantly.

Thank you for this post!

me too *high 5*

I used to describe myself as a militant agnostic ... which was a joke which no one got at all...

I like your agnostic atheist I'm in that category most probably.

*Hugs!
You too Jani! The old crew is slowly trickling back in. It wouldn't be a home without such amazing intelligent people like you <3

in other words and this is my case i hve no "so called entity named god " i believe on ...
yu said what "goood" ????
the word agnosticism (french word)(alpha privatif) means that a human with a brain can not take as real things or issues or declarations or whatever not sientifically proved !
in the doubt (waiting for a scientifical evidence) "that simply does not exist or is not real" ....
religions of all kind hve always been created for poor brain people ....

There are plenty of gnostic atheists, by your definition, around on sites like this!

Also I note that you are in fact making a claim which seems designed to provoke theists: "gods are unnecessary". Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if people argue with you.

Gods aren't unnecessary to those of us who live with them, and even if they were, so what? They are here whether we need them or not! At least that's my experience... I have no interest in arguing about it. :)

Thank you very much for explaining the theist-atheist scale clearly and concisely.

I used to call myself a "militan agnostic" but noone ever got the gag... hey ho

Thanks. This is very useful and well articulated. I'm also an agnostic atheist 🙂

Where did I say that?

I am, as I said, surprised by the lack of argument.

Frosty! It's sooooo nice to see you here, hun.
(hugs)

Even though I see things differently than you do I can respect yours as an intellectually honest position. So many gnostic athiests are even more evangelical than the Mormons who knock on doors. It is just nice to see a reasoned position - even though I disagree with it

Simply awesome. Thank you!

Exquisite explanation. The only thing I'm confused about is that your term for agnostic atheist is what I once heard for being an atheist humanist. Did I receive wrong information then? Does it mean something else?

Thank you, Robi
🙂

Well again you are saying (above) that you're not looking for arguments, but your language is provoking ("indulge their fantasies"). So I expect the arguments will come along.

There are two simple yes/no questions, and everything else is just a discussion around that.

1. Do you have any gods?

2. Do you claim to know any specific details about those gods?

Sorry doing this on my phone I hope I am clear how I present it if not I will try when I get home if you are interested

Your "religion" makes sense to me.

I don't know. I don't need to know.

So liberating 😏

very well written and completely sums up all my thoughts. thank you

And also a philosopher...the mind boggles😯

Nice to see you here and Frosty as well. I miss EP

What parts are you struggling with, Sam?

Wtf. So long passage. Going over my head.

I am a Panthiest.

I am an Agnostic Atheist as well. Thank you so much for this and ALL of the science based posts...you are a sight for sore eyes to say the least.