[subway]

So, am I missing something or is the rational person missing from the (a)gnostic grouping?

Agnostic - we dont if a god exists, because it's outside our comprehension
Gnostic - we know a god exists, because of the "evidence"

So, where is the scientific person represented in this?, i.e. there's nothing to suggest a god exists, but we'll look into if you have some evidence.

I don't believe in a god, I don't believe in alien, but sure as I'm typing this, if they exist I believe we could know about them. So can someone explain to me if I just step away from these definitions and, if so, how they fit in with a scientific, atheistic forum when both sides of the coin ascribe magic powers to deities
1 says he is omnipotent because he tells us, the other says he is too much for our feeble minds to comprehend.

[gawker]

It's more complicated than the two categories/definitons you mention there. Dawkins does a good job of explaining the athiesm/agnostic issue when he put's it something like this:

[subway]

That's exactly what i typed above, in graph form.my question is how can you be on the righ hand side of that chart.

[gawker]

In that case, I don't understand the question!

Wait, I think I get you.

Athiesm means not believing in god(s). By not knowing for 100% sure that there isn't a God, but being quite certain there isn't a god, someone still doesn't believe in a god. That would be an agnostic atheist. On the other hand, a gnostic atheist claims certainty there is no God.

Perhaps there's a gnostic atheist around here who can explain better

[subway]

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

[gawker]

Originally Posted by subway

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

I think, if you were to ask them what they think, they might say:

Agnostic atheist: "I can't prove it 100%, but I'm quite sure there is no god and have seen no evidence to suggest there is."

Gnostic atheist: "I am absolutely certain there is no god."

Gnostic means "relating to knowledge" and so a gnostic, atheist or theist, is claiming to have absolute knowledge that makes their mind up. An agnostic might base their opinion on a lack of evidence but not claim absolute certainty.

[doctoremma]

Originally Posted by subway

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I think that whatever people call 'god' is untestable and undemonstrable in a material sense - we can't ask scientific questions about 'god'. So for me, I don't believe he exists, as far as I can define the word 'exist'. Existence requires physical evidence and I see none.

I haven't thought that it's because I'm too stupid that I can't detect his existence.

[MagicMarker]

Originally Posted by subway

An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)
A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

Where in the christ did ya come up with those definitions?

Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity and also believes we can't know if one exists or not.

Gnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity but believes we can know if one exists or not.

[im invisible]

Originally Posted by subway

My question, is that being either gnostic or agnostic ascribes power to a deity.
An agnostic atheist doesn't believe in god but believes we are too stupid to know if god exists (ie, god is smarter than us)

agnostics believe it is impossible to know, one way or the other, whether god exists or not, with him being super-natural. this might give power to god, just so long as he doesn't interact/ interfere with the physical world, because if he did, we would be able to know

A gnostic atheist believes that we know god exists, but doesn't believe in god himself.

gnostics believe it is possible to know whether god exists or not, with gnostic atheists *knowing* he does not exist

I think both of these positions are untenable and am trying to gain insight as to whether I am missing something or not

but dont take my word for it, i could be agnostic, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist, or just your normal a la carte irish catholic, depending on my mood.

[subway]

Originally Posted by MagicMarker

Where in the christ did ya come up with those definitions?

Agnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity and also believes we can't know if one exists or not.

Gnostic Atheist - Doesn't believe in a deity but believes we can know if one exists or not.

Where in the Christ did you come up with those definitions?

[fitz0]

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

[subway]

Originally Posted by doctoremma

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I think that whatever people call 'god' is untestable and undemonstrable in a material sense - we can't ask scientific questions about 'god'. So for me, I don't believe he exists, as far as I can define the word 'exist'. Existence requires physical evidence and I see none.

I haven't thought that it's because I'm too stupid that I can't detect his existence.

But does agnosticism not require acceptance that we can never know?

(not stupid at an individual level. at a species level, it defines us as less than a being agnosticism defines us as being incapable of being aware of)

[MisterEpicurus]

Originally Posted by fitz0

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

If you 'know' something, as in 100%...like you are a man, then that's gnostic. The contrary is agnostic.

I'm guessing you have an inclination as to whether a god exists or not? It can't be 50:50 surely?

If you do then you're; agnostic theist [I don't 'know' if a god exists but the balance of evidence shifts me to believing something 'may' exist]
Gnostic theist [I 'know' a god exists as much as I know what sex I am; there's no question about my certainty]
If you don't, then you're; agnostic atheist <--- Opposite of above...

[subway]

Originally Posted by fitz0

But I don't know if we can or can't know whether a god exists. So what am I?

Fence-sitting non-believer?

This is the point I'm getting at...
(a)Gnosticism picks a side without any further investigation being an option

[MisterEpicurus]

Originally Posted by subway

But does agnosticism not require acceptance that we can never know?

Agnostic can refer to 'unknown' or 'unknowable'