Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Me neither. It's alright to learn superstitions and traditional folk beliefs, but what you shouldn't do is allow them to get in the way of safety and productivity. E.g. taking herbal supplements with adverse side effects.
I, too, used to have a phase where I went around telling people I was "agnostic", but looking back, the only real reason I kept saying that was to show an apologist face towards my conservative Christian family. Really I was just atheist, but it took me quite a while for me to be able to confidently say that.
There are two kinds of atheists, gnostic and agnostic. Gnostic atheists claim to know for a fact that there are no gods (an impossible claim) and agnostic atheists don't claim to know it for a fact, but believe it based on the available evidence. Most atheists are agnostic ones. There are gnostic and agnostic theists, as well.
I've heard that distinction as well, but it always struck me as coming from a religious position and working backwards, as if there is something inherently special about belief in a god or gods separate from belief or disbelief in other things that lack evidence.
I don't have to explain that I'm gnostic in my disbelief of vampires even though if a vampire was biting on my neck I'd believe in them. If I saw a sleigh pulled by reindeer flying through the sky, I'd believe in Santa, but absent any evidence and lots of reasons to believe Santa is impossible as an all-knowing, seemingly time-stopping magical being, I don't think we need a qualifier like "gnostic" or "agnostic" when discussing disbelief in Santa, because it is "impossible to know."
Gnostic and Agnostic seems like gotcha terminology for religious folk that capitalize on the more scientific view that if there is proof/evidence something exists, I will believe in it, but until then I will use reason to believe it does not to suggest there is a class of atheists that seems open to the idea of religion and another that doesn't. In reality, if you're starting from the atheist side, it's more:
"I am certain gods do not exist in the same way I am certain vampires and Santa Claus don't exist, in that unless and until reliable evidence is available to suggest they do there is no reason to believe in them. But as with any of my beliefs, if reliable evidence or proof is offered I'm willing to reconsider my position."
It's not coming from a religious position. Theistic religions tout gnostic theism, full stop. The reason agnostic vs gnostic atheism is a thing is purely because belief in god is such a big deal socially. It's a claim that can't help but be addressed because of how ingrained it is in everyday life (particularly in the US). If people were inclined to discriminate against you based on your belief or non-belief in vampires or Santa Claus, then your stance on them would be just as prominent. Your quote at the bottom is agnostic atheism, but it doesn't necessarily say anything about being "open to religion." If there were some sort of proof that a god or gods existed, it doesn't mean that any religion is correct about them. For example, I know for a fact that the god of the Bible does not exist because he's a clearly defined character and the nature of the world disproves his existence. However, I don't claim to know that no gods exist, period.
Do gnostic atheist even exist? I think the distinction is only there to tease people who think that you can really know anything..
They do, and people who think they know everything are very unpleasant to talk to!
Ugh, I can imagine. I think gnostic $anything$ would be unpleasant to talk to.
The gnostic/agnostic atheist/theist distinction is quite useful. Also the words are fun to pronounce/spell so that's a bonus
And a general rule is that both gnostic atheists and gnostic theists are insufferable.