No. The terms are about two entirely different things, and always have been.
The position on knowledge that gnostic/agnostic describes is innately different than a claim about belief in god.
Protagoras in ancient greece has an early example of agnosticism.
Fair enough. Carry on!
No offense taken.
The idea i got out of your post is that you see atheists as people rebelling against authority.
I responded that it would be dumb to argue against an authority you dont think exists, but rather the argument is against blind faith, Which does have real downsides.
I think it is a mischaracterization of your initial post to claim that you discuss “some” atheists. You were quite clear that the majority of atheists are angsty anti rules people.
My argument above is not that you believe in unhealthy things, rather that blind faith has unhealthy aspects that shouldn’t be ignored.
I don’t disagree entirely with what you’ve said, (here comes the but) BUT
Faith is all about individualism until someone in the community says “sorry I don’t believe in that, no matter what I do, I just am not convinced.”
Seen too many families torn apart because a mom/dad are so concerned over their children’s eternal fate that they drive them away in real life.
Seen too many family members have blind faith in something and then die of something that was treatable, leaving behind children who are now without a parent.
Sorry, faith (as something that is not falsifiable) is threatened by any claim to the contrary. Don’t think the same? You are a threat.
It’s easy to preach tolerance when you don’t interact with someone in real life, but I have yet to meet a religious person who will see someone for what they do and not for what they claim to think.
Cheers and MAGA on. It is cool that people who disagree on so many things can still find common ground.
Way to be just as much of a gatekeeping ass as the ones OP is rightly decrying.
This is about Atheists. Communism just replaces whatever local brand of religion with the government as god.
Screw that drivel. Atheism and communism are not the same thing.
Also screw communism.
MAGA TRUMP 2020
Just throwing it out there, by your own description you would be an agnostic atheist.
Not that I disagree with labeling yourself as agnostic when talking to others... I live in an environment where saying “sorry, i don’t believe” gets me nothing but scorn.
MAGA on!
There are no people who don’t believe in god? Hard disagree there. Sample size of 1.
Gnostic/Agnostic - about knowledge
Theist/Atheist - about belief(s) in god(s)
These sets are about different concepts, and you can mix and match labels from each set. Ex: gnostic theist & agnostic atheist are two of the combinations.
Gnostic theist says: I believe in God and I believe that God can be proven to be real.
Agnostic Atheist says: I do not believe in god and believe that god’s existence can’t be proven one way or another.
MAGA on. TRUMP 2020
Hard disagree. You can be agnostic & theist, agnostic & atheist, gnostic & theist, gnostic & atheist.
Gnostic/Agnostic is a position on knowledge.
Theist/Atheist is a position on belief.
Gnostic/Agnostic: the truth of a claim is knowable/unknowable.
Theist/Atheist: I do/do not believe
MAGA on!
Not sure if you mean it this way or not, but I see a ton of confusion around these two terms so I’ll clarify just in case, if I interpreted your post wrong then maybe this will help random browsers.
Gnostic/Agnostic
Theist/Atheist
Are two entirely different sets of labels that talk about two entirely different sets of ideas.
Gnostic: Claim about knowledge - “I believe that x can be proven to be true”.
Agnostic: Claim about knowledge - “I believe that x cannot be proven true or false”
Theist: Claim about belief in God(s) - “I believe in God(s)”
Atheist: Claim about belief in god(s) - “I do not believe in god(s)”
You can mix and match from the two sets.
Gnostic Theist: I believe in God and I believe God can be proven to be real.
Agnostic Theist: I believe in God and I believe God’s existence is something cannot be proven one way or another.
Etc Etc.
MAGA on!
Had to stop and comment here.
-
In keeping with the thread, atheists who go out of their way to be asses are unhelpful at best.
-
That being said, many atheists ARE anti-faith. Many (myself included) have had/seen their families torn apart by people who put blind faith in something, and then demanding that their loved ones follow suit.
-Lives lost. -Relationships destroyed. -People living in fear for their loved ones. Afraid that they will suffer for eternity etc etc.
Sorry, I don’t buy that as healthy behavior.
Sorry, people aren’t convinced by the same things you are, whatever they happen to be, regardless of their usefulness in your life.
You ARE correct that it does not make sense to hate on something they claim does not exist. - It doesn’t -
It does make sense to attack the concepts of faith and belief.
Just like with leftists, it’s all harmony and roses until someone says “sorry, I just don’t experience or see things that way”
That being said... OP is right that people who go around to “asking for prayers” threads just to be dicks are being generally awful and unhelpful.
MAGA on. Trump 2020
You are absolutely correct on the definition of faith.
And this IS the definition that I am talking about.
There are plenty of reasons someone might be convinced about something, be it politics or religion or otherwise.
The danger is in looking at what you consider evidence and how you might expect that to inform someone.
As i probably should have said this in my original post, This is not an attack on believers.
This is a warning that taking something personally convincing (personal experience and holy book in this case), and expecting that this should suffice for others, is dangerous.
There are many religions who have conviction in their lives, hope and expectations. These in and of themselves are not innately bad.
Personal experience and inspired writings are claims made in good faith by many people, in many traditions. This is also fine.
The danger is when this personal conviction is mistaken for absolute truth in what the convictions are about. (Again, not saying this is what you are doing, just that this is the danger with faith. Yes, this means atheists fall in this too cough dawkins cough)
My original point is that:
I disagree with the painting of the opposition as irrational angst (even when they act like it).
There are legitimate concerns when discussing faith as a virtue. All sides can fall to it, but I targeted the post at theism in general because religion are the ones who promote faith itself as something to want. This is seeking conviction over substance. That’s the unhealthy bit.
That being said, I have no way of knowing how you live your life, or what you think, etc. so these critiques are an attack on the concepts in general, not anyone or any brand in particular.
Thanks for the comment and thanks for not telling me to fuck myself. I genuinely enjoy these things :D
Cheers!