Yeah, I know that gnostic atheism is a theoretical position to hold, but I’ve never actually met an atheist that holds that view. The vast, vast majority of atheists ascribe to a scientific world view that is based around the concepts of evidence and burden or proof. As such, trying to argue belief in the non-existence of a non-existent being (i.e. “I firmly believe that God definitely doesn’t exist”) is not compatible with that logic, whereas “I don’t believe in God, because there isn’t enough evidence” is.
When it comes to explaining atheism to religious friends and family members, I’ve found the best approach to be this: Ask them if they believe in any other Gods except their own (Zeus, Ganesh, The Yellow Emperor, etc.) When they say no, you say “Ok, so my list of Gods I Don’t Believe In is one longer than yours.”
I’d say that, given what I explained, if your certainty based on the burden of proof, you are a gnostic by definition of the original word, gnosis (knowledge in Greek). You have a belief in the certainty of the proof, that if no knowledge exists of something, it doesn’t exist (or is not relevant enough to discuss it).
In fact, most atheists I know of are gnostic too, in the literal sense of gnosticism not the heretical movement that appeared in the second century of the Christian church that I had no idea existed. Most agnostic people I know of don’t subscribe to either atheism or theism, they just accept the uncertainty of the theos.
My relatives are way more annoying than that lol, getting into their theories and expanding on them usually hurts their brain and they leave me alone haha.
In any case, since this is mostly about the concepts of belief it will be hard to reach a consensus, so I’ll leave at this. It was a pleasure discussing with you.
Yeah, I know that gnostic atheism is a theoretical position to hold, but I’ve never actually met an atheist that holds that view. The vast, vast majority of atheists ascribe to a scientific world view that is based around the concepts of evidence and burden or proof. As such, trying to argue belief in the non-existence of a non-existent being (i.e. “I firmly believe that God definitely doesn’t exist”) is not compatible with that logic, whereas “I don’t believe in God, because there isn’t enough evidence” is.
When it comes to explaining atheism to religious friends and family members, I’ve found the best approach to be this: Ask them if they believe in any other Gods except their own (Zeus, Ganesh, The Yellow Emperor, etc.) When they say no, you say “Ok, so my list of Gods I Don’t Believe In is one longer than yours.”
I’d say that, given what I explained, if your certainty based on the burden of proof, you are a gnostic by definition of the original word, gnosis (knowledge in Greek). You have a belief in the certainty of the proof, that if no knowledge exists of something, it doesn’t exist (or is not relevant enough to discuss it).
In fact, most atheists I know of are gnostic too, in the literal sense of gnosticism not the heretical movement that appeared in the second century of the Christian church that I had no idea existed. Most agnostic people I know of don’t subscribe to either atheism or theism, they just accept the uncertainty of the theos.
My relatives are way more annoying than that lol, getting into their theories and expanding on them usually hurts their brain and they leave me alone haha.
In any case, since this is mostly about the concepts of belief it will be hard to reach a consensus, so I’ll leave at this. It was a pleasure discussing with you.