[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 34 KB, 500x429, atheist_chart.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459594 No.3459594 [Reply] [Original]

Explain this shit.

I found this on the internets and I can't figure out what a "gnostic atheist" is supposed to be.

>> No.3459604
File: 82 KB, 664x762, agnosticism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459604

>> No.3459601

"I know that there is no god"

>> No.3459608

According to wikipedia Gnosticism "is a scholarly term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual practices".

>atheist
>religious beliefs
>spiritual practices

lol no

>> No.3459618

That's because there are no gnostic atheists, or hardly any. It's a technically correct chart, it just doesn't represent the real situation. One is not an agnostic theist in the same way one is an agnostic atheist. You can't be unsure about whether god exists or not, but be certain about which god it is that might or might not exist.

Atheist-theist is a better dichotomy. Religious-irreligious is a better dichotomy. Secular-nonsecular is a better dichotomy. Gnostic-agnostic is just a way to hedge another statement.

>> No.3459623

>>3459618
>technical correct chart
>doesn't represent the real situation

Did you learn this logic from the bible?

>> No.3459626

>>3459608
The entire point of the gnostic atheist is that it is when atheism becomes a religion.

It is fairly rare, but I personally know such a person. I suspect it is more common in cultures where theism is uncommon--the irrational, faith-obsessed types adopt a faith-based flavor of atheism instead.

>> No.3459638

>>3459608
"Gnostic" simply means "with knowledge", just as "agnostic" means "without knowledge".

You can claim to be a gnostic atheist, although you'd be part of a rare breed. The only qualification for gnostic atheism is "knowing that a god does not exist". They will affirm the positive, whereas the agnostic atheist will simply say, "I do not believe god exists."

>> No.3459640

>>3459623

It's technically correct as in, atheist-theist and gnostic-agnostic are two different scales.

But it doesn't represent the real situation because gnostic-atheist and agnostic-theist are vanishingly rare categories, and they are not really logical positions to begin with, and upon further discussion you find that self-professed gnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists are just bullshitting and really hold the agnostic-atheist or gnostic-theist positions.

>> No.3459643

If you believe there is a 0.00000001% chance god exists you're not an atheist.

>> No.3459644

>>3459638
>"Gnostic" simply means "with knowledge"

But that's wrong, you retard.

"Gnostic" means "with belief".

>> No.3459646

>>3459643

And if you believe there is no way to know the chance, because there is no data on the subject whatsoever?

If you don't believe there is a god, you are an atheist. If you think there could be one, but you still don't think there IS one, you are an atheist.

>> No.3459654

>>3459644

>"Gnostic" means "with belief".

Kill yourself.

>> No.3459661

>>3459654
Excuse me?
I didn't get the point of your post.
You agree with me and your limited intelligence couldn't find better words than "kill yourself"?

>> No.3459677

>>3459661
Not that guy, but the greek root "gnōsis" means "knowledge".

>> No.3459680

>>3459677

[quote wikipedia]
Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In the context of the English language gnosis generally refers to the word's meaning within the spheres of Christian mysticism and Gnosticism where it signifies 'spiritual knowledge' in the sense of mystical enlightenment.
[/quote]

>spiritual knowledge

>> No.3459685

>>3459680
And? The point is that gnostic atheist says "I know that God does not exist", what an agnostic atheist says "I do not believe that God exists".

>> No.3459689

>>3459680
You're really grasping at straws here. Just admit you were wrong. Or better yet, leave /sci/.

>> No.3459708

>>3459685
>>3459689

Atheists are defined by the absence of belief.
An atheist is not a person who "believes" there is no god,
but he's a person who DOESN'T believe in a god.

That's why "gnostic" and "atheist" cannot be combined.

>> No.3459710

>>3459680

Sure, and Cognitive Scientists are actually dissecting spiritual energy and analyzing its effects on rainbow ponies and ancient aliens.
Fuck you are one dense motherfucking idiot

>> No.3459712

>>3459646
That's not what the dictionary says.

>> No.3459721
File: 569 KB, 300x169, 1309090314200.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459721

>>3459710
>rainbow ponies

>> No.3459717

>>3459708

>Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

Try again retard.

>> No.3459723

>>3459708
>An atheist is not a person who "believes" there is no god, but he's a person who DOESN'T believe in a god.
No. Both of those are nothing more than assigning a low truth value to the statement "there is a god". The distinction you make is an illusion - just like whether a glass is almost completely empty or has only a very small amount in it. Same damn thing.

Unless you want to tell me that rocks are atheists, because they don't believe anything.

>> No.3459727

>>3459710
>>3459717

I thought /sci/ was smarter. But obviously I'm surrounded by total idiots.

>> No.3459734

hey guys, I have another definition of atheist

its a nigger who prays to darwin and dawkins

>> No.3459737

>>3459723
So you believe rocks believe in god?

>> No.3459747

>>3459723
Since you can't state any objective truth when it comes to psychological phenomena, my distinction is important.
Atheists or people claiming to be atheist have different attitudes towards the statement "there is no god".

>> No.3459762

>>3459723

It's assigning a zero truth value to god. When something happens that makes god more plausible than any explicitly fictional character, we can assign a non-zero value to god.

>> No.3459771

>>3459737
No, they don't believe ANYTHING. You see, their "believe in God" cup isn't empty - they're just no cup.

Any person with a concept of God also has tacitly assigned some truth value to the statement "God exists". Atheists are just the people who assign a low truth value. A truly hardcore Gnostic Atheist would assign a value of 0, which is retarded. You can't justify that level of certainty for any ontological statement.

>> No.3459776

>>3459762
>zero truth value
You're a poor rationalist.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities/

>> No.3459783

>>3459776

But we don't have a foundation for ANY probabilities for god. It's not like there is some evidence one way and some evidence the other way, there is literally nothing that distinguishes it from a fiction. So it's zero in the sense that, it's not a probability at all, it's an unsubstantiated claim.

What probability do you assign to the existence of Dr. Manhattan, for example?

>> No.3459784

>>3459762
>implying only the most likely possibility has a nonzero truth value
No. Not even you think in this manner. You can't update the probability of a belief once you have assigned literally ZERO truth value.

>> No.3459786

>>3459784

It's not about likelihood. We have no data on it at all.

see
>>3459783

>> No.3459788

>>3459783
>So it's zero in the sense that, it's not a probability at all, it's an unsubstantiated claim.
Again, you're a piss-poor rationalist. Knowing absolutely nothing about the likelihood of a statement being true means a truth value of 0.5.

Being very sure that something is no true means a very low truth value.

But ZERO? Zero is not a reachable truth value. If nothing else, radical skepticism should teach you this.

Seriously, read that article.

>> No.3459791

>>3459786
You haven't worked with this very much.
>>3459788
>Knowing absolutely nothing about the likelihood of a statement being true means a truth value of 0.5.

>> No.3459795

>>3459788

Can you be serious? For things we have no data on, but there are two possibilities, the probability is 0.5 for both? Fifty-fifty? No sir. It's fifty-fifty if Dr. Manhattan exists or not?

>> No.3459796
File: 60 KB, 500x459, 4917142385_cf321e5668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459796

>/sci/
>Religion

>> No.3459799

>>3459795
>It's fifty-fifty if Dr. Manhattan exists or not?
On Earth? We have excellent evidence to suggest that he does NOT exist on Earth. So I assign it a very low truth value. But ZERO?

You're just not thinking clearly about the implications of what that means.

>> No.3459801

>>3459795
Do we know what Dr. Manhattan is?

Yes?

Then we have data.

Seriously, think a little.

>> No.3459807

>>3459801
I think that just means that the statement has content. The evidence for or against the truth of the statement comes from observation.

And observations strongly suggest that he isn't around here, and never has been. Can't rule it out perfectly though.

>> No.3459809

>>3459799

But for something with no data whatsoever, like god, we can't say it's fifty-fifty. It's unknown. Not zero, I should have been more clear, but unknown. This means that I put zero stock in claims until data is presented. If I were forced to assign probability to it, I would say virtually zero until something is presented to change that. But I do not think a probability can be assigned to something for which we have no data so I would normally not talk about god in those terms. Instead I would say that god is simply equivalent to any fictional character, until something is presented that shows it isn't.

>> No.3459812

>>3459795
I have a coin in my pocket. True or false?

If you have no data at all with which to inform your belief, then the Bayesian priors are a 50/50 chance. It's equivalent to "I don't know".

>> No.3459816

>>3459809
Unknown? No, you don't get it. 50/50 MEANS unknown. You're still on the spectrum of belief, but just in the area of least certainty.

But most people feel they have better data than that, and update their beliefs accordingly. Some do it more rationally than others.

>> No.3459818

What if I belive there is a 50% chance that there is a god?

What I am?

inb4 a fag

>> No.3459822

>>3459812

But you either have a coin in your pocket or not. And you are the one who brought the claim to me. And besides, nobody is asked to bet their life on the coin in your pocket.

With god, someone has declared it exists. They then provide no data that distinguishes that claim from fiction. So is it fifty-fifty that god exists, or do we assume it is fiction until someone shows us otherwise?

>> No.3459823

>>3459809
You believe you have data which strongly suggests that God does not exist, and that's fine. But you say you don't have ANY data, and yet claim a low truth value. This is not consistent.

>> No.3459829

>>3459816

Fifty-fifty does not mean unknown. Perhaps as a conceit to building a model one may assign unknowns to a value of fifty-fifty. But it does not mean that any claim for which we have no data has an equal chance of being true or false.

Okay, the coin. I have a coin in my pocket, or not. Fifty-fifty?

I have a dragon in my garage, or not. Fifty-fifty?

Jupiter is green when we are not looking, or not. Fifty-fifty?

God exists, or not. Fifty-fifty?

>> No.3459830

>>3459594

this is just some Horseshit an Agnostic Troll dreamed up.
it is wrong. I am a Platonist AND an Atheist. Agnostic REALLY means "I don't give a fuck."

>> No.3459831

>>3459822
>With god, someone has declared it exists. They then provide no data that distinguishes that claim from fiction. So is it fifty-fifty that god exists, or do we assume it is fiction until someone shows us otherwise?
The beliefs being updated are YOURS, and you update from the data available to you. You see, we gain a lot of knowledge as we grow up - about what the world is like, how it works, what kinds of things it contains. This *is* data. And now you're using that data to inform your belief in new statements - and that is good.

You just don't realize you're using that data, and claim you don't have any data. Don't kid yourself, you have a lot of data.

Newborn children are the only people with no data. And even that is arguable, given in-utero brain function.

>> No.3459832

>>3459823

My only data, by definition, is the lack of credible claims on the part of those who say god does exist. If they never said god existed in the first place, I would not be an atheist, since I never would have had an idea about god in the first place.

>> No.3459834

>>3459829
Again, you're assuming I actually have no data with would inform my belief on those statements. Think about it, and you'll find that is not true.

But having a coin in my pocket? I'm pretty sure you don't have any data to make the one option more likely than the other.

>> No.3459836

>>3459832
Never restrict your data. It's a bias, and it is wrong.

Besides, that's not what you're doing. You are very much using data to inform your belief in a statement that someone else has presented.

>> No.3459837

>>3459830
>Agnostic REALLY means "I don't give a fuck."

Thinking in this logic leads to the conclusion
>Gnostic means "I give a fuck"

But atheists don't give a fuck about god cause they don't believe in him. Therfore there is no such thing as a "gnostic atheist".

>> No.3459838

>>3459832
>I would not be an atheist, since I never would have had an idea about god in the first place.

Actually, you would.

>> No.3459839

>>3459831

I have data in the way that I have heard peoples claims about god. No credible or verifiable sources have ever been presented for these claims, so they are indistinguishable from fiction. The only thing that sets them apart from fiction is that some people really believe them.

>> No.3459842

>>3459839
You're really not part of the same conversation as the rest of us here. The data presented by people making a statement is not the only data available to you.

>> No.3459848

>>3459836

Okay. Someone has presented the claim that god exists. They cannot back it up with anything more than their strong conviction. So I dismiss it until further data comes to light.

>>3459838

We wouldn't need a word for atheist is someone hadn't proposed god. It's a term precisely like a-unicorn-ist or a-fairy-ist or a-greenmonster-ist. We are all a-greenmonster-ists, but until someone says there really is a green monster, we don't know it and we don't care.

>> No.3459857

ITT: People who are and aren't familiar with Bayesian priors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability

Assuming a very low truth value of all statements is an informative prior, i.e., it represents belief in the probably falsehood of the statement. Informative priors had better come from previously obtained data, or this isn't rational.

Leaving something aside and reserving "judgment" until you have further data is just a way of saying you have an uninformative prior. Like the 50/50 chance of whether the anon has a coin in his pocket.

>> No.3459859

>>3459842

What else? My experience of the natural world, in which no evidence of divine agency can be found. Then we have claims that there is divine agency at work, but the evidence is not presented.


No, sirs. Until someone presents something a bit more than a claim, god has the same probability, and we have the same data on it, as any fictional character.

>> No.3459866

>>3459862
Nice.

>> No.3459862

>>3459857
You can't come up with mathematics here. It's a discussion about religion, philosophy and uncertain definitions.

Your shit belongs to >>>/sci/

>> No.3459863

>>3459848
I present to you the statement that tomorrow will be Thursday. Do you give a shit whether I back up my statement? Do you say "not fucking likely, come back with proof"?

No. You already have quite a bit of data, and you have used it to inform your priors.

>> No.3459869

>>3459859
>My experience of the natural world, in which no evidence of divine agency can be found.
That's data against the claim, dipshit. That's the whole point.

>> No.3459873

>>3459863

Yes. I have a lot of data on days of the week, the order in which they come and the current day.

For god, the only data is claims and conviction. Nothing that suggests it is real, only things that suggest people think it's real.

>> No.3459875

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

explains this pretty good

>> No.3459881

>>3459859
You think you're exercising critical thinking, but you just don't know how that translates into truth values. Assuming a high truth value for statements with no data to support them is just as irrational as assuming a low truth value for statements with no data against them.

But we have quite a bit of data, and this gives us a low truth value for quite a few statements that might be presented. Like dragons.

>> No.3459884

>>3459869

It's not data against the deistic god claim, one that apologists retreat to. For that god, we just have someones word on it and nothing else. Arguing a theistic god is asinine, since such a concept has been thoroughly discredited. I'm sorry that we were arguing at cross-purposes because of this, it's my bad.

>> No.3459888

>>3459873
If you look in my pocket and there is no coin, that is data. If you look around the world and you see no God, that is data too.

>> No.3459889
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1300044776986..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459889

>not believing in our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.
>2011

All this chart does is use semantics to turn agnostics into atheist minions. The atheistic religion is failing. There are many flaws in your doctrine of evolution, your "big bang theory" is nothing more than a crazy guess, and you fail to recognize that a God could only have created the universe. Your days are numbered as a religion. Soon the word of Christ will be within every corner of the world, and you will listen to our message.

>> No.3459895

>>3459884
Apologies, then. By default, God implies to me a theistic Abrahamic god, in the context I thought we were in.

>> No.3459909
File: 14 KB, 326x249, troll_aproaches.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459909

>>3459889

>> No.3459956
File: 33 KB, 350x357, 1310774240619.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3459956

How can atheists be a religion if they can't even define what they are?

>> No.3460441

>>3459889
do you have Jesus inside you?
did Jesus come inside you?

>> No.3460468

>>3459723
not true. if no man worshipped Jesus Christ, the rocks themselves would.

>> No.3460473

>>3459857
ah, yes, the theory that just poked a huge hole in the "there must be intelligent life everywhere" hypothesis

science against science. always entertaining.

>> No.3460476

>>3459881
um, there were and are dragons

lrn2komodo

>> No.3460522

>>3460468
so you're saying if Jesus couldn't get any Christfags.. he would come inside rocks? that actually sounds pretty badass.

>> No.3460538

OP's pic is wrong. Agnostic Atheist is strong. Agnostic Theist is weak.
Gnostic Theism and Atheism are both retarded.

>> No.3460540

He knows that god doesnt exist

/thread

>> No.3460542

>>3460538
>implying agnostic theism isn't

>> No.3460563

>>3460522
yup, and if the joos all deserted Him, He'd make joos out of rocks too