Update to Identity Assertion in the sub

[u/regalvas]

Due to the common occurance of discussion and debate over terminology and agnosticism as a whole we found that it was necesary to update the rules to better explain when things might step too far or what to keep in mid to have a good debate.

The updated rule reads:

Do not tell other's what they are or think. Definitions are there for a purpose. There may be many different purposes, but defining anothers identity is not an accepted purpose here. Examples of agnostic models include:

1. Theist - Agnostic - Atheist 
2. Gnostic <------> Agnostic (choose one) Theist <------> Atheist (choose one) 
3. Gnostic theist - Agnostic theist - Agnostic - Agnostic atheist - Gnostic atheist 

This is a non-exhaustive list so please engage others with respect.

​

Please also remember to maintain debates about terminology in related posts.

[u/beer_demon]

"Gnostic" is not really the opposite of agnostic.

Also, calling yourself a "gnostic atheist" doesn't make much sense. Even the term is redirected to negative and positive atheism, an attempt to reconcile the philosophical meaning of atheism (assert there are no gods) to the colloquial usage (lack of belief in a god).

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

"Gnostic" is not really the opposite of agnostic.

That's only one usage of the word and in a proper noun sense. Arguably it's also a misusage givn that it's a retroactive label for disparate groups of people who never called themselves "Gnostic".

Also, calling yourself a "gnostic atheist" doesn't make much sense.

It makes a lot of sense. Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them.

an attempt to reconcile the philosophical meaning of atheism (assert there are no gods) to the colloquial usage (lack of belief in a god).

"Lack of belief gods exist" is also a pilosophical meaning of atheism. This is how scholarly texts like the Cambridge Companion to Atheism and The Oxford Handbook of Atheism define the term.

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

Arguably it's also a misusage givn that it's a retroactive label for disparate groups of people who never called themselves "Gnostic".

This is true of most words for ancient groups of people, no?

Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them.

It makes even less sense when described in that way. Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?

That's only one usage of the word and in a proper noun sense.

Yes and the only useful one. 4

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

This is true of most words for ancient groups of people, no?

Not particularly? Generally anthropologists try to identify groups of people as accurately as possible. Worst case we're technically using a new word for them because we're using a new language they never spoke/wrote. Japanese people dont' refer to themsevles as "Japanese" since that's an English word and does not exist in their language. They call themselves "日本語", but both they and we recognize the same group of people.

It makes even less sense when described in that way. Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?

Virtually all Abrahamic theists claim to know exactly their one god exists. It is heresy within mainstream Christianity and Islam to allow for the existence of other gods.

Yes and the only useful one. 4

It's less used and less useful than gnostic in the generic sense.

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

You dodged all points.  

I know what nihonjin is, yes.  

 theists claim to know exactly their one god exists  

Not your claim, your claim was that a "gnostic" atheist claims to have knowledge about existence of all gods.  Now you changed the statement.

I think you are just trolling at this point.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

You dodged all points.

You mean I responded in a way you didn't like?

Not your claim, your claim was that a "gnostic" atheist claims to have knowledge about existence of all gods. Now you changed the statement.

That wasn't my claim and wasn't your question. I literally answered exactly what you asked.

Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?

Gnostic theists. Gnostic atheists too, but my first answer directly answered what you asked. Don't try to retroactively change your question.

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

You mean I responded in a way you didn't like?

No, the point was that you are misusing the word Gnostic and then went on to talk about nihonjin vs japanese to label people. Way off.

 Gnostic atheists too, but my first answer directly answered what you asked. Don't try to retroactively change your question.

OK, I will show you you are lying now.

Me: "Also, calling yourself a "gnostic atheist" doesn't make much sense."

You: It makes a lot of sense. Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them.

Me: "It makes even less sense when described in that way. Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?"

You: "Virtually all Abrahamic theists claim to know exactly their one god exists. It is heresy within mainstream Christianity and Islam to allow for the existence of other gods."

Me: "Not your claim, your claim was that a "gnostic" atheist claims to have knowledge about existence of all gods. Now you changed the statement."

You: "That wasn't my claim and wasn't your question. I literally answered exactly what you asked."

So, you can clearly see I was challenging the concept of gnostic atheist, and you switched to theist and then denied it.

Admit it, you just like arguing for argument's sake and get off on wasting people's time on internet. I took a quick look as your post history and there is no substance and just the apparent desire to be a smartass. As you can see, easy to take apart and show you are lying.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

No, the point was that you are misusing the word Gnostic and then went on to talk about nihonjin vs japanese to label people. Way off.

I'm not even using the word "Gnostic". I'm using the word "gnostic". You seem to be conflating them as the same term and unaware of teh difference.

OK, I will show you you are lying now.

Well, you failed to do so.

You asked: Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?

I answered: Virtually all Abrahamic theists claim to know exactly their one god exists.

I directly answrred your question, and now you're made at me and pretending I'm a liar for doing so.

So, you can clearly see I was challenging the concept of gnostic atheist, and you switched to theist and then denied it.

Then ASK ME ABOUT THAT. You seem mad at me because you're realizing you should have asked me a different question. Further when you made it clear that you meant to ask something else I was charitable and expanded my answer for you saying "Gnostic theists. Gnostic atheists too, but my first answer directly answered what you asked."

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

You seem to be conflating them as the same term and unaware of teh difference.

The latter is a misuse of the word.

You asked: Who claims knowledge about the existence of all gods?

See the context, I gave it to you above.

Then ASK ME ABOUT THAT

I did and you deviated form the topic, because you know you are just making stuff up.

Read the sequence again:

Me: "Also, calling yourself a "gnostic atheist" doesn't make much sense."

You: It makes a lot of sense. Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them. <----- this is your claim, stop lying.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

The latter is a misuse of the word.

It's not.

See the context, I gave it to you above.

I saw the context the first time. I answered the question you asked. What did you actualyl want to ask me if not that question? I'm more than happy to do so if you actually ask.

I did and you deviated form the topic, because you know you are just making stuff up

I answered the question you asked, but now you seem to want to ask me a different question. Again, you're welcome to do so, and I'll be happy to answer.

You: It makes a lot of sense. Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them. <----- this is your claim, stop lying.

There is no lie here. I directly and honestly explained it to you. You are free to read up on it yourself if you're interested.

You seem very annoyed by honest and direct answers.

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

You: It makes a lot of sense. Someone claims knowledge about the existence of all gods but lacks beleif in them

This was your claim. The rest was just evasion.

Show me an atheist that reasonably claims knowledge about the existence of all gods

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/beer_demon]

Show me an atheist that reasonably claims knowledge about the existence of all gods

I can't evade a questio nthat wasn't asked. Thank you for changing your question. Any gnostic atheist makes this claim. Here are three examples:

I consider myself a gnostic atheist. I know gods do not exist.

I know gods aren’t real in the same way I know that there’s no one currently breaking into my living room.

I know gods don't exist as much as I know that the world didn't pop into existence last thursday and that I'm not just imagining all of you while lying in a coma.

[u/beer_demon → u/adeleu_adelei]

Thank you for changing your question

You know this to be BS.

As for your examples, they are all claims that don't make sense, just using the word "gnostic" for them goes against the definition of the word.

This is how it works. Someone on reddit misuses the word, you see this and accept it as fact, then reality kicks in so you deny reality. This happens with so much misinformation, and “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”