Me personally? I’ve become much less tolerant of sexist humor. Back in the day, cracking a joke at women’s expense was pretty common when I was a teen. As I’ve matured and become aware to the horrific extent of toxicity and bigotry pervading all tiers of our individualistic society, I’ve come to see how exclusionarly and objectifying that sort of ‘humor’ really is, and I regret it deeply.
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.