Can I get some help with this sort of debate?

[Undecillion]

typically when I am debating against the rationality of religion, I usually pwon up until they bring up gnosis, I'm not entirely sure what gnosis is but according to dictionary.com it is "knowledge of spiritual matters"

My opponent often claims that gnosis is just as reliable as any of our other senses. because your senses can't actually be proven reliable just like gnosis. So apparently gnosis perfectly justifies beliefs based on non-empirical evidence.

could anyone please help me on this?
If I can win this part of the debate I can handle just about anything else they can stir up, cause I've been debating against religion for like 3 years now.... (obsessed sweatdrop )  

[B1g_crunch]

Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) refers to diverse, syncretistic religious movements in antiquity consisting of various belief systems generally united in the teaching that humans are divine souls trapped in a material world created by an imperfect god.

My arguement against this would be along the lines of "on the basis that there is no god, your statements of gnosticism are rendered moot".  

[Captain_Shinzo]

Gnosis, in small terms, is personal experience with super-natural beings.

In my definition, it is utter bullshit from the state of mind.
Although he is implying that you can't deny that he/she has had the experiences, he/she can't say the experiences are of actual fact.
Just because we sneeze ad the snot forms a face of Lincoln doesn't mean he is talking to us from the dead.
In other words, he/she can't say fact from personal experience because YOU don't know that personal experience.

In other words, use the following line:

" Personal experience can not be in a debate such as this due to the fact that it may not be true or false due to the evidence you provided. Did you even PROVIDE evidence? You say you don't need evidence, but that is because you saw this. However, I did not. "

Personal experiences were thought to be the winning argument for Christian yet has also come under fall just like Pascal's Wager.

If you need more information with an actual debate information, use this link here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3uOr2WnZO4

Sometime in here, you will meet the part.
Take note that Tooltime9901 is alittle louder then VenomFangX.  

[Eccentric Detective]

In my bible study class, we talked about "Gnostic" Christians, who essentially believed that Jesus came to bring knowledge to those few smartical people who were clever enough to think that there was hidden meaning in his words. It's an interesting subject. Some would even kill themselves because they thought it was the only way to escape, so to speak, the physical realm they were trapped in.

Somehow, I don't think this is at all related to what you're talking about... lol  

[Raticiel]

tearingXheavenXdown

In my bible study class, we talked about "Gnostic" Christians, who essentially believed that Jesus came to bring knowledge to those few smartical people who were clever enough to think that there was hidden meaning in his words. It's an interesting subject. Some would even kill themselves because they thought it was the only way to escape, so to speak, the physical realm they were trapped in.

Somehow, I don't think this is at all related to what you're talking about... lol

It is related if we want to talk about "gnosticism" as cult/religion. In philosophy: check out Plato first. Gnosis is opposite to agnosis (impossibility of obtaining "da knowledge"), so it basically says "we can, omigod, yes we can!" or even we actually "do". Or we can but we need to know how. There are various interpretations. For religious movements it's an easy way to borrow a nice sounding exotic word as a part of advertising.