I believe there is no God.

[Violet]

The burden of proof is on the believer.

And you believe there is no God. What's your point?

I mean "merely believe" as opposed to "believe and believe that I know"

Believing is knowing.... 'merely' believing is still knowing

That doesn't make me a gnostic or strong atheist. To be a gnostic or strong atheist I'd have to believe that I KNOW that God doesn't exist. I don't believe that.

You actually do, and are performing something I like to call 'denial'

Even if you know that knowledge is adaptable and that your interpretation might change: your current form is assertive that there is no god.

No. Then I wouldn't "know" I'd just think I knew.

/yawn: you would know. There is no difference in the mind of the thinker between believing that pigs can fly and believing that pigs cannot fly. Perhaps the reality of the matter is that they both can and cannot, depending on what thinker is perceiving (that wether by imagination or their eyes or their scientific instruments).

You can know 2+2 is 4, or you can know 1+3 is 5, or you can know that 38472 - 38472 is to delete the cosmos.... and you can be right or wrong with that knowledge: but knowing comes before one's knowledge being correct or correct in only some situations or even not correct insofar as I can throw a planet with a flick of my pinkie.

(I don't know there's no God because I'm not aware of his nonexistence because his nonexistence is indistinguishable from him doing some really good hiding.)

I don't believe I know there is no God (mostly because of the above point in brackets) so I'm not a gnostic atheist.

If you insist, then I'm afraid you don't believe there is no god, and should probably stop insisting that you do I know there is no God (save in some circumstances, ie: the minds of believers and non-believers alike), and I don't need to prove His lack of existence to anyone but myself. Just like I believe there are no unicorns, and there are no dragons, and there are no mousetraps that will chase after me in midair in attempt to eat me alive (yet), my knowledge of the nonexistence of some things is responsible for my firm belief that they do not exist, and this applies to gods and God and monkeys accurately wielding flamethrowers alike

No you don't because if you were to win the lottery that's proof you didn't really know it. How could you know it? How can you know you won't win? You can merely be sure that you won't.... however unlikely it is, it doesn't prove it's impossible.

Causality isn't even proven, however sure we can be that it exists we don't know that it does.

<--- already explained that knowledge is the same experience whether right or wrong. I feel like you're using this argument: "You're not a real scotsman"... it's knowledge... it is real... it can be wrong... it can lead people to a meal.

How do I know I wont win? I evaluate the chances of me winning, and come to the conclusion that it will not happen. Hence: knowledge that I would not win. There is a small (very small) chance that I could be wrong, but it would hardly be pragmatic of me to think so

Causality is proven to me, Doubtie. Proof (which you seem to tout about so highly) is as subjective as the evidence that led one to it. I know I won't win and will have wasted my money, nothing 'mere' about certainty. Call it a 'defeatist' attitude if you like, but I don't believe in chance, and infact hate 'the luck'. Me and 'the luck': not buddies. There is zero doubt in my mind that I will lose the lottery if I play it, and zero doubt in my mind that Earth will continue to orbit our star after I am long gone, and zero doubt in my mind that I am not hallucinating your existence.

Certainty is the stuff of knowledge. Belief is a certainty. The statement "I don't believe there is a god" is a statement that lacks just that: certainty. "I believe there is a god" is as certain a statement as "I believe there is no god".

You seem to think that if I believe something that is identical to me "knowing" it!!

Seem to? Such light terms of uncertainty come from you ^_^ I do think that believing something is knowing it, and knowing something is believing it.

'Belief', 'faith', 'knowledge', 'certainty'... all the same thing really. False beliefs, silly faith, incorrect knowledge, misplaced certainty... singalong singalong sing sing singalong singalong singalong sing sing singalong ^_^

---

Believing there is no God would only be a position of gnosticism if I also believe I KNOW there is no God.

To believe is to know, so what is your point?

Believing there is no God leaves open his probability. If I believe there is no God that doesn't imply I believe God is impossible. I can believe there is no God and believe he is improbable OR impossible. Just as how, as I have been saying, I can OBVIOUSLY believe something with or without a belief that I also know it to be true.

True, my believing that eating chocolate candy when I've got the flu and have been vomiting all day will lead to the flavor of stomach acid + chocolate candy coming up next time i vomit could be completely incorrect. Knowing that is to understand that one's knowledge (whatever it may be and however reasonable it may seem) could be entirely mistaken.

If you believed there was no God, then you've already looked into the probability, and found it lacking. You may even have been influenced by what you deem the impossibility of His existence. You actually can't believe anything without knowing it to be true, whether you be oblivious to this fact or not But it is true that I can believe there are currently no flying pigs: but also that there are ways that a pig can fly. This is also knowledge, and incase you were wondering: pigs can fly, but none of them are currently doing so.

I don't have epistemic justification for it, I just know THAT I believe it, I don't know why. Why should I need to? I'm not making any claim of knowlege: Which is why I'm not a gnostic atheist.

I've already explained all this.

Actually, if gnosticism is believing that God(s) can be proven.... you've already proven it to yourself... therefore it would be very funny indeed if you were not a gnostic (I might even call it a contrary position). I'm a gnostic, but I hardly would try to prove the nonexistence of God(s) to others

You've poorly explained it... i should hardly think that if I told someone "go left then right then forward than left again" if they asked me how to get to a supermarket 120 miles away that I should be understood

An epistemic justification would be absurd because it would contradict my scepticism on the matter. Just as to justify my skepticism epistemically would be absurd because it would contradict itself. I justify my skepticism pragmatically and I don't justify it or anything else epistemically: I'm an epistemological skeptic.

If you are skeptical on the matter, then there really is nothing to discuss: you do not believe there is a god.

I don't think there is all that much pragmatism in your position at all Being pragmatic is to hold faith in things you deem the percentage of being wrong so low it is not worthy of wasting your time considering.... such allows one to efficiently construct their understanding of the universe along lines that make sense to them. Were your stance more pragmatic, I should expect a far less theoretical approach to the world.

I know that I'm aware and I know that tautologies must be true because they're true by definition. I know that logic can be valid. But I don't know WHY these things are true, because I don't know why anything exists or 'is' at all. I don't need to know why, I don't justify things epistemically. I justify things pragmatically and the only things I know I merely am aware of and don't know why.

If you don't need to know why: why do you need to allow the possibility of God(s) existing into your psyche? That isn't remotely pragmatic... just have faith and move on. The bold would indicate that you take lots of things on faith... yet you deny this. It is very silly, really

Elaborate. (It seems to me like you're wrongly accusing me of the argument from ignorance or something like that).

To me it seems like I'm starting with the premise that gnostic atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist, I don't claim to know that, I merely claim that I believe God doesn't exist (not that I know).

Your belief that God doesn't exist is your knowledge in His nonexistence... so yes: you would be a gnostic... that is if you are not simply lying when you say that you believe God doesn't exist.

Ok, how about this:

Premise 1: Knowledge implies belief, but belief doesn't imply knowledge.

False, terms are fully equatable. Tomato, Tomahto, except nobody says tomahto.

Premise 2: Gnostic atheism is claiming to know that God doesn't exist.

It is actually knowing that God doesn't exist... whether you claim it or not is more a measure of how loudmouthed you are ^_^

Argument: Claiming knowledge implies claiming belief, but claiming belief doesn't imply claiming knowledge (following from premise 1). So if I claim to believe God doesn't exist, I am not - necessarily - claiming to know God doesn't exist.

Conclusion: I am not a gnostic atheist because I merely claim belief and not knowledge.

Were your premises true, your conclusion would also be. What claiming has to do with anything, I have no idea, and think should be removed from the argument.

Why do you think that claiming belief doesn't imply claiming knowledge? Seems kinda silly to me ^_^