My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists

[Autumnlicious]

I prefer the openness of agnosticism and the reason to continue searching and learning as opposed to 'knowing'. The journey to learn something is many a time more beneficial than the material gains of said journey.

[Joe Bloe]

I am 99.9999999999999999999999999% sure there is no god. Just like there is no Santa or fairies or ghosts or Bigfoot or devil or......................................

That's 100% (correct to the 24th decimal place)

[Autumnlicious]

I am 99.9999999999999999999999999% sure there is no god. Just like there is no Santa or fairies or ghosts or Bigfoot or devil or......................................

That's 100% (correct to the 24th decimal place)

Proof that binny is 1.0 or 100% sure there is no god:
Let x be .99999... out of 1.0. Multiply by 100 for percentages.

[Tiberius]

Here we go again...

Binny's number was of finite length though, so it doesn't work quite like that

[Purple Rabbit]

This whole discussion of agnostic versus gnostic atheism is an artificial one cultivated here on AF. I doubt it would even exist if it was dubbed weak and strong atheism instead. Since no one has absolute knowledge, no not even you fr0d0, the word 'knowing' has only relative meaning. Knowing for sure is as relative to what is knowable by humans as knowing absolutely sure.

With this in mind it is perfectly possible to state that you know absolutely for sure that god does not exist. In everyday use of language this is not a comparison to the absolute but to the ultimate standard of knowing that is attainable for humans. So I think atheist can be gnostic and still subscribe to the view that human knowledge is relative. And also a theist can be agnostic and still feel more certain about it than a so called gnostic atheist. As long as there is no absolute benchmark to compare these statements with, these labels are only labels that people give themself. Since there is no absolute standard to measure human sureness by it is the context and meaning that is given by the person himself that shines some light on the absoluteness he is claiming.

So really what is your problem EvF? It is a personal label yet you seem dissatisfied with the connotation other people give it. It seems futile to me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Problem?

When I speak of gnostic atheists/theists I am referring to people who really do believe it's absolutely impossible for God to exist, or they really do believe it's absolutely impossible for him to not exist. I see that as close-minded...

And as I said... problem? I don't know what my 'problem' is either. I don't know what you are referring to, at least in this case.

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

Problem?

When I speak of gnostic atheists/theists I am referring to people who really do believe it's absolutely impossible for God to exist, or they really do believe it's absolutely impossible for him to not exist. I see that as close-minded...

And as I said... problem? I don't know what my 'problem' is either. I don't know what you are referring to, at least in this case.

EvF

The thing is that you may give your definition of gnostic atheism, but that it is not necessarily the definition someone who calls himself an agnostic atheist would give it. He might for instance relate gnostic to knowable to human standards. There is no worldwide atheistic federation that supports your specific definition of it. On the contrary, there is much controverse on the subject of what gnostic or agnostic means. Plenty of options about, none of them regulated by law.

So here you are at AF trying to make a new world standard for labels that are in essence personal and context dependend, seeking some problem ("I find it a bit of an unpleasant choice") with the new and self-defined label of gnostic atheist.

Well, I am proud to say however I am an gnostic atheist about the christian god meaning that I am as sure about the non-existence of the christian god as about the non-existence of goblins and fairies. I don't need no AF-approved definition for that.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok....... lol.

Well I mean agnostic in the sense of not claiming absolute knowledge, gnostic in the sense of positively claiming absolute knowledge. I believed these were the original meanings of the terms, if I'm wrong then fine I'm wrong, but it's a meaning.

I don't claim to have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence (because I can't have it), so that's why I don't do so... and why I'm agnostic.

EvF

[theVOID]

Problem?

When I speak of gnostic atheists/theists I am referring to people who really do believe it's absolutely impossible for God to exist, or they really do believe it's absolutely impossible for him to not exist. I see that as close-minded...

And as I said... problem? I don't know what my 'problem' is either. I don't know what you are referring to, at least in this case.

EvF

The thing is that you may give your definition of gnostic atheism, but that it is not necessarily the definition someone who calls himself an agnostic atheist would give it. He might for instance relate gnostic to knowable to human standards. There is no worldwide atheistic federation that supports your specific definition of it. On the contrary, there is much controverse on the subject of what gnostic or agnostic means. Plenty of options about, none of them regulated by law.

So here you are at AF trying to make a new world standard for labels that are in essence personal and context dependend, seeking some problem ("I find it a bit of an unpleasant choice") with the new and self-defined label of gnostic atheist.

Well, I am proud to say however I am an gnostic atheist about the christian god meaning that I am as sure about the non-existence of the christian god as about the non-existence of goblins and fairies. I don't need no AF-approved definition for that.

It's actually correct English. And we don't have to worry about it not meeting someone else's definitions because these ones come straight from the various establishments who print dictionaries which contain the single most accepted definitions available and therefore anyone else who has a different definition has the wrong definition (words are tangible and thus defined by opinion) - no it's not law, but it's the meaning of the word as recognised by all of the Dictionary establishments who deal in the English language, so it's entirely reasonable to claim correct use of the word with such sources in agreement.

Call yourself a Gnostic Atheist if you want but don't be surprised when some people complain at the apparent intellectual arrogance of such an absolute claim when they have no way of knowing that you have redefined the word to suit your own definition.

I'm an Agnostic Atheist by definition even though i am for all practical purposes certain that it is some half-baked primitive attempt at figuring shit out, but i cannot know absolutely whether or not God exists, and therefore Agnostic Atheism is the correct definition whether i like it or not.

[Purple Rabbit]

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable." (source Wikipedia)

See the word unknowable in there? That means knowing for absolute certain that the existence is unknowable. That is principle unknowability. If we are talking about that kind of agnosticism, maybe not in your dictionary but Wikipedia is not the only source for it, it means a claim of absoluteness: to know absolute that god's existence cannot be known. So agnosticism in this form certainly is a strong absolute truth claim. Do you acknowledge this?

And since we cannot know what kind of agnosticism is under the hood when we check the label we should be careful to attribute meaning in our precious dictionary as a substitute for intended meaning.

Atheists all over the planet have beaten each other for decades now with meaningless discussions on this topic, replacing strong and weak athieism with gnostic and agnostic theism and back again. Going back interpreting Huxley who coined the term, and forth to meaning that was added later. That is pointless. I do not say that I know anything for certain, as all knowledge is tentative, and so I do not know absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist, but I do know it as certain as I know that fairies don't exist. There is no agreement on these terms.

So the next time you take the agnostic label, please be aware that you might be claiming something absolute.