Hey Gnostic Atheist - prove your point

[Dystopia]

That may be true, though there are a lot of folks that ACT like gnostics until they are pushed on the issue. I like to push. thanks

No fucking god. Why? Because there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. I'm not buying the 'theoretically possible' bit either. Using your Earth chasing dragon as a guide, you equivocate 'theoretically possible' with anything that can be imagined. This is a bit silly. I can imagine a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn through an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs; are you going to suspend judgement on this as well?

Also, why apologize for being pedantic when it was clearly your intention? Comes off as disingenuous.

Apparently our friend would reply 'I don't know if there is a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn trough an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs'... Sounds stupid

[Angrboda]

Um, the coelacanth is not a dinosaur.

[BlackMason]

Since I sometimes feel myself slipping to gnosticism I'll answer this thread.

Firstly, there is a huge difference between gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. Gnostic theism is faith, belief without reason, while gnostic atheism is belief with reason, gnostic atheists believe there is no god because there is no evidence to prove a god exists.

I'll make this very simple, when someone asks me 'Does Santa exist? Do dragons exist? Do leprechauns exist? Do unicorns exist?' my answer will be 'No, since there is no proof for it, unless someone throws out credible evidence, I believe those creatures and beings do not exist'. Why should I differentiate god? And by the way define god, like Rhythm pointed out very well. Let's be honest, if your grown up kid asked you 'Do dragons really exist' would your answer be 'I don't know?' or 'No'?

I don't have to prove god doesn't exist, it's theists (gnostic ones in particular) who have to prove god does exist.

Most members here, like me, are at least 80% or 90% sure god doesn't exist. Why the hell should I be an agnostic if I'm only, let's say, 5% sure god can exist? I don't have to be 100% certain, I will change my mind if there are reasons for it, just like I'm not 100% certain dragons don't exist, but I believe they don't since it's silly to assume otherwise, this kind of thinking will bring us to complete nihilism and rational absurdity. To be at least 90% certain we cannot argue complete and pure agnosticism since there has to be knowledge for us to take the position, if someone is in particular 99% certain god does not exist, it doesn't make much sense to label themselves as an agnostic, since the 99% of certainty/odds come from empirical knowledge we have access to.

I can't disprove there isn't a dragon in front of me right now, but since I can't see see, smell, feel, touch or hear one I assume they don't exist - That's it - Dragons don't exist! I could apply the same for god. I don't give a shit about the future (What if evidence comes out in the future? Science is still so young) - If proof does come out in the future I will change my mind, I care about the present and my current position.

I disagree with the Dawkins scale when it says a strong/gnostic atheist needs to be completely certain. I don't need to be completely certain, in fact I might not even be certain of gravity, it could be an illusion as far as I can tell, but I'm almost certain. A gnostic atheist doesn't need to have complete absolute certainty, just solid certainty derived from factual knowledge.

Arguments to disprove the theistic god (since you asked for it)

- Illogical characteristics between gods

- No evidence for any religion or god, and conflict between most religions since they all claim to be the absolute revelation/truth

- The fact science has been progressively (and will continue to do so) explaining phenomenon we once attributed to god or religion

- The simple fact I've never seen god, smelled him, touched him, heard him, my prayers were never answered, I've never seen any miracles, etc.

I could go on with more arguments, but these are some of the main ones, I hope that satisfied your curiosity.

And don't bring the bullshit that god works in mysterious ways, abstain from saying that and you'll save time

BTW - Wasn't there a poll here on AF with a question like 'What are your views on god's existence?' and didn't the majority answer 'I believe gods do not exist' in detriment of 'I do not believe gods exist?'

WTF?

[answer-is-42]

No fucking god. Why? Because there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. I'm not buying the 'theoretically possible' bit either. Using your Earth chasing dragon as a guide, you equivocate 'theoretically possible' with anything that can be imagined. This is a bit silly. I can imagine a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn through an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs; are you going to suspend judgement on this as well?

Also, why apologize for being pedantic when it was clearly your intention? Comes off as disingenuous.

Apparently our friend would reply 'I don't know if there is a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn trough an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs'... Sounds stupid

No dipshit I would state there is no evidence or reason to suggest such a scenerio exists. I accept the limitaitons of my knowledge and if future information contradicts that then I would be willing to evaluate such information. I am NOT making a positive statement (does nor does not exist). A gnostic arguement by definition does. Hell, maybe I'm a brain in a vat (doubt it though). regardless, anyone making a positive claim HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF - so prove it dumbass.

[Dystopia]

Apparently our friend would reply 'I don't know if there is a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn trough an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs'... Sounds stupid

No dipshit I would state there is no evidence or reason to suggest such a scenerio exists. I accept the limitaitons of my knowledge and if future information contradicts that then I would be willing to evaluate such information. I am NOT making a positive statement (does nor does not exist). A gnostic arguement by definition does. Hell, maybe I'm a brain in a vat (doubt it though). regardless, anyone making a positive claim HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF - so prove it dumbass.

Lol dude, see the bold? Those are insults you directed towards me without any justification, it's called a personal attack fallacy - There is no evidence to suggest such a scenario exists - Therefore that scenario doesn't exist unless otherwise proven. If I said I was banging your mum right now would you believe that was a lie, or would you simply lack belief in it?
If you lack belief in god, you lack belief in santa klaus, you lack belief in dragons. I don't, I believe none exists, I know fairytales are bullshit, it comes down to this kind of simplicity. If you don't have balls to claim knowledge don't come insulting me just because you prefer the comfortable position. Btw I don't have the burden of evidence, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence. Disproving the theist god is easy - God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil still exists in the world, therefore god can't exist.

BlackMason, what's the problem?

[answer-is-42]

No dipshit I would state there is no evidence or reason to suggest such a scenerio exists. I accept the limitaitons of my knowledge and if future information contradicts that then I would be willing to evaluate such information. I am NOT making a positive statement (does nor does not exist). A gnostic arguement by definition does. Hell, maybe I'm a brain in a vat (doubt it though). regardless, anyone making a positive claim HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF - so prove it dumbass.

Lol dude, see the bold? Those are insults you directed towards me without any justification, it's called a personal attack fallacy - There is no evidence to suggest such a scenario exists - Therefore that scenario doesn't exist unless otherwise proven. If I said I was banging your mum right now would you believe that was a lie, or would you simply lack belief in it?
If you lack belief in god, you lack belief in santa klaus, you lack belief in dragons. I don't, I believe none exists, I know fairytales are bullshit, it comes down to this kind of simplicity. If you don't have balls to claim knowledge don't come insulting me just because you prefer the comfortable position. Btw I don't have the burden of evidence, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim of existence. Disproving the theist god is easy - God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, evil still exists in the world, therefore god can't exist, ie the position of a gnostic atheist, not simply knowledge that 1 particular god claim is wrong

BlackMason, what's the problem?

No DIPSHIT a personal attack fallacy would be me claiming you are wrong BECAUSE you are a dumbass. I rather claim both you are wrong and you are a dumbass. (bold and caps are mine). Proof for you being a dumbass is your arguement. Proof for being wrong also happens to be your arguement.

Again - a positive statement requires proof. I know you are not banging my mom because she has been cremated, so good luck mother-not-fucker.

I have made no positive statements. By the way, statements that something does not exists is still a positive assertion. Any assertion requires some proof to it. I don't believe dragons exists because there is no proof of them is a different statement then I know dragons don't exists because ... {insert arguement}. The concept of dragons may have come from very large lizards prevelent in SE asia or they may have come from miss interpretation of skeletons of dinosaurs, who knows, but the core may have had a truth.
The fundamental question is the same -- what proof supports your claim?
I agree no proof supports the existence of god, but I have yet to see any proof that no god can exist.

BTW I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM, I am requesting proof to a claim. If you claim there is no god then you (or any gnostic atheist) need to state your case.
You did state a case against the biblical god, but that is not the only god claim. If you see MY definition of a god {which i have also previously provided above in a previous reply} as simply a sentient being that created the universe (I do not believe such a creature exists, but I am not so closed minded as to reject evidence to contrary should it someday became available). I will commend you at the end for atleast trying to state a case. That is the type of dialogue I was actually hoping for.
I would like to hear a more broad arguement why NO god could exist, ie the position of a gnostic atheist as the title suggest, rather then just an arguement as to why the biblical god does not exist - which could be shared with any number of other philosophies including theists of other (non-Abrahamic) religions. For examples, there is no arguement against Bhrama or Thor or any other number of god claims or even yet un-voiced god claims in your arguement so it does not go to the root question.

[answer-is-42]

No fucking god. Why? Because there is absolutely no reason to think there is one. I'm not buying the 'theoretically possible' bit either. Using your Earth chasing dragon as a guide, you equivocate 'theoretically possible' with anything that can be imagined. This is a bit silly. I can imagine a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn through an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs; are you going to suspend judgement on this as well?

Also, why apologize for being pedantic when it was clearly your intention? Comes off as disingenuous.

Apparently our friend would reply 'I don't know if there is a five dick baboon riding backward on a unicorn trough an enchanted forest playing Mozart on cricket legs'... Sounds stupid

Somethings are factually impossible others have a probability. Practically speaking we disregard or consider things with exceeding low probabilities as impossible, though technically this is not true. My major arguement is not with the atheist part of the equation, but the gnostic part. Again, a claim of knowledge requires proof and if a claim is true and valid then continued exploration is null. Eg - based on limited knowledge we felt the sun went around the earth, based on more full knowledge we know the earth orbits the sun because it has actually been validated - difference in claims and proof.. Also to say that I don't have evidence to refute an arguement in not tanamount to an acceptance of the arguement. I only accept arguements that I can in some way validate or correlate, everything else is practically (though not absolutelty - difference) untrue or unsubstantiated. The major arguement I have with gnostics is the belief that a lack of proof of existance is a proof of lack of existance so to speak and it's not. You may be wrong 1 million times, but it only takes 1 correct answer to refute the word never.
If someone claims to be gnostic then there should be validation to support that claim and it is not unreasonable to ask for it.

[genkaus]

Let's take a stab at it.

I'm a gnostic atheist and I think that the belief there is no god is justifiable. But before we go into that, let's get the basic straight here. What I observe most commonly in this debate are the following points being repeated over and over again. From the atheist side we have:

1. Proving a negative is impossible.
2. You don't need to disprove what has never been proven in the first place.

While I agree that any bare assertion doesn't need to be disproven to justify disbelief in it, I think that where such a disproof is possible, it should be provided.

On the theist side we have two common evasions:

1. But you can't know that for 100%, therefore you don't "know" it.
2. That's not what god is/does.


Therefore, the validity any argument against the existence of god must rely on agreed upon principles governing the subjects such as "knowledge", "certainty" and "god". To that end, I'll start with the groundwork regarding what it means to have "certain knowledge".

A commonly accepted tenet of science is that it is impossible to be 100% certain of anything, which is why when we talk of certainty, we talk of reasonable certainty. So, the quibble that "unless you are 100% sure, you can't know it" is nonsensical. As long as you are reasonably certain, then that margin of error is not a deterrent to knowledge. The criteria for reasonability is a bit subjective, but it is based on the weight of logical arguments and actual evidence for or against it.

If a proposition has no evidence or reasoning for or against it then I'd rightly be agnostic about it - belief in it being another matter altogether. For example, it is possible for a subspecies of horses to have developed a bone protrusion on the forehead in shape of horn and then for the species to go extinct without leaving any fossil record - at least, it doesn't go against the principles of evolutionary biology. However, there is also no evidence that such a thing ever existing either. Therefore, I'm agnostic about unicorns.

On the other hand, if a proposition has no evidence for it, but existing body of knowledge contradicts it, then you can gnostically deny it. For example, we don't have any evidence for the existence of winged horses. But we do know that the changes required to the species' morphology would be extreme and would run contrary to the principles of evolutionary biology. Which is why I gnostically disbelieve in Pegasus.

So, taking the most generic definition of god - as a conscious, immaterial entity - I find that there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity and all logical arguments for its existence have been shown to be flawed over and over again. On the other hand, our current knowledge indicates that consciousness is a function of complex networked systems like a brain and cannot exist independent of it. So the idea of a conscious entity without the necessary complex hardware, much less being immaterial altogether, runs contrary to what we currently know. Therefore, our current knowledge on the matter is evidence against the existence of that entity.

Interestingly, the more specific this god gets, the more evidence piles up against its existence. When multiple actions are attributed to the particular god, then all the facts indicating alternate causes for those actions or that those actions never took place become evidence against its existence. Which is why a generic, vaguely defined and ever-changing definition of god is much harder to disprove than the god of any specific religion.

[fr0d0]

gnostic atheists believe there is no god because there is no evidence to prove a god exists.

Good answer.

But I don't believe in God based upon his existence. I can't know, and neither can you.

That undermines your objection I think. In other words, your stance on existence is superfluous to the notion of belief. No one cares if you think there is no physical proof, because no one in existence has any.

Why believe it then? Why indeed. Now we start with the real problem.

[DangerousElf]

The responses here prove to me two things: 1.) a lot of people don't read with comprehension (OP is talking to gnostic atheists, and EVERYBODY chimes in...come on now.....); and 2.)instead of the pat line "define your god first", let's define OUR OWN TERMS FIRST.

The first declared 'gnostic atheist' here had his/her own definition, which I saw as wrong -- gnosticism is a stand of 'knowledge', period. It's a claim that you KNOW, one way or the other. SO, to ANYONE who claims gnosticism, I'd say "Prove it."

Whether theist OR atheist, if you're HONEST, you'll also claim agnosticism, since you DON'T "KNOW".