Hey Gnostic Atheist - prove your point

[answer-is-42]

I am not a theist in any way, but for those who do push the view that there IS no god then some arguement should be forth coming.
The last thread I saw on this got too bogged down in the pendandics of the definition anti-theism rather then the intended discussion so I thought i would make it more clear and see if what the reasoning out there may be.

[Eel_LahjicK]

No one is proving atheism to be true on here. More correctly worded would be, no one is proving god doesn't exist. Atheism means you don't believe in god. There is no reason for me to believe, mostly due to zero evidence, so I simply don't believe. We are merely discussing why we don't believe in god. Hey You, prove to me invisible purple dragons don't exist!

[Bad Wolf]

Not many gnostic atheist members, I don't think this thread is going to be very successful.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, define god, and then I'll bite.
(it would be impossible for me to argue that something doesn't exist unless I know what we're talking about)

[Dystopia]

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?'

[answer-is-42]

No one is proving atheism to be true on here. More correctly worded would be, no one is proving god doesn't exist. Atheism means you don't believe in god. There is no reason for me to believe, mostly due to zero evidence, so I simply don't believe. We are merely discussing why we don't believe in god. Hey You, prove to me invisible purple dragons don't exist!

Not true, there ARE people out there saying god does not exists (that is the definition of GNOSTIC atheism - look it up if you need to). If you are saying you do not have enough evidence to believe in god, but theoritically it could be true (no matter how remote - even as remote as an invisible, giant dragon chasing the earth) then you are by definition agnostic and this does not apply to you. Sorry to be pedantic, but in this case the actual definition matters becuase I have seen previous discussions degrade by getting mired in the definitions of anti-theism rather than actually responding to the question at hand. In your case, you are not addressing the question at hand. Additionally, I am NOT making a claim that god does or does not exist so challenging me is fruitless. I am trying to get a forum for those you who ARE making a claim that god does not exist to state that case.

---

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

I'm not good with using quotes on this forum, please refer to his original thread for his exact qoutes else this reply will be more maddeningly long then it already is.

So many things wrong with these arguements -
Again let me re-establish my belief is there is no evidence for the existence of god (angostic atheism) though at this point EVEN if a god did exist I would willingly choose not to worship them given the "evil {for lack of a better word}" I see in this world that such a deity should surely be able to rectify (a type of anti-theist).

That said, your arguements are generally invalid as a backing for GNOSTISM.
First "gnostic atheists believe there is no god because there is no evidence to prove a god exists" - NO THIS IS AGNOSTIC by definition - IF existence for god is found then such a person would then have to re-address their beliefs and there fore they did not KNOW anything (again I think you need to learn what gnostism is).

I agree with the arguement that the burden of proof is on anyone claiming knowledge (as you state for gnostic theists) but it is equally on those who are gnostic atheists - hence the thread. There may be no evidence of dragons currenlty, but maybe they did in the past and maybe someday we will find evidence of them. If you know there dragons don't exist and never have then what does that evidence then do to your claimed knowledge? Prior to 1999 we thought all dinosaurs were extinct and we KNEW there were no more dinosaurs. Then we found the coelacanths in the indian ocean ... see we didn't know as much as we thought we did.
Further, you can't see,smell, or touch a virus, yet they exist. Just because your senses cannot fathom something does not mean it is not there. Heck you cannot see UV or IR spectrums without additional equiptment, therefore did they not exist prior to us inventing the means of detecting them?

So finally to your "arguements" -- almost NONE of them even address positive assertion (no god exists) but rather try to refute other assertions (other gods don't exist). Prior to the germ theory of disease there were a great many hypothesies about the nature of disease- none of them held up to scrutiny so does that mean ALL theories on the mechanism of disease are invalid? I think that refutes just about all of your arguements. If you have more, please bring them up, I am looking for much stronger ones then you present. Again I am not making a claim that god exists - as many of your arguements seem to claim, but rather trying to assess if there are valid arguements out there for why god does NOT exist.

If you are going to take a positive position - please try to back it up.
My reason for this thread is to get people (my self included) to honestly look at their beliefs and views and see if they are being intelectually honest.

---

First, define god, and then I'll bite.
(it would be impossible for me to argue that something doesn't exist unless I know what we're talking about)

Generally I would take the commonly accepted definition of a sentient being that created the universe and is able to effect it's current course. Whether such a being has contacted us or not is irrelevent.

Again gnostic atheism is a position that NO god exists, not just the old testament god or Thor or Shiva or {insert deity of choice} does not exist.

If you don't like that definition, please provide your own and state your case.

[answer-is-42]

Not many gnostic atheist members, I don't think this thread is going to be very successful.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Generally I would take the commonly accepted definition of a sentient being that created the universe and is able to effect it's current course. Whether such a being has contacted us or not is irrelevent.

Sounds awfully slippery......................I think that you're going to have to be more specific or we'll be talking around each other. When did god create the universe, how? In what way is it effecting the current course, and how? I think it would be pretty relevant if such a being -had- "contacted us" 42, I mean...we are talking about a god here, aren't we? This, just like the definition, is pretty important. Let's say you claim god created the universe on a tuesday...but I know for a fact god didn't do that(and thusly that -that- conception of a god is vacuous, empty, a non-entity), because it was created on a wednesday. Details could be important, eh?

-Or would you rather hear my opinion on attempting an un-falsifiable proposition...and then calling it "god"?

[ignoramus]

Shoving a sentient being as the creator is really just another god of the gaps argument.

Do you feel more comfortable that a being created the universe for the afterlife bit?
Or maybe the odds are in favour of a supreme being?

Everyone has a reason for believing what they believe.
I might not be real happy or comfortable with the something from nothing hypothesis but it seems the most logical in my mind.

Eg: who created this supreme being? No special pleading allowed.

[Cato]

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.