(October 5, 2012 at 4:19 pm)Hughsie Wrote: What are anyone's views on this?

Personally I view myself as an agnostic atheist as I don't think you can categorically disprove a transcendent being. I think trying to see the world from an evidence based perspective isn't compatible with being 100% certain that a God doesn't exist. I would class myself as 99.99% certain that there is no God. I see absolutely no evidence for a God or any reason to believe in one but I cannot know that new evidence won't come to light.

Any thoughts?

Then you are pretty sure the sun will come up tomorrow and your are pretty sure the eggs you have for breakfast tomorrow will taste like eggs. You are pretty sure that you know a lot of things, but in reality, 'know' nothing.

My self, I know the sun will rise tomorrow and my eggs will taste like eggs and there is no god. But, of course, I live in a world of my own creation.

(October 5, 2012 at 6:36 pm)IATIA Wrote: Then you are pretty sure the sun will come up tomorrow and your are pretty sure the eggs you have for breakfast tomorrow will taste like eggs. You are pretty sure that you know a lot of things, but in reality, 'know' nothing.

My self, I know the sun will rise tomorrow and my eggs will taste like eggs and there is no god. But, of course, I live in a world of my own creation.

There was a time when every piece of evidence in existence said the Earth was flat.

We have no way of knowing what the future holds, not with 100% accuracy.

(October 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm)Hughsie Wrote: There was a time when every piece of evidence in existence said the Earth was flat.

Actually, not. But I appreciate the point you tried to make.

Hughsie Wrote:We have no way of knowing what the future holds, not with 100% accuracy.

That depends again on perspective. IF we create our own worlds and everyone we know is just a 'brain in our vat', then we can change everything, but once changed, it will be as though it always was and no one would be the wiser. The 'vat' would always know what will come to pass.

---

gnos·tic   [nos-tik]
adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.

1. pertaining to knowledge.
   
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
   
3. ( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.
   

noun

1. ( initial capital letter ) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.
   

Gnosticism suggests a 'knowing' rather than a 'sure'. It is also reference to spiritual matters or god as it may be and that is contradictory to atheist views.

I was always under the impression that 'gnostic atheist' was the generally accepted term for someone who was 100% sure there is no God, a 7 on Dawkin's scale. An 'agnostic atheist' would be someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't feel they can be 100%. I call myself an agnostic atheist and would consider myself a 6.9 on Dawkin's scale.

Is that not how you use those terms?

Who fucking cares?

No god, we know it.

(October 5, 2012 at 7:00 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Who fucking cares?

Well it is the kinda thing I would expect to discuss on an atheist forum in the atheism section.

(October 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm)Hughsie Wrote: I was always under the impression that 'gnostic atheist' was the generally accepted term for someone who was 100% sure there is no God, a 7 on Dawkin's scale. An 'agnostic atheist' would be someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't feel they can be 100%. I call myself an agnostic atheist and would consider myself a 6.9 on Dawkin's scale.

Is that not how you use those terms?

There's no uniform consensus on what different terms for atheists are, and what those terms specifically mean.

Depending on the atheist, the "definitely know there are no gods" may be termed atheist, strong atheist, gnostic atheist, anti-theist, or even not necessarily atheist at all (it appears from my polling that at least one in ten atheists believes that to be an atheist, you must reject all supernatural claims and beliefs; such an atheist would deny that a person who denies gods yet is open to telepathy is a true[TM] atheist).

What I am much more confused by is agnostic theism especially when they're all into Church and stuff like that....I've met one before, but he was only doing that to see if he was a Believer and was making it as an identify as others do. His actions made sense while theirs do not.

(October 5, 2012 at 4:31 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: There is no reason for any god to exist, no evidence to support there being a god, so there is no god. I know this.

A god without reason to exist can still exist. No one can know that a god does not exist.

I'd say I'm a 100% certain that I have no belief in gods, though I have no fucking idea what they are or how they are to be detected let alone whether or not they exist. In general, I don't bother investing an opinion in anything about which so little is known. I remain 100% open to changing my belief about gods should any surface but I'm not altering any plans in the mean time.