Well yeah. A question could become meaningful in the future which isn't now. But asking me a question which is currently untestable and unfalsifiable is like asking me to guess what you're holding in your hand. It's not a discussion worth having.

Except it's worse, because the other person is claiming to have this unknowable knowledge.

I'm a strong/gnostic atheist (or positive atheist) - I assert there are no gods. I've already explained this at TTA and I've explained it here in the past. Which part of this is confusing? I lack belief but I also believe there's no gods (and supernatural for that purpose, though that's not atheism). I know there's no gods the same way I know gravity exists

Well, it all comes down to definition of knowledge. There isn't an agreed definition in relation to Gnosticism. So you have to agree on what knowledge is first, then you can answer.

Also, you need someone to say what a God is. And good luck with that

(February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'm a strong/gnostic atheist (or positive atheist) - I assert there are no gods. I've already explained this at TTA and I've explained it here in the past. Which part of this is confusing? I lack belief but I also believe there's no gods (and supernatural for that purpose, though that's not atheism). I know there's no gods the same way I know gravity exists

It's not confusing to me or (I'd wager) anyone else on the forum, I'm just shooting the breeze wondering about another term, if it exists. If a-theism is just a response to theistic claims ("I don't accept the claim god exists"), how exactly would you use that definition in "gnostic atheism"? "I know I don't accept the claim -god exists-"?

Even in your post you said "I lack belief but I also believe there's no gods", and to me those are two separate things. The former, atheism, and the latter, a term that I've never seen someone define/create.

Is it necessary to have a term for the assertion of the opposite claim? Nah, most people can understand what you mean when you say 'strong atheist' or 'gnostic atheist' or what have you, I'm more just wondering.

For practical purposes, I "know" there are no gods too. I know what gods really are, they are a human construct. The problem with this can be that you're making a claim yourself if you bring it to discussion, and can then be subject to a burden of proof instead of leaving it all on the theist. So while I agree with you in principal, it's giving the theist something to grab for if you present it in debate. We win easily without having to make our own claims.

Matt D says the same, he's a gnostic atheist given a practical rather than strict definition of knowledge, and I'd agree. I'm fine with that. But from a practical point of view, it's putting it forward in a debate with a theist which leaves you vulnerable.

I don't mind my vulnerability, I can handle theists just fine, that was the reason I used to classify myself as an agnostic.

Cool monkeys. What we just threw back and forth was why I made the "agnostic is pointless" thread a while back. When it comes to practicality, and debating theists, and every respect that makes any difference, agnostic and gnostic atheism are identical. Heck, theism and atheism are generally identical. Theists behave like atheists most of the time.

Just try telling them "I know god doesn't exist the same way I know santa doesn't exist" - And get ready for a shitstorm of angry comments - It's hilarious

Yeah, that is pretty amusing

Santa, along with any other children's story you like, is more credible than Yahweh. It's fucking ridiculous. Adults man, these are adults... Bugger me with a filing cabinet.

And here was I thinking agnostic was kind of a tautology, really irrelevant when positing gods. agnostic because of the lack of absolute knowledge. That does not restrain me from saying the common popular gods of mankind are rather... stupid magic hocus pocus woooo!?