I believe there is no God.

[Edwardo Piet]

Believing is knowing.... 'merely' believing is still knowing

No. I've already explained this. Knowledge implies belief but belief doesn't imply knowledge.

You consider knowledge and belief to be identical and meaning? Then how am I supposed to have a decent discussion with you on this matter until you realize otherwise?

So theists KNOW that God exists do they simply because they believe it? Utter nonsense.

You actually do, and are performing something I like to call 'denial'

If you understood the difference between knowledge and belief maybe you'd actually understand my argument.

Furthermore, maybe you would if you then also understood that gnostic atheism=claiming knowledge of God's nonexistence. And I do not claim knowledge.

/yawn: you would know.

No I wouldn't. You are using a retarded definition of "know".

You can know 2+2 is 4

Yes.

, or you can know 1+3 is 5

Not without redefining the meaning of "1", "3", and "5".

If the numbers 1, 3 and 5 mean what they normally do then no I can't know that 1+3=5.

If you insist, then I'm afraid you don't believe there is no god, and should probably stop insisting that you do

You don't appear to understand what knowledge is.

Knowledge implies truth and belief, and maybe also justification. Belief doesn't imply knowledge, truth or justification.

<--- already explained that knowledge is the same experience whether right or wrong.

If by "explained" you mean "used my own bastardized definition of "knowledge"", then yes.

I feel like you're using this argument: "You're not a real scotsman"...

No because I'm using the correct definition.

If I claim that a Scotsman that isn't real isn't a real Scotsman isn't a real Scotman then that would of course be true. That's the equivalent of what I'm doing because I'm going by the proper definition of knowledge.

it's knowledge... it is real... it can be wrong... it can lead people to a meal.

Knowledge implies truth so it can't be wrong.

How do I know I wont win? I evaluate the chances of me winning, and come to the conclusion that it will not happen.

*yawns*

The fact there is a chance you might lose proves you don't know.

Hence: knowledge that I would not win.

No.

There is a small (very small) chance that I could be wrong

Hence why you don't know.

but it would hardly be pragmatic of me to think so

Completely irrelevant, we're talking about epistemology here since knowledge is the subject. We are not talking about confidence, certainty or practical justification.

A gnostic atheist=Someone who claims that they KNOW there is no God. That's why epistemology is the subject here.

Causality is proven to me, Doubtie.

If it's proven to you then it must be proven absolutely true. But it can't be proven absolutely true because it's unfalsifiable. So you're talking crap.

Certainty is the stuff of knowledge.

No. Certainty is relative knowledge is absolute.

Belief is a certainty.

Yes but it's not necessarily knowledge. Please learn the difference between simple things like "I believe really strongly" and "I know".

I do think that believing something is knowing it, and knowing something is believing it.

Thank you for your explicit assertion of your bastardized definition.

Yes knowledge implies belief.

But no, belief doesn't imply knowledge.

To believe is to know, so what is your point?

My point is NO it isn't. Get a dictionary.

to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

It implies understanding FACT or TRUTH. It implies APPREHENDING these facts or truths with certainty, it is not merely certainty.

If you believed there was no God, then you've already looked into the probability, and found it lacking. You may even have been influenced by what you deem the impossibility of His existence.

I've already explicitly said many times all over these forums AND on this thread. That I do NOT regard God's existence impossible. That is the same as not claiming to KNOW he doesn't exist. Hence why I don't claim to know and am not a gnostic atheist.

You actually can't believe anything without knowing it to be true

You do talk some utter bullshit.

So, I guess all the theists are right then, because they can't believe without knowing their belief to be true(!!!!!!!!)

You've poorly explained it..

Yeah, I know I'm crap at explaining things but nevertheless I should still be able to explain simple shit like this.

If you are skeptical on the matter, then there really is nothing to discuss: you do not believe there is a god.

The point of my thread is that if I believe there is no God that doesn't imply that I believe I know there is no God because belief doesn't imply knowledge. So believing there is no God doesn't imply gnostic atheism.

You think belief does imply knowledge..... because you don't understand the difference.

According to you, all theists know that God exists. It's a stupid bastardized definition of "know" that you are using that is completely unhelpful and confuses things. If you know something then you must be right.

If you don't need to know why: why do you need to allow the possibility of God(s) existing into your psyche? That isn't remotely pragmatic... just have faith and move on. The bold would indicate that you take lots of things on faith... yet you deny this. It is very silly, really

I allow the possibility of God's existence because it is intellectually honest and rational for me to do so because I can't prove God doesn't exist.

Your belief that God doesn't exist is your knowledge in His nonexistence...

No because belief doesn't imply knowledge.

so yes: you would be a gnostic...

No because I can believe something without knowledge.

that is if you are not simply lying when you say that you believe God doesn't exist.

I believe God doesn't exist because I have an opinion on the matter. I am not like the infant or lump of coal that is merely unaware of the proposition.

I can believe something with or without believing that I know(because belief doesn't imply knowledge). If I believe that I know God doesn't exist that is the same as believing God is impossible. I don't believe that. I believe that God doesn't exist but I don't believe I know he doesn't exist, hence why I don't believe he is impossible and I just believe he's improbable. Hence why I am an agnostic atheist.

Were your premises true, your conclusion would also be. What claiming has to do with anything, I have no idea, and think should be removed from the argument.

And if you understood the difference between knowledge and belief, you would also accept my premises.

Why do you think that claiming belief doesn't imply claiming knowledge? Seems kinda silly to me ^_^

Because knowledge and belief are different things.