Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism

[Dystopia]

1. As sure as you need to be to make a positive claim. This will differ from person to person. I would say that I need 100% certainty to make a positive statement; it's a point of intellectual honesty for me.

Hey there Ben Davis, thanks for replying to my thread. I've been without a PC and since it's really though to type on my PS3 console I decided to reply to you only now. Now going back to the thread - I do not need 100% certainty to claim knowledge. Let's take the example of gravity - I'm not 100% sure gravity is real, it could be an illusion, or the law of gravity could be badly formulated, but I assume it's real and so I claim knowledge on something. I think we can't be 100% sure about anything, but that's not a reason to avoid claiming knowledge, otherwise we wouldn't possess knowledge on anything. I respect your position, seriously, but for me it's intellectual dishonest to be an agnostic when I'm only, let's say, 1%-5% sure god exists, it's unworthy to be an agnostic just because of a tiny margin of error. If I'm certain enough, I claim knowledge, and that's what I'm doing right now. Just like I believe unicorns do not exist (I don't lack belief in them, I truly believe they are false), I believe gods do not exist. But hey, if evidence is presented on the contrary, I'll admit I'm wrong without problems.

2. Yup. The Arahamic gods are impossible (based on their attribute definitions) therefore I can be 100% certain of their non-existence. The claims for the existence of deist gods are impossible to address as there can be no evidence so whilst I don't have to care about their existence, either way, I can make no gnostic claim.

Yes but I'm an atheist, not an Adeist. I'm an agnostic when it comes to the deist god (and the pantheist one since I can't prove the universe isn't god himself), but I'm gnostic to all theist gods, therefore it's irrational for me to label myself as a general agnostic

3. That's entirely up to you! Gnosis regards your claims to knowledge, your 'justified-true' beliefs. If you can provide a justification that satisfies your standards of evidence, you will make a gnostic claim. For example, AronRa puts it this way: "If you can't show it, you don't know it" and "PEARL" (Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic). That states his method of justification very clearly. On the other end of the spectrum, Ken Ham states 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!'. Once again, very clear standards of evidence.

Well we could question if the standard of evidence for some people should be allowed, using the example of Ken Ham. Evidence for me works like this - You make a claim, you provide the evidence, otherwise I will consider the hypothesis as false, which means I will believe your claim is a lie and that the subject doesn't exist.

4. Generally, I'm agnostic. So many theistic gods have such vague or deliberately ethereal definitions as to put them outside the realms of honest enquiry. I simply put my hands up, on grounds of intellectual honesty, and say 'I don't know' (and sometimes 'I can never know'). That doesn't mean I won't argue the toss regarding the likelihood of such gods.

Agree, but I can claim knowledge on theist gods, they need to at least possess the contradictory characteristics (the Omni). In fact, speaking of that, is the deist god really a god? Someone who doesn't intervene? Either he is a jerk or he is powerless.

I started to cover this off in 3.: standards of evidence. Indoctrination also plays a part: there are people who rigourously compartmentalise their religious beliefs and therefore don't apply the same standards that they might apply when addressing other matters.

Agree

This is the point I was making about 'likelihood'. I dismiss god claims until evidence can be put forward. That doesn't mean I make a gnostic claim against the god in question, it simply means that I find no justification for belief.

I agree partially, except that I'll make a positive claim of knowledge. I don't see reasons to treat god differently from other hypothesis who have zero evidence. If someone says 'Look there's a dragon over there' and I can't see one, I won't say 'I lack belief but I can't disprove it', I'll say 'No there isn't any dragon'. Now I'm applying this to the god hypothesis, and for me it suits the issue well... But thanks for your interesting reply!