Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism

[Ben Davis]

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...

Ahh, the old 'we can't really know anything' problem. Yes, you're right; in the purest, highest, most impractical sense, we could be wrong about everything. But it seems that we're both 'Sum ergo sum' people: the evidence for existence is the proof of existence. There's no evidence for us being brains in vats wired up to a virtual environment, figments of each other's imagination, individual manifestations of the mind of some gestalt entity, n-dimensional manifestations of the elbow of Quantum Man or whatever woo that supernaturalists have come up with recently to trick us into abandoning our reliance on facts. Therefore admittance of an absolute agnosis helps no-one (apart from philosophers, maybe). In terms of what we can evidence, based on the justified supposition that existence is comprised of things which can be evidenced (irrespective of our current ability to evidence them), gravity is real: we can demostrate that mass attracts mass. Our best model of gravity is a work-in-progress but that doesn't change the fact that it is real. On that presumption, I can be 100% certain of some things, for example, any proposition which fails under the logical absolutes can not exist. There is no evidence which can contradict that.

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.

Like I said previously, 'justified-true belief' is the gnostic claim. If that's where you draw the line on your standards of evidence, that's fair enough. To me, it's a good standard because it's reliant on a preponderance of evidence. Under the same circumstances (assuming there's no evidence to contradict the claim of existence) I would say that "in all likelihood, that god doesn't exist" but I'd remain fundamentally agnostic.

But hey, if evidence is presented on the contrary, I'll admit I'm wrong without problems.

100% agree (See? Certainty does exist! )

Yes but I'm an atheist, not an Adeist.

Strictly speaking, 'deism' and 'pantheism' are subsets of 'theism' so your statement...

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

...needs a little refinement. It seems that you claim gnosis in regards to 'personal' or 'interventionary' gods, not 'impersonal' or 'non-interventionary' ones. Would that be accurate?

Well we could question if the standard of evidence for some people should be allowed, using the example of Ken Ham.

Yes, Ken has a shitty standard of evidence: it doesn't require anything verifiable, falsifiable or testable.

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.

Ah, I agree with you to a point but I wouldn't necessarily consider the hypothesis as false. To give you the 'courtroom' analogy: I wouldn't automatically assume innocence just because I find someone not guilty. Instead, I would need evidence of innocence (e.g. a verifiable alibi).

Agree, but I can claim knowledge on theist gods, they need to at least possess the contradictory characteristics (the Omni).

Not all 'personal' gods have an omni-characteristic; think of the polytheisms. You'll find other reasons for them to be demonstrably non-existent but I'll leave you work those out for yourself.

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.

Depends on the definition of 'god'. That's what I mean by the problem of vague/ethereal definition. It's a mechanism by which objects are put outside of the realms of honest enquiry in order to inveigle or obfuscate gaps in the proposition.

Agree

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.

Remember that absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence. It could be but you'd need to rationally justify that position.