Hey Gnostic Atheist - prove your point

[BlackMason]

Since I sometimes feel myself slipping to gnosticism I'll answer this thread.

Firstly, there is a huge difference between gnostic theism and gnostic atheism. Gnostic theism is faith, belief without reason, while gnostic atheism is belief with reason, gnostic atheists believe there is no god because there is no evidence to prove a god exists.

I'll make this very simple, when someone asks me 'Does Santa exist? Do dragons exist? Do leprechauns exist? Do unicorns exist?' my answer will be 'No, since there is no proof for it, unless someone throws out credible evidence, I believe those creatures and beings do not exist'. Why should I differentiate god? And by the way define god, like Rhythm pointed out very well. Let's be honest, if your grown up kid asked you 'Do dragons really exist' would your answer be 'I don't know?' or 'No'?

I don't have to prove god doesn't exist, it's theists (gnostic ones in particular) who have to prove god does exist.

Most members here, like me, are at least 80% or 90% sure god doesn't exist. Why the hell should I be an agnostic if I'm only, let's say, 5% sure god can exist? I don't have to be 100% certain, I will change my mind if there are reasons for it, just like I'm not 100% certain dragons don't exist, but I believe they don't since it's silly to assume otherwise, this kind of thinking will bring us to complete nihilism and rational absurdity. To be at least 90% certain we cannot argue complete and pure agnosticism since there has to be knowledge for us to take the position, if someone is in particular 99% certain god does not exist, it doesn't make much sense to label themselves as an agnostic, since the 99% of certainty/odds come from empirical knowledge we have access to.

I can't disprove there isn't a dragon in front of me right now, but since I can't see see, smell, feel, touch or hear one I assume they don't exist - That's it - Dragons don't exist! I could apply the same for god. I don't give a shit about the future (What if evidence comes out in the future? Science is still so young) - If proof does come out in the future I will change my mind, I care about the present and my current position.

I disagree with the Dawkins scale when it says a strong/gnostic atheist needs to be completely certain. I don't need to be completely certain, in fact I might not even be certain of gravity, it could be an illusion as far as I can tell, but I'm almost certain. A gnostic atheist doesn't need to have complete absolute certainty, just solid certainty derived from factual knowledge.

Arguments to disprove the theistic god (since you asked for it)

- Illogical characteristics between gods

- No evidence for any religion or god, and conflict between most religions since they all claim to be the absolute revelation/truth

- The fact science has been progressively (and will continue to do so) explaining phenomenon we once attributed to god or religion

- The simple fact I've never seen god, smelled him, touched him, heard him, my prayers were never answered, I've never seen any miracles, etc.

I could go on with more arguments, but these are some of the main ones, I hope that satisfied your curiosity.

And don't bring the bullshit that god works in mysterious ways, abstain from saying that and you'll save time

BTW - Wasn't there a poll here on AF with a question like 'What are your views on god's existence?' and didn't the majority answer 'I believe gods do not exist' in detriment of 'I do not believe gods exist?'

WTF?