A case for positive atheism

[theVOID]

One is an atheist if they do not hold belief in the existence of God(s). Because agnosticism concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached, an agnostic does not believe in God and is therefore an atheist.

Tut tut. I'd have thought the flaw in the above would have been obvious by the use of the contradiction "concludes that a conclusion cannot be reached"...but maybe not.

Agnosticism "concludes" that the existence of God is unknown, or at most, unknowable. In the agnostic's mind, there may be evidence that convinces them that God exists or does not exist, but such evidence is not strong enough to warrant a "proof". As such, agnostics may either believe or disbelieve.

I see what you are saying, but are they not coherent? One is a judgement about the limitations of the logical application of our total knowledge, the other is that a final logical conclusion regarding god's existence cannot be reached.

Do you not first have to conclude that we do not have the information required before you can say that conclusions to the contrary are invalid?

Also, how is it possible for one to conclude that the existence of god is "unknown or unknowable" (not just "unproven") and still believe that a God exists? If the individual believes that God exists then they claim to know is some way, such as claiming to have "emotional", "spiritual" or "intuitive" knowledge of god, which they deem sufficient in arriving at a conclusion.

Theism doesn't conclude the existence of God. Theism is the belief in the existence of God.

I disagree, if you have a positive belief in a proposition then you have concluded that it is real. You cannot hold positive belief in something that you do not think can be known.

The issue here is not what knowledge the theists really have, it's the knowledge they claim to have.

It may be a personal conclusion in terms of what is more likely (to the person), but it is not a conclusion on the same level as a proof (knowledge).

They do not meet our standard for 'proof' i agree, but they also believe thing like emotions and intuition are sufficient forms of knowledge for believing positively in a proposition. If you "do not know" then you "do not believe", thus you are an atheist.

Being illogical does not make one potentially agnostic.

A theist who claims knowledge of God's existence is therefore a gnostic theist; a theist who does not claim knowledge of God's existence is an agnostic theist.

I don't buy that for a second, you cannot believe in something that you claim cannot be known because to believe in something requires you feel there is sufficient reason for it, and reason is an application of knowledge. You seem to forget what an acceptable standard of knowledge is for theists...

There could be cases where someone says "i have a feeling that god exists" but does not consider their intuitions sufficient to hold positive belief, that is entirely different from being like fr0d0 and positively believing in God.