Is gnostic atheism ironic?

[CleanShavenJesus]

I haven't made a topic in a while, so I may as well post this up.

I idenfity as an agnostic atheist (and a Dudeist on the side), if you did not know, which means I don't believe in God but I'm not 100% certain that I'm right about that. Which, to me, is the most logical position to take on the subject. Many debates I see on this site and in real life between theists and atheists is, "Theist, how can you be so sure about your belief? How do you know you're right?" Yet, sometimes this argument comes from a gnostic atheist or an atheist that claims to be 100% sure about their atheism.

I don't understand that. How can you be 100% knowledgable that there's no God? It makes as much sense as being 100% knowledgable that there is one. You can't know. That's why I think gnostic atheism is just ironic. Fighting against the illogcal position of complete knowledge of a god while claiming to have complete knowledge that there isn't one. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Ditto, absolute certainty is not something I subscribe to. Just because I'm psychologically convinced that something is true/bullshit or am logically certain doesn't mean I acknowledge such to be a certainty in epistemological terms. There is always room for error, no matter how ridiculously large or small that margin may be.

[Gilgamesh]

Being gnostic of anything that isn't only and event in the past is irrational. "I know this was the case because I witnessed/experienced it to be so" is rational. "I know this will be the case because I witnessed/experienced it to be so before" is irrational. To claim the latter is to also claim that you 'know' the universe is unchanging.

[Foxaèr]

How can you be 100% knowledgable that there's no God?

I am not one hundred percent knowledgeable that unicorns do not exist, but I am not going to take the illogical fence sitting position that there may be a possibility that unicorns do exist.

Just as I know that unicorns do not exist, I can state with the same certainty that I know god does not exist.

[Gilgamesh]

I am not one hundred percent knowledgeable that unicorns do not exist

Just as I know that unicorns do not exist, I can state with the same certainty that I know god does not exist.

But that certainty isn't 100%, thus you don't know.

'Know'

1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
2. Have knowledge or information concerning.

You can have a level of certainty that any given god claim is false, and that level of certainty can be high, but you can't know.

Personally, my level of certainty that any given god claim is false is about to the point where I wouldn't give any more concern to a god claim (separate from anything else that goes along with that claim) than I would to the claim that they left the toilet seat up.

[Foxaèr]

Semantics aside, I know god does not exist.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

which means I don't believe in God but I'm not 100% certain that I'm right about that.

Really? I don't believe in God, and I'm 100% certain that I'm right that I don't believe in God.

But that certainty isn't 100%, thus you don't know.

Actually, you can know something with 100% certainty. For instance, I know, with no possibility that I am wrong, that there are no married bachelors.

Boru

[Lumpymunk]

Not sure why people keep trying to equate "Atheism" with certainty. Atheism is not a positive disbelief in a god, it is the absence of belief... the lack of belief.

You only undermine your ability to defend yourself as an atheist when you commit to any positive beliefs about things that don't exist. It's just as impossible to claim positive disbelief in something as it is positive belief.

Atheist: "How do you know god exists?"
Theist: "How do you know god doesn't exist?"

Both fail.

These classification of "gnostic atheist" vs "agnostic atheist" vs "positive atheist" break down because you're over complicating the issue.

Your beliefs about knowledge are independent of your beliefs (or lack of beliefs) about god(s).

[Doubting Thomas]

I can't be 100% sure that no gods exist, but it's fairly obvious that all gods were invented by man, just like all other mythical creatures and fairy tales, so I can be quite comfortable in my belief that there are no gods. Even Christians believe that all other gods besides Yahweh were made up by man, but for some reason Yahweh gets a pass and special pleading.

[*Deidre*]

I haven't made a topic in a while, so I may as well post this up.

I idenfity as an agnostic atheist (and a Dudeist on the side), if you did not know, which means I don't believe in God but I'm not 100% certain that I'm right about that. Which, to me, is the most logical position to take on the subject. Many debates I see on this site and in real life between theists and atheists is, "Theist, how can you be so sure about your belief? How do you know you're right?" Yet, sometimes this argument comes from a gnostic atheist or an atheist that claims to be 100% sure about their atheism.

I don't understand that. How can you be 100% knowledgable that there's no God? It makes as much sense as being 100% knowledgable that there is one. You can't know. That's why I think gnostic atheism is just ironic. Fighting against the illogcal position of complete knowledge of a god while claiming to have complete knowledge that there isn't one. It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree. I'll go a step further, and I think the definition should be expanded to mean...'but I don't really need to know one way or the other.'

If there exists a god or not, I no longer have a burning desire to know.

The truth is, no one knows for sure, one way or the other.