Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism

[FreeTony]

You can't put a probability on something for which you have no data.

For something like Aliens you have the Drake equation, though the parameters are so unknown it renders it pretty meaningless. At least when talking about Aliens we have one example of life existing on a planet. For Supernatural things we have nothing that can be used to calculate a probability.

[bennyboy]

I think to be a gnostic anything, your terms need to be well defined. I'm a gnostic atheist about the Christian God, because the Biblical accounts carry contradictory descriptions, and logical impossibilities.

To be a gnostic atheist about any possible God, you still have to make semantic choices: "God must be said to be XYZ, and XYZ is incompatible with what we know about reality." In my case, I accept the loosest possible definition: "God is any sentient or intentional presence which has existed at least as long as the universe." To me, there's nothing that I know about that makes such an entity an impossibility-- although actually identifying and interacting with such an entity on a gnostic level seems highly unlikely.

Some have claimed that since I don't have an active belief that God (by some definition) is real, I'm not agnostic, but an agnostic atheist. I'll fight to the figurative death against this: I accept as plausible both that such an entity exists, and that such an entity does not exist. I do not "happen to lack" an active belief in a God's existence, much as I do not "lack" an active belief that my missing car keys are in my junk drawer: until I know, I just don't know.

[Cato]

If complification were a word, it would apply here. God exists, or it doesn't. I don't know is a also a valid opinion on the matter, but everything else is simply hedging your bet.

Andrew Dice Clay once said something along the lines of, "There are no bisexuals, you either suck dick or you don't".

[ignoramus]

Cato, Someone told me once that only the male "receiver" is gay or bisexual".
The "giver" is just having sex! He he

There might be 50 shades of "bi" ! Who knows? Not I.

[Dystopia]

You can't put a probability on something for which you have no data.

Here's the answer, no data = non existence! That settles it. If evidence is presented I'll change my mind. This method is simple enough.

Edit - By the way, I'm 100% all the abrahamic gods don't exist, so yeah If you want to call that probability be my guest. Reasons? Incoherent characteristics and lack of evidence mainly.

---

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!

The problem with this analogy is that the idea of god, at least the one worth contemplating, isn't an empirical notion, but rather a rational one; I think it would be more fair to compare god with say, the law of non-contradiction, or numbers, as opposed to material objects (though a dragon may be nothing more than an abstraction, its constituent parts are no less derived from empirical concepts). So, I can say, the law of non-contradiction is true, but can I provide material evidence? Can you point to any tangible object in the Universe that is a number? You can surely create a symbol that you call "5," and have it represent a quantity of similar objects, but you cannot define what "5" is apart from appealing to other numbers--and those are not in-of-themselves sufficient for conceptualizing the meaning of "5." Numbers, I reckon, exist purely in the abstract, and cannot established as actual "things," as is, say, a "cat," yet we never doubt their necessity or meaning in framing our empirical experience of the world. I think "dragon" is in the category of the latter, with "cat," while something like god would have to be akin to a principle, a law of logical necessity, that is, of an immaterial existence. Does that make any sense?

So, the question, "Is god a 'real thing'?" would find an answer similar to the inquiry: Are the 'laws of logic' 'real things'? Are numbers 'real things'? Or are they merely mental tools by which all else is made (to appear) real?

There is no use in complicating what doesn't have to be complicated. What I'm saying here is that I assume something doesn't exist if there is no evidence, treating the god hypothesis differently just because it's 'god' is in my opinion wrong and fallacious. By claiming knowledge, I recognize my assumption could be wrong, but until now I don't have reasons to think so.

[Ravenshire]

Gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism is really this simple:

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is a thread to discuss atheism related to gnosticism and agnosticism.

I prefer Barbello over Yaldaboath and Abraxas above all. Opps...wrong gnosticism.

[FreeTony]

A major problem is that people think that by making a statement "I do not believe X exists", they think that automatically think that means they believe the statement "I believe X does not exist". This is why people describe themselves as pure Agnostics.

[Cato]

A major problem is that people think that by making a statement "I do not believe X exists", they think that automatically think that means they believe the statement "I believe X does not exist". This is why people describe themselves as pure Agnostics.

I agree of course, but for all practical purposes it is a distinction without a difference: no god either way.

[Mudhammam]

There is no use in complicating what doesn't have to be complicated. What I'm saying here is that I assume something doesn't exist if there is no evidence, treating the god hypothesis differently just because it's 'god' is in my opinion wrong and fallacious. By claiming knowledge, I recognize my assumption could be wrong, but until now I don't have reasons to think so.

I don't disagree, I'm merely saying (or attempting to, however poorly) that certain conditions of reality do naturally lead us to something like a supreme being, though I'd never bet any amount of money that THAT is in fact a helpful description for whatever is 'out there,' in 'ultimate reality.'