Strong/Gnostic Atheism and Weak/Agnostic Atheism

[Dystopia]

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.

Correct, when I state I believe gods do not exist I'm aware it's a positive claim and it doesn't equal saying I don't believe in gods - Many people confuse and use both indistinguishably to define their atheistic position wrongly.

But no one is a pure agnostic, if you don't possess knowledge at all you should be an apatheist, if you took the position of not believing in gods you have to possess a minimum of knowledge to make the choice - Complete agnosticism would be only the 50/50 almost impossible position.

I've also seen atheists who believe atheism to be only a lack of belief in gods - And they use this definition to make a comfortable position for themselves and bash theists - Something I find reprehensible, I don't mind making a positive claim, and if that gives me the obligation to argue against god and disprove some gods, so be it.

Weren't the first atheists gnostic ones? The older people (on their 50's and 60's) I know who are atheists are all gnostics, they don't have a problem claiming god doesn't exist

[bennyboy]

But no one is a pure agnostic, if you don't possess knowledge at all you should be an apatheist, if you took the position of not believing in gods you have to possess a minimum of knowledge to make the choice - Complete agnosticism would be only the 50/50 almost impossible position.

As a declared agnostic, I disagree. There are many ways in which a person could be said not to know something. First of all, the brain works in parallel. It's possible for different parts of the brain to arrive at different conclusions, and for you to have some conscious awareness of them; there's no law that says any proposition has to be reducible down to a single answer in one's brain.

Second, people's awareness of semantic problems can manifest in an answer. If you ask my whether God exists, then unless I think all possible definitions of God necessarily represent a logical impossibility (a position I do not hold), then my answer is "I don't know (unless you can provide an adequate definition)."

Some atheists argue that if I don't have an active belief in God, I'm atheist, and this includes semantic undefinition. However, this is not true IMO. If someone asked "Do you believe in boobledyboo?" I wouldn't respond "No, I lack a belief in boobledyboo, so I'm a-booledyboo-ist." I'd say, "What does that word mean to you?" And until you answer, I'd say, "Since I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know what my position on it is/would be."

To me, that's agnosticism, pure and simple.

[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.

[Darkstar]

Is it possible to believe god doesn't exist but still be agnostic? I.e. I am personally certain that there is no god, but I do not have any irrefutable proof this is the case. Or would that just be similar to calling yourself a de facto gnostic after a certain threshold of certainty?

[Dystopia]

Is it possible to believe god doesn't exist but still be agnostic? I.e. I am personally certain that there is no god, but I do not have any irrefutable proof this is the case. Or would that just be similar to calling yourself a de facto gnostic after a certain threshold of certainty?

I think believing god doesn't exist is claiming knowledge - Therefore you're a a gnostic atheist like me - If you were an agnostic you'd say that there is no certainty

[Darkstar]

I think believing god doesn't exist is claiming knowledge - Therefore you're a a gnostic atheist like me - If you were an agnostic you'd say that there is no certainty

Couldn't you say there is no knowledge? I would be inclined to say "god almost certainly does not exist" but not "I know for a fact that no gods exist". Even "I'm sure there is no god" could mean something subtly different from "I know for a fact that there is no god". Depending on who said them, they could also very well mean the exact same thing. So I guess I'm not 100% certain, just reasonably certain. In the same vein that there need be no reasonable doubt in a person's guilt to convict, I have no reasonable doubts that gods are imaginary. Would I claim to know that they are, though? I would not.

However, I may just be speaking on a technicality; our views on the likelihood of a god existing are probably fairly similar. To each his own, I suppose. I'll just keep calling myself agnostic on a technicality, and you can keep ignoring said technicality in favor of where you feel your position is.

[Dawsonite]

I'm glad I read this thread. I've always been an "if atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby" kind of guy, but it looks like denial of god is a belief for some.

I see there is a word for someone like me who tries not to believe anything. From now on I am apistic -- without faith.