Enlightened [Elitist] Agnosticism

[FatAndFaithless]

It is literally nonsense.

Did...did somebody say "literally nonsense"?

[robvalue]

Why you smacking your head on your desk? Or is it a basketball and you're crouched on your seat?

[Pizza]

I have a basketball for a head and my lower half is a chair. Long story short I pissed off the wrong mad scientist.

[Dystopia]

Theist - I believe in god
Atheist - I don't, there's no evidence
Theist - If the evidence is what matters then the agnostic position is the most honest one, since you can't prove god exists but you also can't disprove him, so it's unknown
Atheist - That still makes me an atheist because I don't hold positive belief in gods
Theist - No that's dishonest, agnosticism is correct because you can't know for certain

[wiploc]

I'm a strong/gnostic atheist (or positive atheist) .... Which part of this is confusing?

"Strong atheist" and "positive atheist" are synonyms. A gnostic strong atheist would be one who knows that gods don't exist.

But strong/gnostic atheist? That part is confusing.

Is it that you equate strong atheism with gnostic atheism? That doesn't work. A strong atheist believes gods don't exist. A gnostic knows whether gods exist. They aren't the same thing.

I lack belief but I also believe

Now that part could be designed to confuse.

there's no gods .... I know there's no gods the same way I know gravity exists

You may know more about gravity than I do. But it looks like you're a gnostic strong atheist. I use that label too, but only with regard to the standard Christian god.

If a-theism is just a response to theistic claims ("I don't accept the claim god exists"), how exactly would you use that definition in "gnostic atheism"? "I know I don't accept the claim -god exists-"?

A gnostic knows whether gods exist. An atheist doesn't believe gods exist. In order to know (without being irrational) whether gods exist without believing that they exist, one would have to know that they do not exist. Therefore, a gnostic atheist would be a strong atheist (one who believe that gods do not exist) whose belief is so well founded as to constitute knowledge.

"Gnostic atheist" isn't common phrasing. You can have a gnostic theist or a gnostic strong atheist, but you can't have a gnostic weak atheist ("I know whether god exists, but I don't have an opinion either way.") So we usually say "gnostic strong atheist" rather than just "gnostic atheist."

---

It's called gnostic atheism.

But again, atheism is just a response to the assertive god claim, not a claim in itself.

I'm not entirely comfortable with that. Atheism isn't just weak atheism; it also includes strong atheism, which does make a claim.

Atheism is the middle ground between the claim "There is a god"
and the claim "There is no god".

Definitely not true. That's weak atheism. Atheism includes every position that is not theism. Strong atheism (the belief that there are no gods) is definitely part of atheism.

I'm just wondering if there is a term for specifically the claim 'there is no god'.

The belief that there is no god is strong atheism.

Because I have something in common with theists in my belief. We both don't accept the claim 'there is no god'. I'm an a-theist and an a-(whatever the claiming "there is no god" word is).

You're a weak atheist.

---

But if we already agree on the term "atheist" meaning only "I do not accept the claim -God exists-" in response to that question specifically, I wouldn't want to use it to address the opposite claim, which is an entirely different quesiton.

Strong atheists (those who believe that gods do not exist) are necessarily atheists (those who do not believe that gods do exist). "Strong atheist" is a subcategory of "atheist."

[Whateverist]

Agnosticism is a thing, it just isn't the midway point in answering the belief question. Agnosticism is the correct answer to the knowledge question in its classic sense.

Is it better (for everyone) to reject belief in gods? If so, better for who? I have no problem with believers believing. I have no problem with believers ceasing to believe. What I have a hard time with is believing there is only one correct stance to take toward belief. Fortunately it isn't any of my gawd damned business.

[Delysid]

Agnostic implies lack of knowledge. Atheist implies lack of belief. The two words operate two different realms, one knowledge, the other belief. One cannot, for example, just be an agnostic. You are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. So technically, all atheists are agnostic atheists. However to avoid confusing the already confused Christians we simply stick with atheists.

[Whateverist]

You may be surprised to learn there are plenty of atheists who are not eager to accept the agnostic atheist label. They are happy to claim they know no gods exist.

Also, in addition to being an agnostic atheist or theist, one can also just not be interested in answering the question (apatheist) or reject the question for being poorly formed or incoherent (agnosticism). Me, I'm happy to answer yes to all four: don't know, agnostic; don't belief, atheist; don't care, apatheist; and not really clear on what a god is, ignostic. I'm not willing to reject discussing the topic altogether just on account of "god" being poorly defined. And my lack of fucks to give doesn't prevent my admitting I harbor no belief in gods, zero. Doesn't mean I know they don't exist, can't very well know that with such a wiggly definition of god. In fact I can provide a definition so unsatisfying to a theist that I could believe in that sort of god.

[robvalue]

Wiploc:

In my experience, in the common usage amongst atheists:

Strong atheist, and gnostic atheist are interchangeable terms for "atheist who also claims to know there are no gods".

The belief there is no God is not strong/gnostic atheism though, as this is not a claim of knowledge. Without the knowledge claim as well (making this claim redundant) this is still agnostic atheism.

[Dystopia]

Rob explain something to me - How is believing something is true different from knowing? If I know something is true I also believe it is true. It is belief with knowledge. I know something happens and therefore I believe it is true. Aren't the two related? Maybe I'm getting too philosophical here. The way I see it, when you know something you also believe (with evidence) that it is true. For example, I know gravity is true because I've experienced it, and I also believe the law of gravity is true because there's no evidence that it's false