I know that there are no gods.

[Minimalist]

what kind of jelly is inside the doughnut to know they want to eat that doughnut.

Oh, I do. That creamy shit is vile.

[Rayaan]

I know that there are no gods. I expect someone to take me up on this claim.

I don't know how I can know. I just claim to know.

So, then I can also claim to know this: I know that you don't know.

You would be correct if you said "I don't beleive God exists" or "There is very little chance that He exists" but it's incorrect to say that you "know" that there is no God.

Also, I agree with everyone who said that "I know xyz" and "I'm aware of xyx" are not one and the same thing. For example, I'm not aware of the existence of aliens, but, I will not say that "I know that there are no aliens out there" because I know that there might be aliens even though I'm not aware of them.

[Violet]

@Rayaan: knowledge has nothing to do with being correct.

[Rayaan]

@Rayaan: knowledge has nothing to do with being correct.

True, but knowledge implies that you know that such an idea is a "fact' rather than a "belief" (regardless of whether it is correct or not).

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This is a little experiment to see what happens and to also test the way I understand the definition of 'knowledge' and 'know'.

I know that there are no gods. I expect someone to take me up on this claim.

My response is exactly the same as to the theist who claims "I know there IS a god"

Viz; How wonderful for you. Would you like me to share your belief? No probs.Simply show me the evidence in support of your claim. If you are unable to do so, please stop wasting my time and bugger off.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Even evidence for such a claim could not establish its truth with certainty; it would still only be probabilistic. Am I right, DvF, in thinking that what you're saying is that God probably doesn't exist, therefore it is probably the case that you know that he doesn't exist? Or did I just make that up?

[fr0d0]

Knowledge of Gods existence is impossible, and I take that as proven.

But it is not proven. If, at some point in the future, we are able to know the true, and total, nature of the universe, then we would know if god exists or not.

Proven in the sense that it is a logical impossibility, like a circle with 4 sides.

The issue is your choice to believe or not. Then you start talking atheism.

Belief is not a choice. We are either convinced by something or we are not.

Semantics. Your choice is to follow your conviction. You're not talking about conviction but knowledge.

[ozgoat]

Proof is overrated and completely subjective.

One does not need to know what kind of jelly is inside the doughnut to know they want to eat that doughnut.

God does not exist. I likely cannot prove it to you, and it is not a perfectly logical assessment. It is, however: my belief... and to state otherwise would be lying.

But let's say you have a choice between strawberry jelly or raspberry jelly and you don't like strawberry, then you'd want to know, or perhaps you don't like jelly at all and would take it out before eating the doughnut!

I, too have the belief that there are no gods whatsoever, in fact, I'm almost 100% certain, because not only is there no proof, subjective or not, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that there is even one god.

There is, however plenty of evidence that all gods are/were invented by humans, this is why my belief is so strong that there are none whatsoever.

[Violet]

Proof is overrated and completely subjective.

One does not need to know what kind of jelly is inside the doughnut to know they want to eat that doughnut.

God does not exist. I likely cannot prove it to you, and it is not a perfectly logical assessment. It is, however: my belief... and to state otherwise would be lying.

But let's say you have a choice between strawberry jelly or raspberry jelly and you don't like strawberry, then you'd want to know, or perhaps you don't like jelly at all and would take it out before eating the doughnut!

You're reading too much into a silly example, you are

I, too have the belief that there are no gods whatsoever, in fact, I'm almost 100% certain, because not only is there no proof, subjective or not, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that there is even one god.

I am 100% certain. I'll still banter about the idea of it of course... but then its not as if anyone could shut me up anyway

There is, however plenty of evidence that all gods are/were invented by humans, this is why my belief is so strong that there are none whatsoever.

I don't think it is such a strong belief... you are, after all, allowing for the possibility of it being otherwise

[orogenicman]

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.