Is there another category?

[Des]

If the omnipotent being makes lawmakers pass a law that accidentally-printed extra notes are legal tender, and then makes the machinery spit out one "accidental" extra note - is it legal?

 

Legal, but not directly created.

 

If the omnipotent being makes an extra $20 bill appear on the floor in front of you - it might not be legal - but we would not know - because he may have made it exactly alike to one he "disappeared" from someone's wallet.

 

If it's exactly alike then it's the same bill, which was teleported.

 

Now I know Descartes did not explain it as I explain it - but essentially the universe with an omnipotent being is the universe of Descartes' evil demon. We can in no way prove that we are not in that universe. Let's talk as though we are not, because then the talk makes sense.

 

Demon or no, believing we are utterly deceived has no survival value. We may keep on the lookout for signs we are being less-than-utterly deceived, and strive to overcome that deception, but total deception is a futile consideration. We might as well doubt the existence of other people etc., which leads to sterile scepticism and solipsism.

Yes, I am aware that the definitions of "legal" and "created" make that question something of a trick question.

 

My reading of what you said, agrees with my understanding. We put away the possibility that we are totally deceived, and we look for a methodology to detect and correct mental errors (partial deception). When Stef says "reason and evidence", my mind does not go "wow, what a revelation", it goes "thats what I understood before I found FDR". That's the title of my plan for detecting my mental errors: Reason and evidence.

 

Would you care to comment on that?

[Des]

The thing to realise is that “potency” doesn't mean “able to do the logically contradictory”. The notion that God should be able to “do anything” including the logically contradictory is a strawman set up by atheists. “Omnipotent” should be read as “having as much power as possible.”

Okay, let's say that the ability to do the logically contradictory is a strawman.

 

At some level of potency, the reality is a god-dependent reality, and logical contradiction is a feature of an independent reality. So, as most atheists say: "let us test the sense data in the independent reality, for evidence of some really powerful being within the independent reality". Any being within an independent reality is, in my scheme of definitions, either an earthling or a space alien, so if you find such, I'm not saying "hello God" (unless he has phasers pointed at me, set on "kill")  .

 

The potency ascribed to the christian god, includes the potency to do miracles. In a true miracle, the features of reality can be used to predict that (e.g.) the water of the red sea will not form walls, but the miraculous action of the very-potent being does what can be predicted: will not happen.

 

If the resolution is that the prediction was incorrect, then the being is a space alien. If the resolution is that the prediction was correct, but reality was overriden, then we are in a god-dependent reality - we may as well quit making predictions, sit around and pray our tummies full.

 

Christianity describes it, not as a miracle, but as a feature of reality, that a person lives after death. There is no sense data to support this feature of reality (I'm not saying miracle - seems to be in a different category). The evidence points toward the conclusion that it is essentially wishful-thinking - re-inforced by those who find it a handy device for manipulating the decisions of others.

[Thomasio]

The promise of a life after death is nothing more than an attempt to steal real values from real people in the real world.

That's what all religions have in common, they ask you to give up part of your material comfort on earth (where of course the religious leaders are the ones receiving what believers donate), in exchange for a promise they don't have to keep, because by the time you find out whether or not the promise is true, it's too late to request reimborse of your losses.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, I am aware that the definitions of "legal" and "created" make that question something of a trick question.

 

My reading of what you said, agrees with my understanding. We put away the possibility that we are totally deceived, and we look for a methodology to detect and correct mental errors (partial deception). When Stef says "reason and evidence", my mind does not go "wow, what a revelation", it goes "thats what I understood before I found FDR". That's the title of my plan for detecting my mental errors: Reason and evidence.

 

Would you care to comment on that?

 

The opposite of deception is principle. I view principles as a sailor views stars: they are to navigate the waters of inky ocean by.

 

Okay, let's say that the ability to do the logically contradictory is a strawman.

 

At some level of potency, the reality is a god-dependent reality, and logical contradiction is a feature of an independent reality. So, as most atheists say: "let us test the sense data in the independent reality, for evidence of some really powerful being within the independent reality". Any being within an independent reality is, in my scheme of definitions, either an earthling or a space alien, so if you find such, I'm not saying "hello God" (unless he has phasers pointed at me, set on "kill")  .

 

The potency ascribed to the christian god, includes the potency to do miracles. In a true miracle, the features of reality can be used to predict that (e.g.) the water of the red sea will not form walls, but the miraculous action of the very-potent being does what can be predicted: will not happen.

 

If the resolution is that the prediction was incorrect, then the being is a space alien. If the resolution is that the prediction was correct, but reality was overriden, then we are in a god-dependent reality - we may as well quit making predictions, sit around and pray our tummies full.

 

Christianity describes it, not as a miracle, but as a feature of reality, that a person lives after death. There is no sense data to support this feature of reality (I'm not saying miracle - seems to be in a different category). The evidence points toward the conclusion that it is essentially wishful-thinking - re-inforced by those who find it a handy device for manipulating the decisions of others.

 

If your “space alien” originated the Universe, the Earth, and you, then it would be the Origin, and God.

 

A “god-dependant reality” would we one where the highest chance for good outcomes would be to obey God.

 

On Christianity, if we understand the simultaneity of aeternity then we can understand how Christ (0-33 AD) can be said to have existed "from the beginning" and "still lives."  Consider the following work:

 

An Evening in the 'Simultaneity of Eternity'

with Shakespeare, Keats, and William Warfield

by Dan Leach

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/013_poetry.html

[Thomasio]

A “god-dependant reality” would we one where the highest chance for good outcomes would be to obey God.

 

A “god-dependant reality” says nothing whatsoever about possible outcomes of obeying god, let alone good outcomes.

 

The claim of god being a good god is a secondary claim of religion, independent of the claim that a god exists.

The claim that "good god" refers to gods plans for the personal comfort in an afterlife, for one specific species from one specific planet in a gigantic universe, is a 3rd claim of religion, independent from the claim that a god exists and again independent from the claim that god is a good god.

The claim that obeying god shall lead to a better outcome for the obeyers than not obeying god is yet another independent 4th claim of religion, still independent from all the above 3 claims.

 

Maybe god loves experiments? Maybe he wants to see how much morality an intelligent being can develop without worshipping an imaginary overnatural being and will reward only those who behave morally right on their own?

Maybe god loves intelligence and reason and rewards only those who do not believe in extremely improbable things.

 

The only way how these 4 claims depend on one another is the fact, they all require a god to exist and even that is so extremely unlikely, that we can surely dismiss another 3 very improbable claims piled up on top of it.

[Donnadogsoth]

A “god-dependant reality” says nothing whatsoever about possible outcomes of obeying god, let alone good outcomes.

 

The claim of god being a good god is a secondary claim of religion, independent of the claim that a god exists.

The claim that "good god" refers to gods plans for the personal comfort in an afterlife, for one specific species from one specific planet in a gigantic universe, is a 3rd claim of religion, independent from the claim that a god exists and again independent from the claim that god is a good god.

The claim that obeying god shall lead to a better outcome for the obeyers than not obeying god is yet another independent 4th claim of religion, still independent from all the above 3 claims.

 

Maybe god loves experiments? Maybe he wants to see how much morality an intelligent being can develop without worshipping an imaginary overnatural being and will reward only those who behave morally right on their own?

Maybe god loves intelligence and reason and rewards only those who do not believe in extremely improbable things.

 

The only way how these 4 claims depend on one another is the fact, they all require a god to exist and even that is so extremely unlikely, that we can surely dismiss another 3 very improbable claims piled up on top of it.

 

Yes, yes, we know, nothing created everything for no reason.

[Thomasio]

Yes, yes, we know, nothing created everything for no reason.

 

You see, whether or not there is a reason for something, doesn't mean, if there is a reason, it could be the reason you wish for.

 

Maybe there's no god but only a devil and all he wants is a huge supply of souls to roast in hell.

Maybe there's a god who doesn't care for humanity.

Maybe there's a huge chain of overnatural beinges, created by over-overnaural beings, created by over-over-overnatural beings and maybe neither of any of them has ever heard about a meaningless planet at the outskirts of a meaningless galaxy, where an intelligent species has evolved that love to worship whatever they wish for.

Maybe there's a reason for the universe, but it's not a god.

Maybe wishful thinking is never good advice.

[Donnadogsoth]

You see, whether or not there is a reason for something, doesn't mean, if there is a reason, it could be the reason you wish for.

 

Maybe there's no god but only a devil and all he wants is a huge supply of souls to roast in hell.

Maybe there's a god who doesn't care for humanity.

Maybe there's a huge chain of overnatural beinges, created by over-overnaural beings, created by over-over-overnatural beings and maybe neither of any of them has ever heard about a meaningless planet at the outskirts of a meaningless galaxy, where an intelligent species has evolved that love to worship whatever they wish for.

Maybe there's a reason for the universe, but it's not a god.

Maybe wishful thinking is never good advice.

 

"On the outskirts of a meaningless galaxy" etc., is the old canard about how somehow we are insignificant because we are small and our sun is common and we are not in the dead centre of our galaxy.  Which is all irrelevant and foolish, harkening back to colloquial definitions of beauty akin to crystal spheres and the like.  A drop of cyanide in your milk is small, that doesn't mean it is insignificant.  Your heart is off-centre, that doesn't mean it is insignificant.  Humans are common in Chicago, that doesn't mean they are insignificant there.

 

Your other critiques are agnosticism run amok, hinging on not grasping the nature of humanity as being made in the image of the Creator.  That is, there is "heaven" and "earth".  "Heaven" is the realm of principles or natural laws, "earth" is the realm of the senses.  Every known created being dwells on earth, except for man, who is capable of dwelling in heaven.  We can discover law, and introduce it into play thus creating otherwise-impossible manifestations and patterns on earth.  Most specifically this refers us to our ability to increase our power over nature and thus our power to survive in the Universe.  That is being made in the image of the Creator.  Deny this, and one signs mankind's death warrant in this hostile Universe.

[Thomasio]

Boy, your're funny.

How could a creature that takes air and food through the same entry into the body, which frequently leads to people chocking on food, be anywhere close to an image of a perfect being?

 

Created in the image of god is one of the most hilarious claims of religion and just like all the other claims, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for it.

In this case it's about the opposite, 100s if not 1000s of shortcommings of the human body, could be considered near solid proof, this is nowhere near a good design, therefore can't have been designed by a god, or better isn't designed at all, but the result of natural selection, simply the (so far) best out of billions of imperfect options nature has produced so far.

[Donnadogsoth]

Boy, your're funny.

How could a creature that takes air and food through the same entry into the body, which frequently leads to people chocking on food, be anywhere close to an image of a perfect being?

 

Created in the image of god is one of the most hilarious claims of religion and just like all the other claims, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence for it.

In this case it's about the opposite, 100s if not 1000s of shortcommings of the human body, could be considered near solid proof, this is nowhere near a good design, therefore can't have been designed by a god, or better isn't designed at all, but the result of natural selection, simply the (so far) best out of billions of imperfect options nature has produced so far.

 

Talking about mind, not body.  Heaven not earth.

[shirgall]

How could a creature that takes air and food through the same entry into the body, which frequently leads to people chocking on food, be anywhere close to an image of a perfect being?

 

 

Let alone running a sewer pipe through a recreational area.

[Thomasio]

Talking about mind, not body.  Heaven not earth.

 

So since the body is about the opposite of perfect, only the mind independent from the body is what counts?

That's the usual "god of the gaps", as soon as something god has supposedly done is shown to be false, believers switch to whatever is left that isn't shown false (yet).

But then, the bible says "god made humans in his own image", it doesn't say "god made a mind in his image and placed it into a complete mess of a biologically evolved body".

 

And if that's not enough, what is the mind outside of it's body? I believe you call it the "soul".

If young people, full of enthusiasm for Green Peace and stuff, growing up, changing their mind, become either political correct or libertarians or whatever else, do they keep their earlier mind-soul that was in support of Green Peace?

If old people suffer a head stroke and "forget" absolutely everything they ever knew, if they have to relearn absolutely everything (my mom had that, I can tell how that goes), if they don't even recognize their own children, where is their mind-soul in the meantime?

If through relearning things they become a different person, i.e. my mom went from being the most diligent, helpful, selfless and content person she was before, to a harsh critics of politics, especially the disfunctional medical system and she went from being catholic to a hardcore atheist, because she realized, there is no soul within her that would somehow remain unchanged while her body deteriorates, then what is the state of her soul before and after?

 

What kind of mind will in the end arrive in heaven? The one that was the strongest believer, because that's the one that would be welcome in heaven, or the one that was the strongest atheist, because it's more fun to send them to hell and watch them suffer?

Does it go by timeline? Whatever the state of mind of a person was in the last minute before he died? What if the last thought doesn't make any sense, because Alzheimers desease has destroyed the mind? Will the soul remain intact? If yes, in what state will it remain intact? The state of mind from their 18th bday or something like that? An overall average?

[Donnadogsoth]

So since the body is about the opposite of perfect, only the mind independent from the body is what counts?

That's the usual "god of the gaps", as soon as something god has supposedly done is shown to be false, believers switch to whatever is left that isn't shown false (yet).

But then, the bible says "god made humans in his own image", it doesn't say "god made a mind in his image and placed it into a complete mess of a biologically evolved body".

 

And if that's not enough, what is the mind outside of it's body? I believe you call it the "soul".

If young people, full of enthusiasm for Green Peace and stuff, growing up, changing their mind, become either political correct or libertarians or whatever else, do they keep their earlier mind-soul that was in support of Green Peace?

If old people suffer a head stroke and "forget" absolutely everything they ever knew, if they have to relearn absolutely everything (my mom had that, I can tell how that goes), if they don't even recognize their own children, where is their mind-soul in the meantime?

If through relearning things they become a different person, i.e. my mom went from being the most diligent, helpful, selfless and content person she was before, to a harsh critics of politics, especially the disfunctional medical system and she went from being catholic to a hardcore atheist, because she realized, there is no soul within her that would somehow remain unchanged while her body deteriorates, then what is the state of her soul before and after?

 

What kind of mind will in the end arrive in heaven? The one that was the strongest believer, because that's the one that would be welcome in heaven, or the one that was the strongest atheist, because it's more fun to send them to hell and watch them suffer?

Does it go by timeline? Whatever the state of mind of a person was in the last minute before he died? What if the last thought doesn't make any sense, because Alzheimers desease has destroyed the mind? Will the soul remain intact? If yes, in what state will it remain intact? The state of mind from their 18th bday or something like that? An overall average?

 

You're not even trying.  You're not young.  You're old and settled like concrete.

 

First, that man is made in the image of the immaterial Creator is an old, old understanding that only literalist dingbats would ever conceive of trying to gainsay.

 

Second, who says the human body is a mess?  Its a stunning example of workmanship and if it has its flaws, well, so is the flaw that it is mortal.  I don't have any problem with choking, nor with my plumbing being the way it is.  These are trivial and absurd bones of contention thrown into the arena by people too lazy in their agnosticism to even try to consider what is being told to them.

 

If you don't see my indication of principle, of the need for principle, of the principled distinction that principles make between man and ape, at this point I don't see how anything I say could pierce your agnostic armour.  Mores the pity but I won't waste any more time on you.

[Thomasio]

That's the whole point of why it's so ridiculous.

If every few years part of the bible has to be reinterpreted because whatever was considered the correct interpretation so far has become verifyably false, if near everything from the book was taken literally 2000 years ago, but almost nothing in the whole book can be taken literally today, clearly there is no truth in it.

By today, so much of the actual truth has been discovered by science, that anyone who seriously tries, can push a believer into a corner, where his only, last defense is, close the eyes, run away and deny further talking, before he would be in danger of doubting his religion himself.

Nothing new, happens all the time.

 

I haven't even seriously tried, personally I believe trying to argue with religious people is a pointless waste of time, because given enough time in a discussion, you will get believers to say things like: "Even if I was proven wrong, I would still believe I'm right."

There's no point in discussing under such conditions, except of one small detail.

I'm having a bit of fun with you here, it's not you who I'm trying to convince here, it's the vast majority of all undecided, open minded readers of this topic, because in all cases I know of, any discussion like this one, whether in a public debate, or in a video chat over the web, or in forums like this one, has always led to the majority of readers who were undecided before reading, went to the side of the atheist during reading, because from an outside, undecided, neutral point of view, in discussions like this one believers always make fools of themselves and the fact they all run away in the end underlines just that.

 

But you're right about one thing, a "shield" in form of a functioning brain ist a pretty good defense against religious nonsense.

[Frosty]

These definitions I'm quoting/paraphrasing from dictionary.com:

 

A theist is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods.

 

An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings.

 

An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

 

A Gnostic is a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

 

 

My question is isn't there another category?

 

Using the above definitions, theists believe, atheists deny, Gnostics claim superior knowledge and agnostics claim one cannot know anything about these things.

 

What about someone who admits to having no certainty on the subject of the existence of god or gods but who is open to persuasion?

 

I don't know what has been replied in the thread, so this may have already been answered, It's just quicker for me to type out the basic answer I give everyone on this topic.

 

Theist - Belief god(s) exists.

Atheist - Lacks Belief god(s) exist.

Gnostic - Claims knowedge of god, or that god is knowable.

Agnostic - Claims god is unknown or unknowable.

 

(a)theism addresses belief, (a)gnosticism addresses knowledge. Logically it's coherent to be any combination of these 2 independent variables, so with regards to god you're one of the following.

 

Atheist Agnostic - Lacks belief in the existence of god, doesn't know for sure (often called weak atheism)

Atheist Gnostic - Lacks belief in the existence of god, and denies gods existence (often called a strong atheist)

Theist Agnostic - Belief in a god, but doesn't know for sure (belief based on faith alone)

Theist Gnostic - Belief in a god and claims to know for sure (sometimes through divine revelation or some ontological argument)

 

The issue you raised in the first post is basically a bad definition of atheist, not all atheists deny god exists, it's not a requirement that you deny god exists to be an atheist, it's sufficient that you lack a belief in existence. It all comes down to one important fact, and that's the lack of belief in any statement is not the same as the denial the statement is true.

 

It is true that a subset of atheists deny the existence of gods, in my experience it tends to be very small segment and usually depends on various factors like how god is defined exactly and other things.

 

You have to be wary with this issue, on the question of god's existence the theists have the burden of proof when they assert the existence of a god, and quite often in debates they'll attempt a reversal of the burden of proof regarding this assertion, and it's common this will be done by asserting that the atheist is position is to deny god either by redefining the word to suit them and suggest your only position outside of belief is denial, which is logically incorrect.

 

If you simply lack belief in a god but you're not certain either way on the issue, then you're an atheist, don't let anyone bully you out of this position.

[shirgall]

I don't know what has been replied in the thread, so this may have already been answered, It's just quicker for me to type out the basic answer I give everyone on this topic.

 

Theist - Belief god(s) exists.

Atheist - Lacks Belief god(s) exist.

Gnostic - Claims knowedge of god, or that god is knowable.

Agnostic - Claims god is unknown or unknowable.

 

(a)theism addresses belief, (a)gnosticism addresses knowledge. Logically it's coherent to be any combination of these 2 independent variables, so with regards to god you're one of the following.

 

Atheist Agnostic - Lacks belief in the existence of god, doesn't know for sure (often called weak atheism)

Atheist Gnostic - Lacks belief in the existence of god, and denies gods existence (often called a strong atheist)

Theist Agnostic - Belief in a god, but doesn't know for sure (belief based on faith alone)

Theist Gnostic - Belief in a god and claims to know for sure (sometimes through divine revelation or some ontological argument)

 

 

While I appreciate your construction, where do the logicians fit in the picture? Are they a subset of the Gnostics?

 

There are many proposed attributes of a god, but most of those proposed attributes are logically inconsistent, so the Gnostic Atheist in your classification system claims that not only does he not believe in them, but they cannot logically exist. This is not a knowledge of God issue insomuch as a claim that consistent universes cannot contain Gods, as defined.

[Will Torbald]

Omnipotence is a misleading word because of this. Rather, God can do whatever can be done by God. God has a lot of power--the most power--a maximum of power--in other words, but is not omnipotent, in the common sense of "able to do anything" for the reason just given.

 

The thing to realise is that “potency” doesn't mean “able to do the logically contradictory”. The notion that God should be able to “do anything” including the logically contradictory is a strawman set up by atheists. “Omnipotent” should be read as “having as much power as possible.”

But who defines what is possible or impossible? It's like a man saying he has the largest penis only if you measure it with his ruler, and all other rulers are invalid. If logic defines what is possible then god is not beyond this world. If reason defines what is possible then god is not beyond a human.

[Donnadogsoth]

But who defines what is possible or impossible? It's like a man saying he has the largest penis only if you measure it with his ruler, and all other rulers are invalid. If logic defines what is possible then god is not beyond this world. If reason defines what is possible then god is not beyond a human.

 

As per Leibniz, God is, indeed, bound by the principle of sufficient reason, which applies to some things by the application of the principle of contradiction, and to others by the principle of perfection.  That God conforms to these principles, well, you can say he's this or that, but he remains the Creator.  Were you hoping for a logically contradictory Creator?

[Will Torbald]

As per Leibniz, God is, indeed, bound by the principle of sufficient reason, which applies to some things by the application of the principle of contradiction, and to others by the principle of perfection.  That God conforms to these principles, well, you can say he's this or that, but he remains the Creator.  Were you hoping for a logically contradictory Creator?

 

It's not a hope, it's just that a logically sound creator is not a god. When you mix your god with cosmology, it doesn't work. You either have to keep cosmology and drop your god, or keep your god and drop cosmology.

[Donnadogsoth]

It's not a hope, it's just that a logically sound creator is not a god. When you mix your god with cosmology, it doesn't work. You either have to keep cosmology and drop your god, or keep your god and drop cosmology.

 

On the contrary, it's a universe without a Creator that makes no sense.  Everything came from nothing for no reason?  Or temporal things are somehow eternal?  No, these are absurdities.

 

I think you may be having difficulties with a God because you are essentially a materialist, in that you believe in what you see as the final reality.  God isn't there, as such (no burning letters in the sky or what have you), and so you dust your hands and conclude there's nothing there at all.  This is of course an unprincipled position, but if you're anything like the general tenor of this board you're clinging to a single principle (N-A-P) and have shovelled all the others into the wastebin.  This begs the question of why we shouldn't--like the proverbial atheist who is merely one-god-less than the theist who is atheist for all the other gods--shear ourselves of that last principle and simply do as we wilt.

 

I know God exists because principle exists, because we have a Heaven of principle and an Earth of process.  The process is the result of substance, of efficient cause, and the origin of these substances or principles begs the question of who ordered them.  Not everything is necessary--was the principle of sufficient reason necessary?  Is the orbit of Ceres necessary?--and so there needs an Origin to explain them.  Only an unimaginative fool would shrug off the necessity of God as the explanation for the existence of the Universe, the existence of principle, and instead merely presume that the sensuous cosmos is all there is, as if the senses were somehow primary rather than being shadow-play cast by principle into our minds.

[Will Torbald]

On the contrary, it's a universe without a Creator that makes no sense.  Everything came from nothing for no reason?  Or temporal things are somehow eternal?  No, these are absurdities.

 

Because they are strawmen. If you understood what "everything" is actually made of, you'd know it makes perfect sense for a universe to have come without a creator. When you only study philosophies and you don't learn science you only get a narrow sense of reality, which cannot be grasped only though rationalism.

[Donnadogsoth]

Because they are strawmen. If you understood what "everything" is actually made of, you'd know it makes perfect sense for a universe to have come without a creator. When you only study philosophies and you don't learn science you only get a narrow sense of reality, which cannot be grasped only though rationalism.

 

Oh God help us, Stephen Hawking is going to be our new Pope.

[Will Torbald]

Oh God help us, Stephen Hawking is going to be our new Pope.

 

Yes, in time he will, but at least his Bible is open source.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, in time he will, but at least his Bible is open source.

 

You underestimate the mutational adaptability of Christianity.  It has been on the ropes many times before and always come back at the last hour to rise to greater strength.  It is still coming to terms with Science but when it has it will engulf Islam and Secularism and leave only the bones.

[Frosty]

While I appreciate your construction, where do the logicians fit in the picture? Are they a subset of the Gnostics?

 

There are many proposed attributes of a god, but most of those proposed attributes are logically inconsistent, so the Gnostic Atheist in your classification system claims that not only does he not believe in them, but they cannot logically exist. This is not a knowledge of God issue insomuch as a claim that consistent universes cannot contain Gods, as defined.

 

Depends entirely what you believe, remember that belief doesn't need to necessarily be valid or true for people to hold it, beliefs are often held for completely irrational or emotional reasons. The test for atheism is simple, first you test for theism (do you believe in the existence of a god?) If the answer is anything other than yes, then you're an atheist.

 

It's a little tricky because generally speaking you're an atheist/agnostic with regards to specifics gods and it might be different for each god, it's true to say that some gods are described in ways which are logically inconsistent and so cannot exist, but others might be plausible. This is certainly one path to becoming a Gnostic Atheist regarding some gods, we can be Gnostic Atheists about other religions like Pastafarianism because we have relatively detailed accounts that it's man made and was designed to make a point rather than be a genuine religion.

 

I don't think it matters how you arrive at knowledge, whether than be through logical deduction, divine revelation, or whatever, Gnosticism is really about what you claim to know and so is subjective. Many people claim to know things but are wrong, so in some sense (a)gnosticism is really more about how sure you are about your belief rather than anything objective. A gnostic in this sense is just someone who is 100% sure, and an agnostic is unsure.

 

For example there are some logically inconsistent gods, I'd describe myself as Gnostic Atheist with regards to these gods, however there are other descriptions of possible gods that I lack belief of (because there's no evidence to support them) but I'm strictly agnostic about, I admit that my position isn't a certain one, it's open to further evidence.

 

The difference between gnosticism and agnosticism with regards to atheism is what produces Weak vs Strong atheism as detailed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

[Thomasio]

Everybody is an atheist, towards all the gods that were ever invented by humans.

Some people make an exception for one specific god that they haven't abolished yet.

But even on that last one, no matter which one it is, believers are in a minority, because there is no religion that more than half of humanity would believe in, while most religions are mutually exclusive.

Christianity will surely disappear halfway soon, the Islam is currently making an attempt to take over the world, but hopefully they won't succeed either.

In the very long run humanity will definately overcome its precivilized superstition, let's just hope the remaining backwards oriented movements won't cause too much trouble until then.

[jimmo100]

I don't know what has been replied in the thread, so this may have already been answered, It's just quicker for me to type out the basic answer I give everyone on this topic.

Many of the posts on this thread are on topic but by no means all of them. I recommend you read my comments from the beginning. Not that your reply isn't useful.

 

 

If you simply lack belief in a god but you're not certain either way on the issue, then you're an atheist, don't let anyone bully you out of this position.

I'm not happy calling myself an atheist.

 

To me, if some atheists would have no hesitation in violating the NAP in order to end all religion and other atheists encourage people to think for themselves or at least are indifferent to assertions made without evidence, that is as different a position as one can take.

 

There is no way I want to be mistakenly categorized as being for an end to freedom of conscience. The two viewpoints are so different as to be opposites. To me, this is a clear-cut case of someone trespassing on someone else's turf, so to speak. One party needs to vacate the label, if it is to have any unambiguous meaning. Or call the other party out. One or the other.

 

Otherwise the label is serving as a shield for those not courageous enough to admit their coercive leanings. If you are telling me the vast majority of atheists are pro- freedom of religion - by definition, then the small minority(which include very prominent, high profile individual 'atheists') are giving the rest of you a bad rep'.

[Des]

Everybody is an atheist, towards all the gods that were ever invented by humans.

Pretty much atheist towards the one they prefer, also. They drive to work and eat their tummies full, don't just pray themselves to work or pray their tummies full.

I'm not happy calling myself an atheist.

If I were to accept your definition from your initial post, I would also not call myself an atheist.

 

It is not possible to know that there is no omnipotent being. It is possible to reason that an omnipotent being is undetectable by reason of his omnipotence, and his existence or non-existence cannot be factored into any predictions. It is possible to determine that all people who claim to both believe in the existence of an omnipotent being, and to also know any other fact, are merely wishing that both could be known at the same time. These are not people with whom one can have a rational conversation. One can type or speak rational words, but that is not a conversation. One who says: "There is an omnipotent being, and I am typing to you that there is an omnipotent being", is making an incorrect statement. He should say "There is an omnipotent being, and I think I am typing to you that there is an omnipotent being, but my thought on this second fact could just be a result of the omnipotent being messing with my neurons". This goes for more complex "second facts" like "there is a heaven and a hell", or "believers go to heaven and unbelievers to hell".

I am atheist compared to those who say there is an omnipotent being, but neglect to add the qualifiers to everything else which they say. It is very manipulative of them to lie that they have additional information over and above the first fact they state. If the first fact were true, we would all clearly know nothing else, so what else they should be adding to that first fact, should (to be free of lies) be a beautifully sung, but meaningless lalalalala - else they are tricking us.

 

Infer from that, a correct definition of atheism.