Nah, in order to 'know' something you only have to be justified in believing it to a particular level of confidence. The difference between knowledge and belief is not one of category, but one of degree.

EDIT: Using your definition of know (being 100% certain), the only thing I could claim to know is that "I exist".

EDIT 2: Just to be clear, using these more nuanced definitions, OrP can simultaneously claim that God is possible and claim to be a gnostic atheist.

i think people are misusing the word gnostic in this thread.

Gnosis is a particular type of knowing and the word is concerned with a belief in god fuelled by direct insight gained through mystical practice, divine revelation etc. The gnostic belief systems supposedly revolve around this "gnosis". I don't think you can go and call someone a gnostic atheist just because the word gnosis literally translates to "knowing", it's like calling someone an atheist priest.

That's an archaic use of the word gnostic, and should be capitalized as 'Gnostic'.

And +1 to everything OrP said.

OK I'm with that.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism might also describe the ability to know/not know. In the context of religion you can argue that any deity is outside the realm that our senses can penetrate. That would make one an agnostic in regard to the question "can we truly know if there is a god?". If one believes the opposite (that we can reliably determine the existence/non-existance of a deity) then that would make that person a gnostic atheist/theist.

I'm a strong atheist - I believe there isn't any god. I have two main reasons for that:

1 I think things which exist leave evidence of their existence and god doesn't
2 I don't think "creator of the universe" means anything. I think believing in that is like believing in the color of a number.

I'm not certain I'm correct though, I'm just confident.

you must have not heard of synesthesia

Based on this thread it seems that whether I call myself an agnostic or gnostic theist comes down to a debate on the subject of what constitutes knowledge and whether knowledge is attainable rather than much to do with theology.

Theism doesn't necessitate "a god which creates the universe". Strong atheism isn't saying "this god does not exist" or "universe-creating gods do not exist", it is saying "no god(s) exist".

As for evidence.... It is much easier for a weak atheist to argue that "the Christian god" does not exist than for a strong atheist. The strong atheist is the one who holds beliefs about unknowns, how could he argue against faith as valid evidence?

Ha ha. Oh wait. It's you.

Lets not bother right? Your words don't mean what my words mean. It just gets tedious.

I'm happy to accept that people think the universe has a creator.

Many here can attest to the fact that I am often an "ass". This was not one of those times.

I'm a weak atheist.

My reasoning is simple. "Is there a god?" is an irrelevant question, the only questions one should concern oneself with is "is there this god?". Strong atheism thus fails from the get-go by trying to answer an impossible question.

Those questions can often be answered empirically. For example, burning bushes doesn't speak... they don't have the capacity to make words. So there is no Christian God, Muslim God or Jewish God. For claims gods that can't be answered by observation ("gods of the gap"), empiricism tells us that belief is unwarranted. Thus there is no need to be a deist or pantheist, or to read the bible in a strictly allegorical fashion. For questions of comparison of evidence ("this book proves god exists", or "that fails to disprove god") that is also simple. Such measures must be done instrumentally, ie... compared in regards of their power of prediction. Hinduism for example, holds no beliefs of healing that can be affirmed in double-blind studies.

Is it perfect? No, empirical knowledge is always subject to revision. That is the way it should be, and one of its greatest epistemological strengths.

Could it also be argued that because having any kind of certainty that a god or gods exist requires the famous 'leap of faith' and faith is a belief held without evidence or proof, as opposed to Rationalism which requires both evidence and reason, that Faith is neither reasonable nor rational and 'weak' Atheism is.

I can't wait to get torn a new one by someone with a PHD in Applied Logic.

I don't understand why some people think this is an important question. You correctly admit that a supernatural being may exist. Yet, you (also correctly) realize that there's not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of such a being. So by what rationality does it make any sense at all to alter anything about the way you live your life?

IOW - It can only be correct to live your life and make decisions on the basis that a supernatural being does NOT exist. So why even bother pondering the alternative? That doesn't make sense to me.

This is a usage of agnosticism that I have adopted too. Atheism is described as a belief claim and agnosticism as a knowledge claim, but as pointed out, you then get bogged down with the difference between belief and knowledge, and how belief becomes knowledge.

I prefer to describe agnosticism as whether God's existence can be known (irrespective of whether I think I do or do not know it). This seems to be similar to Dawkin's ideas of Temporary and Permanent Agnostic Positions from The God Delusion, and Dawkins says that God's existence is a Temporary Agnostic Position, in that while we cannot currently answer the question of existence, at some point we will be able to.

I don't think agnosticism is a useful descriptor since it really just comes down to what level of certainty an individual deems acceptable to declare "I know". In contemporary use, it tends to be used by someone who is not ready to use the term 'atheist', despite meeting the definition, and a reasonable goal for atheists is to help remove the stigma of the 'atheist' label.

If you are missing some posts from this thread, it is because I moved them to a new thread: "Some more moved posts".

What?! Heresy!!!

naw I joke.
IMO 99% of Christians should agree that God's existence is not proven.

Faith is a built in key component to Christianity and not a necessary evil/weakness.

Christians believe by faith, and that faith is only partially based on evidence that is circumstantial. There is no hard evidence for God's existence that cannot be otherwise explained. However, IMO the earth and universe are very strong circumstantial evidence that a Creator God does exist.

Just to jump in with a Christian perspective a bit here.
I don't think the Christian aim is to prove God exists. IMO God Himself goes out of the way to ensure this can't happen.

It is not necessary to know that God exists 100%. Rather we only need to acknowledge his existence as likely to exercise faith.

Similar to going all in with poker. We don't need to be 100% sure we have the best hand. We just want to be reasonbly sure the play is +EV and then we can ship our stack.

Going all in is the act of faith. But this action is not based on hard facts. The decision of going all in is really based largely on circumstantial evidence and experience.

I don't need to see my opponents hand before going all in. I can ship my stack all in when I have a reasonable level of certainity that my hand is good.

LEMON, this is covering some old ground in some ways from your Christianity thread, but would you mind giving your personal definition of "faith" (from the perspective of Christianity)? i.e. not the closest dictionary match, but what it means to you. I know Christians can get annoyed at the definition "belief without evidence" as being what, overly simplified perhaps?

Secondly, why do you think faith being so vital to Christianity is a positive thing? Just briefly (I know you would call faith a cornerstone to Christianity, and a quick explanation might be a little unfair). Essentially I am asking why something that an outsider can see as "don't use your intellect too much, just accept it as true" is held with such regard?

Finally, re: your reply above, I really dislike these Splendour-esque poker analogies, and you have proven that you don't need to go there to get your points across. But having said that, here goes a response!!

The going all-in whenever it is +EV comparison is no good because of the question of limited bankroll. It's much more like playing severely under-rolled, i.e. for your entire net worth, with no option to ever recoup that net worth later. In such a situation, only a degenerate gambler would take the marginal bet, in fact, the professional would immediately step away from the table. If you had at least forty lives, then sure, go for it!!!

This is something i have never understood. Not proven to others is one thing.

But to those that pray and feel Gods presence it should be proof to them and their necessary faith to believe in him should diminish depending how intense that connection is. Meaning if i had a strong ongoing connection with God i would have no or little faith. No?

There are many things which (potentially) exist and do leave evidence, but it's not evidence that we can see or understand. For example, if you were a cave man living 10,000 years ago, you would not be able to discern that there wee planets in other solar systems, but it's there.

Likewise, at some point in our distant future, all other stars and galaxies will be so far away from our own that our sky - all skies in the universe - would look totally black and devoid of stars. If you were a scientist at that time, with no knowledge of our time, standing on a planet, your conclusion would be, based on all available evidence, that no other planets, or stars, or anything else existed.

Who knows what lies outside our current observable universe? Who knows what we may have learned (or not been able to learn) at different points in time when our observable universe looked (and will look) radically different?

Not saying that in any way shows God does exist (I'm inclined to think things don't exist until it's demonstrated otherwise) but I'm not sure how you could speak with confidence when the limits of human understanding are (relatively) easy to manipulate.

I think I would like to start with the dictionary definition and go from there:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

In short IMO faith is trust. Sorry if you didn't like my poker analogy or found it pretentious. The point I wanted to make is that people can exercise faith without complete knowledge of the facts. It is actually necessary to not know things in order to exercise faith.

Faith is holding a belief without conclusive proof. If we had conclusive proof faith would in effect cease to exist.

I am not sure why God puts such a premium on faith. It is clear though that Christianity is constructed around people having faith. I don't think it means people have to stop thinking or questioning. I have many questions about why things happen and why things are the way they are theologically.

The thing that irks me is when people point to faith as a weakness in Christianity. I don't see faith as an inherent weakness to this belief system. Everyone understands that faith is a component.

It is similar to being in a relationship with a spouse. One spouse trusts the other spouse not to cheat on them based on their character. Each spouse trusts the other they will be faithful in the future. It would seem kind of empty to only trust them on a day to day basis for what could be clearly quantified and be proven to have taken place in the past.

Not sure if that makes sense. Kind of rambling here.

I feel the Holy Spirit sometimes when I pray or sing worship songs to God. I dont' think this proves God to me. I have the same questions as the atheist. Maybe this experience is just psychological. Maybe the experience can be explained with reasons apart from God. Proof requires more than a feeling or inner conviction that something is true. My conviction and experience with the Holy Spirit provide only circumstantial evidence that is far from proof.

I dont know. If God communicated with me as a believer i would take it as a type of proof of his existence. It might not be good proof but it would reduce the necessary faith to believe in him. Someone without that communication would need more faith for belief.