Strong/gnostic/hard atheists and god/gods do not exist.

[bertatberts]

Request to pose this question by Gnu Ordure.

Given that there are no absolutes, When an atheist states he is a strong/hard/gnostic atheist, I.E. Is he claiming that he can absolute know that gods do not exist? Or does he qualify it with the preset that absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known?

I would like input from those atheists that do state they're strong/hard/gnostic etc. or anybody really just to clarify that position.

Thank you Bert

[Dante]

For myself, I can't know that no gods exist, but it is a sliding scale. I do know that some gods do not exist, mostly the ones who's followers make claims of divine interventions.

[One Above All]

For me, it's simply because my definition of a god is inconsistent with reality and logically impossible. I claim to know gods don't exist because, by my definition[1], they can't.

1.	Which is the only one that matters to me.

[HAL]

For me, it's simply because my definition of a god is inconsistent with reality and logically impossible. I claim to know gods don't exist because, by my definition[1], they can't.

1.	Which is the only one that matters to me.

Your definition of a god may be wrong though, you don't have all knowledge that exists, therefore you can't be sure, therefore you should not be a gnostic atheist.

I am an agnostic atheist by the way.

This thread will get hot - so hang on people!

[Traveler]

This is a really interesting question, because I generally look at atheism as a sliding scale. Depending on the god description, I slide further and further toward the "hard" end.

For instance, the biblical, literal, fire and brimstone god that cares about every little thought in our heads? Absurd. The concept is just so silly that I can't give it any credence at all. If you were to corner me and ask me if it was even the tiniest bit possible? I suppose I'd have to say yes. But it would be a "yes" at the same level of credibility that I'd concede the possiblity that there's an invisible striped unicorn hiding in my backyard.

For all intents and purposes, I am a "hard" atheist with respect to the Abrahamic gods. The looser the god description, the more I'm willing to concede some possibility of its existence, but those possibilities are still very, very tiny. So tiny that its just not worth worrying about.

Ditto with other gods of a so-called personal nature. The kind that take attendance and such. I just don't see it ... the fact that there's never been ANY verifiable evidence tells me its not something I need to worry about at all. Ditto with ghosts and demons and other hokum.

[wright]

Given that there are no absolutes, When an atheist states he is a strong/hard/gnostic atheist, I.E. Is he claiming that he can absolute know that gods do not exist? Or does he qualify it with the preset that absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known?

The first question is how I've seen "strong" atheism defined, here and elsewhere. The second I most often see used by theists who think they've found an aha! tactic to trump atheism / "godless" science.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. Show me evidence of a deity and I'll consider it. But disbelief is reasonable given the total lack (so far) of such evidence.

[jdawg70]

Request to pose this question by Gnu Ordure.

Given that there are no absolutes, When an atheist states he is a strong/hard/gnostic atheist, I.E. Is he claiming that he can absolute know that gods do not exist? Or does he qualify it with the preset that absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known?

I would like input from those atheists that do state they're strong/hard/gnostic etc. or anybody really just to clarify that position.

Thank you Bert

I can't clarify squat, but I can muse openly.

To me, the problem is in making the distinction between 'lacking a belief' and 'disbelief'.  And to be honest, I've not come to any solid conclusions here, but I typically approach things without a distinction between these two positions.  My reasoning is a little convoluted, insofar as I have not dedicated sufficient time in my life examining this issue in any formalized detail.  But some of the members here make a very clear distinction indeed:
'I believe that no gods exist.'
'I do not believe that any gods exist.'

I do not see the distinction.  If I think a proposition is true, then I can say I believe it to be true.  If I do not think a proposition is true, then I can say I believe it is not true.

It's easy to see where this line of thinking breaks down though - if I asked 'How many apples am I holding', it is pretty reasonable to expect that most of you would say 'I don't know' or 'I do not have enough information present to answer the question' (those of you who can provide an actual answer...well, I'll need you to show your work).

What I think I'm seeing, at least with my internal thought processes, is a distinction between beliefs of a true/false nature are approached differently.  Well, I approach them differently, because, logically, if something is not true, then it is false, and if it is not false, then it is true.  But...is that really valid?  The rules of logic are pretty clear cut, but do those particular rules necessarily translate to belief in a claim?

I tend to look at the claims:
'I do not believe Superman exists.'
'I believe that Superman does not exist.'

As equivalent claims.  His actual existence is certainly up for yes/no/maybe, but my belief in his existence.  Once the question is posed, don't I internally make a yes/no distinction in my head?

If it looks like I'm hedging my bets with weasel words...well, I am.  Sorry to look so non-committal and confounded with this post, but I am looking for other thoughts and I haven't really fleshed out my own on the matter.

[Nam]

I lean Ignostic-Atheist. Or, just Ignostic. Or, "nothing". Do they have a name for "who fucking cares?".

-Nam

[jetson]

I don't think the "absolute" aspect is relevant.  Although, there are theists who claim that God is absolutely true, there is simply no ambiguity, doubt, question, etc.  An empty claim, to be sure, but one made more often than I can remember.

There is little point in claiming absolutes in this arena, because it causes issues like this, where we have to clarify and qualify everything to the point of pointlessness, and we accomplish nothing from it.

No matter how "hard" I claim to be in my atheism, I am always willing to consider a god hypothesis.  In my experience, the best one so far is a deistic god that doesn't concern itself with its creation.  Unfortunately, it creates far more problems than it potentially resolves in terms of understanding its own origin, and its place in explaining stuff.

Back to reality, if I may.  Regardless of my willingness to consider a god hypothesis, it is so much more less likely to be true than what we know so far in terms of how the universe that we have identified, and how it may have come to exist.  Occams Razor is important because it allows us to shed that which makes an explanation more complex than it necessarily needs to be.  Thus, when humans injected gods into the explanation of things unknown, they had no simpler explanation, IMO.

In the end, the question of the existence of any god is currently answered by the very demonstrable lack of any god.  It is so easy to demonstrate that no gods exist, because they are completely not here.  And no matter how much wishful thinking, claims of evidence, and sad stories of how invisible sky lords have relationships with humans, we are always left with nothing.

I would also like to add that while it may be fun to go back and forth on whether a god exists, we should also ask the more important question: why posit a god in the first place?

[Azdgari]

Your definition of a god may be wrong though, ...

How does one go about determining whether a definition is wrong, objectively speaking?

[HAL]

Your definition of a god may be wrong though, ...

How does one go about determining whether a definition is wrong, objectively speaking?

When it comes to gods? You'd first have to gather all knowledge available in the universe.

[Kimberly]

For me, it's simply because my definition of a god is inconsistent with reality and logically impossible. I claim to know gods don't exist because, by my definition[1], they can't.

1.	Which is the only one that matters to me.

That would make you more ignostic atheist for the reasons HAL mentioned to you already.

[Azdgari]

When it comes to gods? You'd first have to gather all knowledge available in the universe.

I don't understand how that would help.  As I understand it, definitions are tools of language.  They cannot be objectively correct or incorrect - only correct or incorrect with respect to a particular language's rules.  Which are themselves subjective.

[HAL]

I don't understand how that would help.  As I understand it, definitions are tools of language.  They cannot be objectively correct or incorrect - only correct or incorrect with respect to a particular language's rules.  Which are themselves subjective.

Well, you're smarter than I am, so I'll ask you to help us on this. We're talking about gods here - not cordless drills or ashtrays.

Can you help define it better than I can? I'll surely be interested in your ideas and learn from them.

[Kimberly]

I don't work in the realm of absolutes and don't think any atheist should. There are those who do but they would be just as wrong, IMO, as any theist. I prefer the terms apatheist or ignostic. I don't claim to know any gods that do exist, but I can't have knowledge of that which is not with in my ability to know. And as OAA has pointed out we can define the meaning of god/s, find logical reasons to dismiss them, but our definition of god could be wrong[1].

IMO we should live as though there are not and never were god/s[2]. We can speculate, generate theories, and claim to know as much as we want. But we can't know. Science and technology is always advancing, and we should remain open to the possibility of anything.

And of course there's the group of atheist who will say, "Well you don't go around question your belief in invisible pink unicorns. Can you say with any absolute certainty invisible pink unicorns don't exist?" Well of course not if I follow the same logic but by golly thanks for asking. The questions in the OP begin the only circular logic I think gnostic atheist can't understand.

It's always entertaining to watch this topic unfold and see where each poster stands. ::Passes the popcorn.::

1.	Credit to HAL for pointing this out.
2.	This is where my apatheism comes in because if god/s[1] do exist I don't care. I would view it more deistic and or extinct.  1.  My definition[1] of them.  1.  See how this gets tricky!

[shnozzola]

why posit a god in the first place?

That really is it, Jetson.
A theist will never understand true free life as an atheist until they’ve got to the depths of that question in their own mind.

[ParkingPlaces]

I'm with Jetson and Kimberly on this one. There is no need for absolutes. I'm as strong an atheist as  person can be, I think, but I'm not so stupid as to claim that I would insist there is no god even if one showed up in some indubitable manner.

Since there is not once shred of indisputable evidence about any of the claimed gods, and since a cat seems to have all of their tongues, the best anyone religious can hope for is that I'll start worshipping kitties.

People that think gods exist use their beliefs primarily  to explain the various foibles we humans exhibit. The religious seem to dislike the concept that people can f**k up things all by themselves. They use their naiveté and hopes to conjure up gods. I can't do that. Don't look so surprised.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Do they have a name for "who fucking cares?".

-Nam

Sub-genius

[Kimberly]

I lean Ignostic-Atheist. Or, just Ignostic. Or, "nothing". Do they have a name for "who fucking cares?".

-Nam

Yea apatheist. I really enjoy apatheism more than ignostism though I'm not sure why.... it almost feels/sounds contradictory.

[Azdgari]

Well, you're smarter than I am, so I'll ask you to help us on this. We're talking about gods here - not cordless drills or ashtrays.

The function of language doesn't fundamentally change for deities, does it?

Can you help define it better than I can?

Define what better than I can?  I can define "god" as my chair.  That is something real.  I can apply it to the word easily.  English disagrees, but English is merely a subjective convention that we call a "language".  Is that a correct or incorrect definiton?  What standard does one appeal to, to decide this?  You're the one who brought this up, HAL.  Surely you knew what you meant by "correct" or "incorrect" in this context.

[The Wannabe]

It's all just semantics.  Theist like to claim that atheist are Gnostic because it makes us look pretentious.  When someone states that there is absolutely, hundred and ten percent no chance that God exists, it not only sounds arrogant, but also leaves room for the believer to counter with a God of the gaps argument.  And even though this argument is fallacious, the theist is right in pointing out that our knowledge of reality is nowhere near full enough to confidently declare the nonexistence of a deity.  That's why most of us will admit that the nonexistence of anything can only be discussed in agnostic terms, and that there is an infinitesimally small chance that an intelligent creator is the prime mover behind it all. 

Yet when an atheist like Richard Dawkins graciously admits to these philosophical limitations in a filmed trap interview, the half-witted buffoons behind the documentary Expelled claim victory for intelligent design!

       

[kin hell]

I am the god of my universe.
Without me, this universe could not exist to be perceived and interacted with by me, and I know it will be snuffed out when I die.

All other gods are doubtful.
But I cannot be 100% sure ....ever.

At times I think there must be another god, as no mere mortal could have stuck so many circular disc of chewing gum to all the world's pavements.

[One Above All]

That would make you more ignostic atheist for the reasons HAL mentioned to you already.

Wrong. I am a gnostic atheist because the definition of a god is left up to opinion. It's not an objective definition.

[plethora]

When it comes to the Abrahamic gods, I identify myself as a gnostic atheist. I know they do no exist. These gods, as described by the scriptures, do not exist. I know they do not exist as much as I know unicorns, talking snakes, talking donkeys and dragons do not exist and all of these are mentioned in the scriptures.

Now ... if a person is going to claim they believe in a god that is not as described in scripture, then they will have to give me their definition of this god and list its attributes and properties.

The god that is often described to me has three main properties: omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It is logically impossible for a god with all of these properties to exist. Therefore, I know a god like this does not exist.

If some tribespeople in Borneo point at a large carved rock and tell me that is their god, then I have to say that their god most certainly does exist. I know it does not have any supernatural properties or powers ... but they define their god as that rock and it exists.

With regards to absolute certainty ... we all know the brain in a vat thought experiment. There is no way to know anything with absolute certainty. I know Yahweh does not exist with as much certainty as I know the chair I'm sitting on exists. 

[Grimm]

I am a strong atheist in the same way I'm a strong a-Santa-ist. 

I know that no god as defined by man has ever existed*, and I know no god as currently worshipped exists.  Therefore, it is not unreasonable to simply say 'no gods exist' and go on about my life under that very limited assumption.

It's how I feel about Santa.  Precisely the same.

If I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I will gleefully bounce about the world shouting 'holy crap was I wrong' at the top of my voice to all who will listen - but the mere fact that I will align my understanding of the universe with evidence doesn't make me 'agnostic' anymore than believing that gravity is real makes me a 'gnostic graviticist'.  I will, however, be exceedingly difficult to convince.  My skepticism about the supernatural is in overdrive.

When confronted with a new religion, my initial assumption is that, based on past experience, their god is not real.  My starting point is absolute skepticism when gods are mentioned, to the point of dismissal as pursuing fuzzy feelings and woo doesn't particularly interest me and I can essentially predict the outcome.

Things fall (due to gravity), living things evolve (due to evolution), things fall apart (due to entropy), and gods don't exist. 

[kcrady]

Given that there are no absolutes,

Are you absolutely sure about that?

When an atheist states he is a strong/hard/gnostic atheist, I.E. Is he claiming that he can absolute know that gods do not exist? Or does he qualify it with the preset that absolute knowledge of anything cannot really be known?

What's a "god?"  Until a coherent definition can be provided, it's a meaningless sound, like "blark" or "unie."  How can you be certain that blarks don't exist?  Do gods exist?

1. God: Anything that's a lot more intelligent and/or more powerful than us, e.g. Arthur C. Clarke's Monolith Builders (2001: A Space Odyssey)  Sure, or at least I hope so.  That would mean that there's hope for us to be able to keep growing.

2.  God: A memetic brain-virus that employs myth, archetypes, and symbolism for purposes of software compression, enabling it to infect human brains and periodically take over their "personality hardware" to "run" the god persona as dominant, so that the god virus can be perpetuated, spread, and empowered.  *Points at Bible*  Yep.

3. God: "The synergetic integration of all known and unknown generalized operating principles of eternally regenerative scenario Universe" (R. Buckminster Fuller).  Well, I don't see why not, but it's not something to pray to, and it won't stamp a "purpose and meaning for your life" on your forehead for you.

4. God: The character(s) of Yahweh/Jesus/the Holy Spirit as described in the Bible, as (a) real, externally-existent person(s) who authored the Bible as an infallible testament to his/their existence, nature, and activity.  No.  The Bible contradicts itself and reality on numerous points.  "But how do you know God isn't hiding in the center of Arcturus?  You'd have to know everything!"  No I don't.  It's enough to know that there was no Exodus as described in the Bible, that the Cosmos is not a few thousand years old, that Yahweh is not enthroned above the (flat) circle of the Earth, that the heavens are not his throne and the Earth is not his footstool, Jesus did not simultaneously uphold and abolish the Torah law before unleashing a zombie invasion of Jerusalem, and so on.  If there's some creature hiding in the center of Arcturus that decides to come over here and represent itself as Yahweh/Jesus/the Holy Spirit, then it's a "god" of the first type above, not this type.  If that.  The Biblical "god" as portrayed therein is not very bright, and he did get his ass handed to him by people with iron chariots (Judges 1:15).

4. God: An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent Being as described in Christian theology  No.  The "omni-" attributes logically contradict one another.  An omnipresent being can't get lost (hence, not omnipotent), an omniscient being knows all of its own choices, thoughts, etc. and thus can't change its mind (not omnipotent), cannot experience surprise (not omnipotent), cannot commit an evil act (no free will, thus not omnipotent, and arguably not omnibenevolent either).[1]  And so on.

God: The Ground of Being, the object of ultimate concern, [insert "sophisticated" theological bafflegab here]  Uh, what are you even talking about?  Can you specify any anticipated consequences we would expect to see if it exists, vs. if it does not exist?  Provide a coherent definition of "god" and we'll talk.

So (as has also been demonstrated in the other posts above), the whole thing is a semantic game.  Not just any game though: it's a theological/philosophical equivalent of a carnival barker's shell game.  It goes like this:

ATHEIST: [Unleashes a brutal gang of facts on the Theist's claims, reducing their theological construct to a forlorn pile of tiny broken pieces]

THEIST: Well, yeah...but you can't know there is no God! ["God" = definitional blank screen on which anything at all can be projected; the more vague the better]  How do you know God isn't hiding at the center of Arcturus, eh, smart girl/guy?  The only way you could know God doesn't exist is if you knew everything about every corner of the universe, but then you'd be God!  OH YEAAH! *does victory dance*

ATHEIST: OK, sure, I'm an agnostic atheist.  I don't know there is no god, but you haven't provided any reason to believe in one.

THEIST: [*Switcheroo engaged* "God" = character in their preferred Holy Book as understood and worshiped by their particular sect]  Aha!  Since you can't know that God does not exist, then you've at least got to admit that it's possible.  *Steals the appearance of a degree of credibility for their ridiculous beliefs*

The "God" word is really just a con artist's prop, unless the theist can be made to specify at the outset exactly how they define the term, in a way that doesn't let them use it as Silly Putty.  This is one of the reasons I almost always use "Yahweh" instead of "God" in my posts.  Yahweh (or Allah, or Sita, etc.) is is much harder to shape-shift in this manner.

1.	If it can't commit an evil act (as opposed to consistently choosing not to commit evil), then it is arguably not "good" in the moral sense, just constrained in its actions.

[flapdoodle64]

I consider myself a strong atheist regarding the gods worshipped on planet earth by humans....that is, the gods of which I have heard or read, especially Yahweh, seem so ridiculous that I feel I am on good logical grounds to say they most likely do not exist, at least as they are concieved by humans.   

Of course, being that such gods, especially Yahweh, are unprovable, leaves a margin of error...yet I am convinced it is exceedingly small. 

Based on the facts that human sensory and intellectual apparti are quite limited, I would bet money that there are many forms of energy and functions of matter that humans cannot percieve or understand.  I think it's very likely that somewhere in the galaxy there are species of beings with greater intellectual and/or sensory power than us.  I think it's fairly likely that there are more advanced or higher forms of consciousness than our own. 

Beings more advanced than us, forms of consciousness higher than our own...if one encountered such things, they might seem like gods...they might even be capable of feats ascribed to various gods.

Perhaps the universe itself, in a way we cannot understand, is itself a form of high consciousness. 

Such things do not seem outlandish to me.  Unknowable, yes, but impossible, no. In terms of those things, I guess I am an agnostic.  I do not think one can contact those unknowable things by means of chants, herbs, or yogic poses. 

Yet to reiterate: regarding the gods invented by primitive humans and by the various 19th and the 20th century charlatans...I'd bet money that these gods do not exist, at least as described by their supposed followers. 

This leads me to one of the most cynical ploys of the Christians: they take the possibility that a higher form of being might exist, or a higher form of consciousness might exist, and try to link that possibility to their insane sado-masochistic torturing and murderous god. 

[3sigma]

It's how I feel about Santa.  Precisely the same.

Same here. In fact, I often use that as a reply to religious believers. The conversation usually goes something like this:

Me: I’m an atheist. I simply don’t believe in any gods.
Believer: You mean you believe that God doesn’t exist.
Me: My belief in your God is the same as your belief in the modern-day Santa Claus.

Of course, there will always be that one supercilious, pedantic believer who will ignore the phrase modern-day and say something like: “Oh, well you know Santa Claus is real, right? Nicholas of Myra lived in Lycia in the fourth century… and on… and on…”

I don’t see much need for all these variations on a theme. I don’t think of myself as a half, double decaf, half-caf atheist with a twist. I just don’t believe any gods are real, plain and simple. If a religious believer says to me, “My God is real”, I’m more than likely going to respond, “I don’t believe you. Prove it.” My signature encapsulates my approach. There is zero sound evidence or sound arguments to show that any gods are real. Zero evidence means zero belief.

[screwtape]

I am as sure of the non-existence of yhwh as I am about the non-existence of the gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Norse, the Incas, the Mayans, the Hindus and every other culture that has ever existed. 

I am as sure of the non-existence of yhwh as I am of the non-existence of Big Foot, Nessy, yeti, leprechauns, chupacabra, and the Jersey Devil.

The only difference between yhwh and all those other fictional characters is a whole lot of people still believe in yhwh.

I am as sure of the non-existence of yhwh as I can be about the non-existence of anything.