I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 18055

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the reply. Especially:

Uncertainty = contradictory evidence.

God = no evidence, there is no uncertainty there

Leveni and TNT666,

I agree with TNT that you can assert that you are some combination of a/gnosticism and a/theism, but you will not necessarily make good sense. I was trying to define these words, as I think appropriate, as the first group being related to a belief in knowledge of a thing and the second, a belief in the existence of a thing. If you will only define gnosticism as it relates to faith, then I guess, we will not agree on the fact that I believe one who is gnostic has a proper affirmative belief that knowledge of a certain thing is possible. And I disagree with TNT that we cannot be gnostic about a negative. I believe that I can be certain (gnostic) that it is impossible for any god to exist (atheist). The way I understand agnosticism is that it describes someone who believes that knowledge one way or another is possible. I believe I can come up with reasons why every other combination of these terms, other than gnostic atheism, is invalid. Any belief in any god, whether certain or not, is flat out wrong. And asserting that we cannot have knowledge as to whether or not God exists, while believing that He doesn't, or agnostic atheism, is also wrong.

I can understand Gnostic atheism. Proving there is no god, by showing the impossibility of any existence of God. Also by showing everything can be explained through natural means, the god thing never even enters the equation.

As for the other 3 combinations. I can understand the theists points of view, and I think they are just lying to themselves. But the the agnostic atheist, it's hard for me to make sense of.
I think all the people on this thread asserting that we cannot be 100% sure there is no God are agnostic atheists in that they believe that knowledge that there is no God is impossible yet they believe that God does not exist (for the most part). I don't really see a significant difference between agnostics and skeptics.
At a philosophical level gnosticity is rendered useless and obsolete by evidence, so 'gnostic atheist' is a redundancy. Gnosticism fundamentally does not refer to knowing 'just anything' it refers specifically to knowing what others call "unknowable". In a couple of conversations in my past I used the expression 'gnostic atheist', to distinguish myself from the endless number of agnostics using the word atheism, but it was misguided. Atheists being on the defensive, on an atheist website, about things "unknowable", really only contributes to my dose of humour in day :)

The difference????? the word BELIEF. There are only three 'levels of evidence' :

-undisputed evidence.... "the near roundness of the earth"

-contradictory evidence......  "active chemicals make humans sick"

-non existent... "unicorns and gods"


Neither of the three situations require 'belief' for a skeptic. A true skeptic functions on evidence alone. Honest dialogue requires the use of the word 'uncertainty' for only the second situation. Any skeptic who can "believe" in a possible god given total and complete lack of evidence is no skeptic at all. Personally, 'belief' is the one word I have completely banned from my vocabulary since meeting people on this website, because of so-called agnostics who throw that word around like it was some sort of badge of honour to remain friendly with religious folk.


Frankly, the popularity of the words agnostic and skeptic as buzz words in our Western civilisation may be the greatest contribution the 'new' atheists made to society in the last two decades. And the natural trendy instinct of humans means there are many people jumping on the band wagon of skepticism, and trying to redefine it, making it more 'inclusive'.


To the three above situations, a skeptic responds yes, maybe, no.

How do you define skepticism? And skeptic. With concrete language please. What do you think are the essential qualities of these ideas that make them so?


I'll admit, I have not been operating on an explicitly defined concept, but I call people who doubt knowledge in the absence of contradictory evidence, skeptics. I guess, what I really mean is that these people are too skeptical, they are irrational. Proper valid skepticism is healthy doubt in the presence of incomplete or contradictory evidence. But another part of me thinks that doubt in the presence of incomplete or contradictory evidence is just part of the normal integration process and skeptics are always wishy-washy, no matter what, as a rule. These brand of skeptics assert that they know for certain that certain knowledge is impossible, which we both recognize as idiotic.

Think about it this way, if there was god which one would it be? Christians would be pissing off the Hindu gods, Muslims would be pissing off the Greek gods, and etc..... There is no reason to speculate about what if there is a god? because there is so many to choose from. I think Richard Dawkins stated this, "that we are all atheists with respect to someones religion is that atheists just go one god further".
I am 100 percent sure that the christian/jewish/muslim god(s) don't exist. Deism? maybe, but still likely untrue.
That pretty much sums up where I stand on the matter.
Where did Joel Potter go? All his posts have disappeared also. He wanted to have a private discussion/debate with me but seems to have disappeared. Bye Joel. Come back if you can.
Sigh. The burden of proof falls on the claimant. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service