I know there are no gods because there isn't a supernatural dimension to the world. Things happen naturally. The supernatural does not exist. There are no gods, devils, angels, ghosts and we do not live beyond death.
Enjoy your life. It's beautiful.
God is not an object of “knowing” or “not knowing”.
You can no more “know” that there is a god than you can “know” that there is not a god.
When it comes to the subject of a god, “knowing” is irrelevant.
One thing you do know, however, is whether or not you posses faith in the existence of a god.
If you know you don’t have such faith, then you are an atheist.
Why, then, inject the unnecessary, fence straddling, uncertainty of agnosticism?
No such thing.
"Faith is engaged when one professes to be a theist.
The existence, or non existence, of god is irrelevant to knowledge."
(To Alex)"God is not an object of 'knowing' or 'not knowing'."
I'm with you so far. To the extent that we can determine the existence (or non existence) of such a being is unknowable, but also unfalsifiable, and therefore represents nothing more than a relatively dull thought experiment and a poor argument for either side.
"(faith is different from belief)
I “believe” in the existence of the computer upon which I type these words.
I must, on the other hand, engage “faith” if I am to profess to the existence of a god(s)."
I disagree with you here and it's not central to my argument, so I won't spend much time camping on it. Faith, like knowledge, is a subset of belief, or at the very least a derivative OF belief - and therefore not dissociated from belief. I would regard faith as belief for which you have no good reason, and knowledge as belief for which you do have good reason (Plato's Justified True Belief), wherein your reasons have been affirmed. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but in the post on the previous page, when you say:
"You either have faith or you don’t.
There is no middle ground.
If an agnostic says 'I don’t/can’t know' if there is a god or not, isn’t that an admission of a lack of faith in the existence of a god?"
Isn't this essentially giving faith the agency of knowledge, given that you went on to promote the idea that an agnostic title, which specifically addresses what we know, should be discarded entirely? In other words, are you saying that if we don’t profess faith, we’re indicating knowledge that God doesn’t exist? Being that faith and knowledge are on entirely opposite ends of the belief spectrum, this seems strange to me, but I probably am just misunderstanding you. Please advise.
*In addition, I'm not certain I agree with your conclusion that all agnostics are most probably atheists as well. I really believe that there must exist agnostics who truly cannot decide whether they believe one way or the other, but obviously I have no way of proving this, it just seems like something we can determine a priori.
I'm completely with you in that the term agnostic atheist may very well be a redundant and unnecessary distinction, but it is absolutely untrue that there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. This statement is axiomatically false by the very definition of the words themselves, and thus, impossible to support. Agnosticism supposes that we cannot know, so by your own admission, you yourself are an agnostic atheist, and I agree that the title of agnostic is fruitless, but to say that such a thing does not exist is untenable.
In short: is agnostic atheist a necessary or useful term? Probably not. Oxymoronic or non-existent? No way, José.
Asa, no such thing as an agnostic atheist?
I reckon you're describing the world you know.
In the world I know, there are faith-based (dogmatic?) atheists and agnostic atheists.
Also in the world I know, physics is uncertain, mathematics is undecidable, and language can be deconstructed.
I still don’t know how one can be an agnostic and an atheist, much less get through the terminological abstruse esoterica created by those who think there must be something about atheism that is as complicated and convoluted as the history of Christian theology.
I am working to accept the fact that the simplicity of atheism is just not acceptable to my fellow atheists. That atheists must compete with religion by creating its own extensive lexicon of hair splitting theological style terminology that is the very essence of the history of religion.
I’ll have none of it.
I will, instead, wallow in my simple lack of faith, while the rest of you can complicate your lives by pondering how many atheists can dance on the head of a pin.
Asa, can three atheists dance on the head of Aquinas' pin: an agnosticism-based atheist, a faith-based atheist, and a knowledge-based atheist?
Not binary thinking (formerly known as black and white thinking), but trinary thinking. I won't complicate my life by pondering the many shades of gray.
Nope, you're boring.