Double Minded Atheist

[ukok102nak]

~;> someone could determine something through their naked eye
but history tell us that it is only during the time that humans discovered the atom
is the only time they believed in its existence

its just a weak arguments just to tell something that it doesnt exist becaused
theres no object to be represented
what if there's one person told unto another person that he has known something but it never existed from the thoughts of another person
would that another person considered it as it never existed
becaused that another person has no idea on that one person have known

by the way
as they say no one could imagine anything
to imagine something atleast
theyve heard it before
theyve seen it and probably
theyve felt smell and even tasted it before
coz after only that is the proper time
that someone could use their so called imagination


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They aren't atheists then. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of any deities, /in any form.

Hey. Thats what they say.

Im an atheist because dont believe entities/deities. I dont call life god because god means obiect and/or person of worship. So a deity doesnt always need to be a god. Atheist probably need to be more accurate in that they dont believe in deities.

When an atheist says he doesnt believe god exist technically he is saying he doesnt believe any object and person doesnt exist to use in worship. A deity is an entity have a specific authirjty whatever means it may be. Entities I dont know to define them.

I guess you can argue that I (and many) are not atheist becausebwe believe in spirits (eveeything and deceaced ancestors not spirits just hangin in mdi air) but remember atheist means laxk of belief in god. More accurate deities. He context doesnt talk about spirits.

So how would you define that type of atheist? We arent agnostic. We Know god and deities do not exist. We are not theist. We dont believe in deities and entities. Wr are not irrelgious. Many atheists are religious. Thinking if a few on RF.

So definitions of atheist seem to flucuate. If atheist means all supernatural doesnt exist, Im not an atheist. But Im not anything else.

Many atheist fall into these categories as ij my other post in one way kr another. What is an atheist called who KNOWS god doesnt exist? I heard it a year ago but cant remsmber the term.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hey. Thats what they say.

Im an atheist because dont believe entities/deities. I dont call life god because god means obiect and/or person of worship. So a deity doesnt always need to be a god. Atheist probably need to be more accurate in that they dont believe in deities.

When an atheist says he doesnt believe god exist technically he is saying he doesnt believe any object and person doesnt exist to use in worship. A deity is an entity have a specific authirjty whatever means it may be. Entities I dont know to define them.

I guess you can argue that I (and many) are not atheist becausebwe believe in spirits (eveeything and deceaced ancestors not spirits just hangin in mdi air) but remember atheist means laxk of belief in god. More accurate deities. He context doesnt talk about spirits.

So how would you define that type of atheist? We arent agnostic. We Know god and deities do not exist. We are not theist. We dont believe in deities and entities. Wr are not irrelgious. Many atheists are religious. Thinking if a few on RF.

So definitions of atheist seem to flucuate. If atheist means all supernatural doesnt exist, Im not an atheist. But Im not anything else.

Many atheist fall into these categories as ij my other post in one way kr another. What is an atheist called who KNOWS god doesnt exist? I heard it a year ago but cant remsmber the term.

The only sensible definition, is that it applies to all ideas of theism. Theism is very broad in definition, thusly, atheism /in order to mean anything/, has to be broad in definition as to what they dis-believe in. I would not consider you an atheist

 

[ArtieE]

What is an atheist called who KNOWS god doesnt exist? I heard it a year ago but cant remsmber the term.

Gnostic atheist.

 

[Desert Snake]

Let's take a different approach and start with gnostic instead. A gnostic is a person who knows and when you put theist behind it means he knows God exists and if you put atheist behind he knows God doesn't exist. It's just a way to say the person doesn't just believes but knows and putting theist or atheist behind gnostic just helps us to understand what it is the person knows. Apply some common sense instead of interpreting everything literally.

'gnostic' doesn't tell us anything besides what the person claims to know. ''gnosis'', is completely subjective, therefore, is meaningless. /it could mean anything.
The only thing being conveyed is the position, which is called the ''belief''.

 

[ArtieE]

'gnostic' doesn't tell us anything besides what the person claims to know. ''gnosis'', is completely subjective, therefore, is meaningless. /it could mean anything.
The only thing being conveyed is the position, which is called the ''belief''.

Gnostic tells us that the person knows something. It's from Greek gnosis which literally means "to know". Not claiming to know or believing that one knows only "to know".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Gnostic atheist.

Shrugs

 

[Desert Snake]

Gnostic tells us that the person knows something. It's from Greek gnosis which literally means "to know". Not claiming to know or believing that one knows only "to know".

No, it doesn't tell us that the person 'knows' /something. It tells us that the person is claiming to 'know' something./they believe that they know something,,
We don't know if the person knows it, or how they arrived at that conclusion. Hence completely arbitrary when combined with the 'theistic' or 'atheistic' labels.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't find all this gnostic v. agnostic stuff at all useful, I much prefer a scale or continuum of belief, like for example the one proposed by Dawkins in "The God Delusion".

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Shrugs

Here's a chart, if it helps.

 

[ArtieE]

No, it doesn't tell us that the person 'knows' /something. It tells us that the person is claiming to 'know' something./they believe that they know something,,
We don't know if the person knows it, or how they arrived at that conclusion. Hence completely arbitrary when combined with the 'theistic' or 'atheistic' labels.

If I say I know something I know something how I came to know it is irrelevant. You have no right to call me a liar and insist that I just believe I know it or whatever. When I tell you I know my car is black I know my car is black. Nothing to do with belief only knowledge.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't find all this gnostic v. agnostic stuff at all useful, I much prefer a scale or continuum of belief, like for example the one proposed by Dawkins in "The God Delusion".

Just a different way of expressing the same thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I say I know something I know something how I came to know it is irrelevant. You have no right to call me a liar and insist that I just believe I know it or whatever. When I tell you I know my car is black I know my car is black. Nothing to do with belief only knowledge.

So a gnostic theist, and a gnostic atheist, are both correct?

 

[ArtieE]

So a gnostic theist, and a gnostic atheist, are both correct?

They may have had different experiences leading one to go from belief to absolute knowledge that God exists and the other to go from belief to absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist. That has nothing to do with whether God actually exists or not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

View attachment 14246

Here's a chart, if it helps.

Thank you. There ya go. Im a gnostic atheist. @ArtieE gave a good example in 331.

 

[Desert Snake]

They may have had different experiences leading one to go from belief to absolute knowledge that God exists and the other to go from belief to absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist. That has nothing to do with whether God actually exists or not.

Aside from the contradiction of your definitions, 'belief', doesn't imply whether one considers to 'know' something, or not.
when you ''know'' something, do you therefore 'not believe' it? Of course not. Your mistake is in thinking that there is an inherent difference between 'know', and 'belief'. There isn't. There is a situational difference, or can be, but that is contextual, and is not inferred by the words themselves.

 

[Willamena]

But if personal "knowing" is fine then there are people who "know" instead of just "believe" and your argument is moot isn't it?

Knowing is believing that just happens to be true.

 

[ArtieE]

Aside from the contradiction of your definitions, 'belief', doesn't imply whether one considers to 'know' something, or not.
when you ''know'' something, do you therefore 'not believe' it? Of course not. Your mistake is in thinking that there is an inherent difference between 'know', and 'belief'. There isn't. There is a situational difference, or can be, but that is contextual, and is not inferred by the words themselves.

Would you get it if I put it this way?
"I know. I am 100% certain."
"I strongly believe. I am 99% certain."

 

[ArtieE]

Knowing is believing that just happens to be true.

Knowing is being 100% certain. Believing but not knowing is being 99% certain or less.

 

[Willamena]

Would you get it if I put it this way?
"I know. I am 100% certain."
"I strongly believe. I am 99% certain."

Take the percentages away and you got it.