Is Gnostic Atheist different from Agnostic Atheist?

[Tiberius]

No, it's really just a theory. It only becomes a belief when you decide to presume your theory to be correct, without actually knowing it to be so. This is why we have different words for different kinds and degrees of surety. Believing is not the same as knowing. And neither of those is the same as guessing or theorizing.

If I go out, leaving my car parked somewhere, I can not THEORIZE that my car is still there, since a theory is based off real world evidence.

If someone said, "Hey, I saw your car parked there at midday," and I had left my car at 10am, then this would be evidence to support the theory that my car was still there.

But if I receive no information about my car until I return, then until that point, I can do nothing other than presume my idea that my car is still there is correct, even though I do not actually know it to be so. Hence, it is a belief, not a theory.

You don't have to "believe" that it's there, to function. You can simply accept the theory that it will most likely be where you left it. In fact, to "believe" that it's there just because you think it unlikely not to be, is an unnecessary act of hubris. A satiation of the ego, as opposed to a result of reason.

Now you're just quibbling over wordplay. Using a particular definition of a word carrying with it some implied secondary characteristics.

 

[PureX]

If I go out, leaving my car parked somewhere, I can not THEORIZE that my car is still there, since a theory is based off real world evidence.

The evidence is that it was there last you saw it. So the theory is that it will still be there next you see it. None of this requires your 'belief'.

 

[Sheldon]

The evidence is that it was there last you saw it. So the theory is that it will still be there next you see it. None of this requires your 'belief'.

Actually yes it would, a theory is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. The idea anyone could formulate a theory without a single belief something was true is absurd. Though it does explain something about your rationale.

 

[PureX]

Actually yes it would, a theory is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. The idea anyone could formulate a theory without a single belief something was true is absurd. Though it does explain something about your rationale.

Of course, that isn't what I said. But no matter, whatever I post, you will invent some stupid objection to it, because that's why you're here.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course, that isn't what I said. But no matter, whatever I post, you will invent some stupid objection to it, because that's why you're here.

Well it's hard to argue with petty ad hominem, but irrationality is something you seem to find compelling for some reason. I long ago stopped hoping you'd honestly address arguments, so not to worry.

 

[Tiberius]

The evidence is that it was there last you saw it. So the theory is that it will still be there next you see it. None of this requires your 'belief'.

It is evidence that it was there at 10 o'clock in the morning when I parked it there and got out and left it.

It is NOT evidence that it is still there at three o'clock in the afternoon when I am on my way back.

 

[PureX]

It is evidence that it was there at 10 o'clock in the morning when I parked it there and got out and left it.

It is NOT evidence that it is still there at three o'clock in the afternoon when I am on my way back.

It's a theory that it will still be there until to get there and it is there. Then it's more evidence in support of that theory proving true the next time you park and leave your car.

None of this requires you to 'believe' anything.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a theory that it will still be there until to get there and it is there. Then it's more evidence in support of that theory proving true the next time you park and leave your car.

None of this requires you to 'believe' anything.

Yeah, it still does involve believing certain things are true. Repeating your erroneous claim won't lend it any credence.

 

[Tiberius]

It's a theory that it will still be there until to get there and it is there. Then it's more evidence in support of that theory proving true the next time you park and leave your car.

None of this requires you to 'believe' anything.

No, it is not evidence to support the idea that the car will still be there when I return, because there are many things that could result in the car being gone at 3pm despite the fact that it was there at 10am.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it is not evidence to support the idea that the car will still be there when I return, because there are many things that could result in the car being gone at 3pm despite the fact that it was there at 10am.

But the odds of those things happening is extremely low. We learn as young children that when you leave something somewhere, the odds are greatest that it will be in that place when we return. If this were not true, then believe me, no one would be leaving their car on the street.

 

[savagewind]

1. Gnostic Atheist says: "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. Agnostic Atheist says: "I do not believe, that there is God."

The gnostic atheist does declare Lord nonexistent,
but without a proof of the major claim of atheism.

Atheism : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
But is it lack of knowledge as well?

What is this belief?

It is conviction, assurance, that there is no God.

So, there is no much different to say:
1. "I think, there is no God (because there is no proof of God)."
2. "I do not believe, that there is God."
3. "I believe, that there is no God."

My vote? They are all the same.

 

[Tiberius]

But the odds of those things happening is extremely low. We learn as young children that when you leave something somewhere, the odds are greatest that it will be in that place when we return. If this were not true, then believe me, no one would be leaving their car on the street.

So what?

Who cares if it's extremely unlikely. Since it COULD happen, I can't claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that the car is still there, can I?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So what?

Who cares if it's extremely unlikely. Since it COULD happen, I can't claim to KNOW FOR A FACT that the car is still there, can I?

It matters because you make your decisions how to act based on what is highly probable, not what is extremely unlikely. Sure you "can't know for sure" that the car is there. Nevertheless, the odds that it is there are sooooo likely, that you feel safe to leave it there.

 

[Tiberius]

But the odds of those things happening is extremely low. We learn as young children that when you leave something somewhere, the odds are greatest that it will be in that place when we return. If this were not true, then believe me, no one would be leaving their car on the street.

You think that's why people leave their cars on the street? They leave them there because there is nowhere else to put them. Show me someone who prefers to leave their car on the street instead of parking it in their garage, or even their driveway.

 

[Tiberius]

It matters because you make your decisions how to act based on what is highly probable, not what is extremely unlikely. Sure you "can't know for sure" that the car is there. Nevertheless, the odds that it is there are sooooo likely, that you feel safe to leave it there.

Then you agree with what I said in post 86: "If I park at the train station and then catch the train somewhere, I don't KNOW that my car is where I parked it until I return and see the car where I left it. Until then, I do not have knowledge, I only have belief. I BELIEVE my car is where I parked it, but I don't know it for sure."

 

[Kfox]

The capital G denotes a proper noun... i.e. a godbcalled "God", as opposed to some other name (e.g. "Ahura Mazda" or "Thor").

Typically, gods called "God" belong to monotheistic belief systems, though not all monotheists call their gods "God".

All Gods are denoted by proper nouns whether they be polytheism or monotheism.