Who else /strong atheism/ here?

>>8367630
those are arguments of agnosticism vs. gnosticism, not atheism vs. theism.

know your shit

>>8367630
>until they do I shall base my decisions on the assumptions that the earth is flat

>>8367656
Retards literally believe that just cause something can't be proved in the moment it is false

>>8367656
now you're just trolling, not only because of the obvious flaw in the "omnipotence is incoherent", but especially because not all gods are omnipotent. in fact, most aren't.

am i being baited?

>>8367650
>those are arguments of agnosticism vs. gnosticism, not atheism vs. theism.
What are you saying? That belief and knowledge are separate?

>>8367669
yes. belief requires no proof, although it benifits from proff.

knowledge requires proof.

this is why priests can be agnostics and atheists can be gnostics.

i can believe god, but denie the ability to know of his existance

i can disbelief god, but believe it is possible to acertain his existance

P.S: pardon my english, it's my second language

File: Untitled.png (275KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1600x900px

>>8367667
>obvious flaw in the "omnipotence is incoherent"

>>8367656
>2016
>not using a paraconsistent logic

>>8367684
just because a concept is flawed, it doesn't mean it's incoherent.

and that paradox has been answered more times, in this very board, then i can count.

>>8367682
>i can believe god, but denie the ability to know of his existance
Is that even possible?

>i can disbelief god, but believe it is possible to acertain his existance
Ok this is definitely not possible.

>>8367630
One can't be reasonably 100% on atheism, but yeah, pretty much "strong atheist" here.

>>8367665
The moment being As far back as we can observe till the present, with all laws of physics and such?
The criteria remaining for a possible god of some sort has narrowed considerably, and left the worlds faiths in the dust as completely false.

Sage; not lit.

>>8367704
>i can believe god, but denie the ability to know of his existance

that is possible, by the concept of faith, faith requires belief, but not proof, therefore, if i have faith, i believe in something, but i require no proof to believe it.

i need not know if god is real or not, i need only have faith

>i can disbelief god, but believe it is possible to acertain his existance
this is not only possible, it appears to be the default position.

in order to deny something as veemently as i've seen atheist (don't mistake my intentions, i'm an atheist aswell) do, one must believe god is not real, not only claiming to belief he isn't real, but to KNOW he isn't real.

in order to know something isn't real, you need to be able to acertain it's existance, either for positive outcomes, or negative.

i am gnostic about the pink giraffe outside my house, because i know it's possible to acertain it's existance, i need only look outside the window and know it isn't real

>>8367725
why can't one be 100% atheist?

and can someone be 100% theist?

>>8367725
Just because interpretations of God are wrong doesn't disprove the existence of a god or transcendental entity

>>8367736
>>8367704
furthermore, i believe i have commited an error, and mislead you, it wans't on purpose.

>i can disbelief god, but believe it is possible to acertain his existance, OR LACK THERE OF

sorry, i didn't mean it.

>>8367752
That's what I said. It's highly unlikely though.

>>8367751
No one comes back from the dead, no one knows for sure that the universe is eternal and had no creation or what. It's too unknowable.
And yeah, it's possible to be completely faithful to creationism/theism for your whole life.

>>8367690
What's the answer ?