/lit/ - Literature

>>14900209
>an atheist is someone who says that the TRUTH is "there's no God"
Utterly untrue. As I said in >>14899861, an atheist is someone who "lacks the belief in any deity." While they are some atheists who claim they know there's no god of any kind, that doesn't pertain to (a)theism but (a)gnosticism. I am myself an agnostic atheist because, while we can prove the god of any of the human religious text doesn't exist, I cannot prove with certainty that no other entity with god-like attributes exist. Atheism is about belief (or lack thereof) and agnosticism is about knowledge; they aren't mutually exclusive.
>Theists are sure that God exists and they don't need to prove it because they know.
See pic related. A theist who claims to know the existence is a "gnostic theist" which it's quite ridiculous if you think of it. Then, they're "agnostic theists" who believes in a god but they don't claim to know that a god exists. However, this begs the question: Why even have such a belief if there's no an ounce of evidence to corroborate it? Probably hopeful thinking?!
>I think atheists are actually the weak believers that there's nothing.
Atheists aren't believers in the non-existence of a god, they "lack the belief" in any deity. Atheism is a religion as much as non-stamp collecting is a hobby. Atheism is only relevant as a term, because of the prevalence of theism. If 80% of people collected stamps, then non-stamp collecting would be notable. And you might even see a variety of forums based around it. Especially if stamp collecting involved various rituals and rules spanning people's lives.

>>4511559
Don't talk about things you don't know about

>>3622353
I was just going to post this

>>3527383
>thinking agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive