At 9/18/12 11:24 PM, Winrar1337 wrote:At 9/18/12 10:16 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist. Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction. Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief. Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition). People should stop referring to themselves as Atheists if they have doubts or believe in something that is called something else.You are implying that belief and knowledge are the same thing. They are not.
"Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief." Nope. That's simply acknowledging one's own lack of knowledge. It deals with knowledge, not belief.
You further confuse definitions in saying that people should not be called atheists if they have doubts, but atheism itself is little more than doubt. You yourself defined it as "the lack of belief," which is pretty much the same as doubt. I assume you probably meant that atheists who aren't gnostic 'doubt their lack of belief,' which is just plain silly.
No. When I meant "claming to not know for a fact is a belief" is within the idea that you have "knowledge" of the possibility of a God. Not that you lacked the "knowledge."
Everything is set on a principle of beliefs. There are no absolutes might I remind you, well there might be, if there's a God, and if there is, I highly HIGHLY doubt a human has them figured out. Someone who does not have knowledge of Gods or something of that likelyness would probably still question where they came from. That is a belief. All "knowledge" does is expand on the idea of beliefs. Nothing more.
All knowledge is, is the human understanding.