Who are more logical?

Question

Atheists or Agnostics?
Atheists hold an extreme position--denying the existence of God(let's say God is a super-intelligent and all-powerful and all-knowing designer or creator who EXISTS beyond space-time--not necessarily characterized by any particular religion).
Agnostics hold the position that existence of such being(contrary to
santa or easter-bunny who don't have those unique characters of the being God) might be possible or impossible because neither can be proved.

Answer 1

Religious people are not logical. All religious preachers just pump their one theory (God exists) down our throats.

When the science community makes a discovery or modifies a theory they publish a paper for all to view, speculate on, and debate. Invariably such discoveries open up our simplistic minds and expand our horizons. Examples would be the works of Einstein and Hawking, to name a very small sample.

So why do preachers have to continually pump their one theory (God exists) down our throats. Why do they stand on street corners and hand out leaflets, yell at passers by, gather huge crowds and push unsuspecting victims over in the belief they will be cured of whatever mental or physical ailment invades them, if they just believe in the theory of God.

Why can’t the believers of religious theory just behave in a decent manner, in much the same way as the scientific community does. The answer to all of these questions is simple. They know their theory of God is wrong, and saturation mental and verbal bombardment is the only way they can convince people, and they do it directly or indirectly for money.

Religious people do not understand the question “why” and so God, Religion, the Bible, or whatever, takes over and controls their mind. The trouble with this solution, unlike science, is that anything can be twisted into whatever you wish to believe and therefore is always right. Sadly to say, that’s irrational thought.

However, there must be a rational explanation why religious people act in such an irrational manner, and I think scientists will prove in the near future that it’s all a function of genetic disposition.

Answer 2

To the person above - agnostic does not mean "ignorant". There is an actual translation of the word, given that "gnosis" means "knowledge of God" and that the Gnostics were people that believed one could only find God through direct knowledge or experience of him. An agnostic, therefore, is someone who believes it is impossible to know or experience God.

Personally I am an agnostic, so I may be biased. I became agnostic after leaving the Baptist faith four years ago. Through reason and philosophy I saw that it is rather intellectually irresponsible for ANYONE to claim such knowledge, whether they be pro-God or anti-God. While I do think it is quite clear that most religions have got it wrong if there DOES happen to be a God, it is impossible for me or anyone to prove or disprove something that is by definition beyond human comprehension.

Answer 3

Agnostics are, in fact atheists... they do not believe in dieties. There are degrees to atheism, however. The 'strong' atheist position holds that the proposition 'god exists = false'... andthus suggests that there must be some sort of evidence to support that proposition. The 'weak atheist' (or 'atheist-agnostic') position simply finds that there is not sufficient evidence to support the proposition 'god exists = true'... but also finds that there is not sufficient evidence to support the proposition 'god exists = false', as well.

For all practical purposes, though, there is really very little difference in those two positions because, in common discourse, both are operating from a state of 'non-belief' in a diety. So, non-belief is really the defining parameter here... not the extent of or basis for 'non-belief'.

With respect to logic... they are both logical. I don't there are 'degrees' of logic; something is either logical, or it isn't. But the crux of your question really comes down to individual criteria for evaluating evidence, which may or may not involve 'logic'. Philosophical 'proofs' prove nothing. Once we get into the realm of science, proof goes out the door, except in the 'negative' sense... falsifiability.

Answer 4

Technically Athesists are more logical.

It breaks down to this. There is a Mountain of direct evidence the "merciful" "benevolent" god Does NOT exsist. The evidence for his exsistance is based on mainly hoaxs, and a very much edited and mistranslated book. There are some a few "miracles" that are hard / impossible at current time to explain, the same however goes for David Blain or several great stage magicians. So based on the avaible sources of knowlege it is best to choose not to believe. Based on logic.

Now, however that only covers one portion of the argument agains it. Religeon is another reason we cannot believe in god. It is a method of control and as god intended us to have free will such a control seems to be working at a direct cross purpose with gods will so upon seeing this hypocrisy we conclude the bulk of it must be poisioned with such hyposcrisy and we are generally not far off.

agnostics, try to hedge their bets by keeping an open slot for god. and it lets them be "free" from the religeon aspect but still connected with "god" . not entirely logical, but at least they try not be hypocritical about it.

Answer 5

It depends on the individual. Most atheists have simply made a judgement that nothing that THEY would call 'god' exists, and may even have logical proofs of the nonexistence of certain gods. I don't know any atheists who dogmatically claim that anything with the label 'god' attached to it can not exist. If someone took such a position, that would clearly be irrational. But it is rational to object to arbitrarily calling something 'god' just to equivocate.

Most agnostics also do not dogmatically claim nothing can be known about gods, but rather, simply claim they don't know anything about gods. However, to claim nothing CAN be known about god implicitly makes one of the following two assumptions; that god does not exist and thus nothing can be known about him, or that god does exist and we know enough about the nature of god to know we can know nothing about him. This is not a rational position as it implicitly assumes some level of knowledge about that which is claimed we have no knowledge of.

Answer 6

Agnostics are obviously more reasonable, but I cannot live my life on the fence like that. My parents are agnostic, and no longer look for answers, and I am an atheist, constantly looking. I would still suppose that agnostics are more logical, to not make assumptions.

Answer 7

Atheists are just decisive agnostics. Just kidding...I think.

Hell, I don't know. And what's it matter? I'd like to believe - and I've not yet seen evidence to the contrary - that both A's are tolerant of each other.

Let's not start more infighting!

Answer 8

Agnostics because they believe the God is not comprehensible and they actually have a point.

Answer 9

As an atheist I would have to say agnostics.

Answer 10

You totally misinterpret the word "agnostic."

Agnostic means "ignorant."

As relates to religion, an agnostic is claiming he does not know what he believes.

Atheism is the acknowledgment no credible evidence supports God belief.