To be fair: Question for agnostics, why are you not atheists?

Question

I understand you allow for the possibility that there may be something out there. However, you could be atheist and if presented with proof of the existance of a god, then become a believer. What is it that prevents you from simply being atheist from the start?

Logic dictates that if all the religions of the world are wrong or in some way, irrational, then the beliefs associated with them are also irrational. Hence, there would be no higher power.

Serious question here, what made you draw the line?

Answer 1

It's the old fear of hell for some. They feel that if they say, "well, I'm not sure" that , if there is a god, he will be more likely to forgive them than if they say, "screw you, I don't believe in you" by saying they are an atheist. I prefer to live dangerously when it comes to that. I am an ATHEIST. I feel confident enough about what I don't believe in to fully accept the consequences if such there be.

Answer 2

Atheism is as metaphysical as theism. It asserts something affirmative (that there IS not a God) without proof. I don not agree that all religions must be seen as irrational, nor do I have evidence that everything we can experience as humans is rational. So that point is somewhat irrelevant.

Look at it this way. Science is rational only within the system. When looked at from the outside, there is a gaping hole; science is based in conscious observation. Since we currently have no workable theory of consciousness, science is ignorant of its own basis. In other words, it has no rational foundation. I still think science is both possible and the best tool we have for aquiring knowledge about the universe.

My dismissing most religion (at least in their current sociological forms) is due to evidence against the texts and claims of those traditions, not a lack of rational.

Answer 3

Interesting question. Worthy of late night drinking and discussing!

I think the reason I choose to be agnostic instead of atheist is based on understanding that the beginning is unexplainable at this time. For example, whether discussing evolution or creationism as mutually exclusive mechanisms, it always comes back to the beginning. If there was nothing until God created it, what created God. If there was nothing until it evolved, how does nothing become something. So, being unable to explain the beginning, I tend toward possibilities rather than toward denial. I do want something more than dirt and decay as my grand finish, but, for now, the scientific method provides a more tangible explanation of life than faith alone. So, agnostic for now.

Answer 4

You misunderstand agnosticism.

Atheism is a statement of belief: I believe that no gods exist.

There's no proof for this, since you can't disprove a negative.

Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge: I do not know if any gods exist.

An agnostic can be an atheist, or an agnostic could even believe that a transcendental god exists -- one that does not interact with the physical universe.

One's a statement of belief. One's a statement of knowledge. Agnosticism neither necessitates nor precludes atheism.

People who identify as agnostics view the question of belief as private, undecided, or in many cases, irrelevant. Agnosticism is the more relevant issue in terms of everyday life.

Answer 5

Agnosticism does not 'allow for the possibility'.

Agnostics say, "Man cannot address the question of the existence or nonexistence of god. Therefore, the question, 'Is there a god' is as meaningless as 'what is the color of the smell of the other side of this mobius strip?'"

Even an atheist, given hard proof of the existence of a god, would convert. That's what we want, after all. Proof.

Answer 6

logic says also there are only 3 options for me

1- God

2- No God

3- Some Gods

about number 3 , if there are many Gods , they would fight somehow or something

about number 2 , maybe there no God .. so simply everyone Believer or not Believer will face the same destiny and same end , cause no higher power or judegement !!

and now number 1 , what if there is a God ?!!! so Believers now will get what they believed in , and here i am philosphy didnt help me

Answer 7

I WAS an atheist for a few years and they were unhappy years. I realized I had to believe in something and just because I didn't believe in Christianity there were still a lot of faiths out there to explore. The exploration has been very interesting. I am moving more and more toward believing in some sort of Divine force in the Universe. But now, my beliefs are MINE and weren't handed to me all nice and neat like a Happy Meal.

Answer 8

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.

Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity. Neither type of agnosticism is fully irreconcilable with theism (belief in a deity or deities) nor strong atheism. A weak agnostic who also considers themselves a theist is likely in a state of doubt, though they are not necessarily having a crisis of faith. Weak agnosticism often overlaps with, and is often confused with, weak atheism, as both are a lack of belief rather than a belief in lack (of either knowledge or existence, respectively).

Contents [hide]
1 Weak agnosticism and symbolic logic
2 Weak agnosticism vs indecision
3 Criticism against weak agnosticism and response
4 Bibliography



[edit]
Weak agnosticism and symbolic logic
The philosophy of weak agnosticism can be related to proof theory and can be expressed in terms of symbolic logic. Simply, if a person makes a statement A and claims that it is true, then he must prove that it is true. Similarly, if another person makes a statement A' (not A) and claims that it is true (or rather A is false), then he too must prove that it is true (or A false).

[edit]
Weak agnosticism vs indecision
Weak agnostics have often been accused of indecision, that is, "fence-sitters." This arises from a misunderstanding of weak agnosticism. The principle of weak agnosticism is not about a belief in God or a disbelief in God but about the belief in the statement "God exists" or the belief in the statement "God does not exist". Given that, to a weak agnostic, nothing has been shown to support either statement conclusively, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the data is inconclusive and believing in either is a leap of faith.

[edit]
Criticism against weak agnosticism and response
Some atheists argue that believing in the possibility of a God is as ridiculous as believing in the possibility of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, and find it contradictory that weak agnostics believe in the possibility of the former but not any of the latter. However, to a weak agnostic, this fails to assess the situation logically and with clearly defined lines. To a weak agnostic the concepts of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Christian God, and so forth, are clearly defined claims akin to claiming the existence of alien life on a specific planet in our solar system, whereas the general concept of God is more akin to the concept of alien life anywhere in the universe. Given that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and so forth, can be argued against using proofs and data, it is not contradictory to dismiss those things that can be disproven while keeping an open mind to those things that have not.

Answer 9

OK, seriously:
--an atheist believes no higher being at all?
and
--an agnostic believes there is a higher being, but it isn't the one the Christians call God?

I have wanted to ask, because I honestly don't know. Thanks.
And, should I capitalize the words 'athiest' and 'agnostic'? Not trying to be disrespectful, you are entitled to your choice the same as I am.

Answer 10

You have a serious flaw in your logic...go back and re-read what you have written and you will find it. There is not, nor can there be, a proof of God, NOR can there be a proof of 'NOT GOD.' I beleive that is the definition of "Faith." You either accept or deny. I do not believe I MUST take an all or nothing approach to anything in life, nor will I. And perhaps, the denial of existing religions has nothing to do with acceptance of a God - like entity...perhaps others find that no one has it right...yet. !