Are agnostics just intellectually weak atheists?

Question

If there is no evidence for god, why isn't the most responsible position atheism? Is the agnostic / atheist distinction meaningful?

Answer 1

As I said elsewhere, I don't see the point in that distinction.
I know there is no god.
I believe there is no god.
I'm not 100% certain there is no god.

I don't see why the fact that I'm not 100% certain implies that I can't say that I know there is no god. I'm not 100% certain that there are no lime-green flying elephants, but if you ask me if I know there aren't any, I'm sure as hell going to say "yes".

Certainty is WAY overrated. In fact, most of the time when someone claims to be certain of something, it simply means that person hasn't thought about it much.

Answer 2

Maybe the agnostic believes there is plenty of evidence to support the existence of God, a god or gods but what that evidence is, is where the confusion sets in. I would tend to even point out in your own question that you use the word "if", which can make all the difference in the world. IF there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of God then logically one would have to conclude that atheism would be the mindset to have, but the key is "IF." So I would think the distinction is quite meaningful, especially if you ask an agnostic.

Answer 3

An agnostic believes that the question of God's existence is impossible to answer, since to rule out the possibility of God, one would have to have looked everywhere God might be, and a human being cannot do this. An agnostic says, "I have seen no evidence that God exists, but that does not prove that there definitely is not a God." A person can be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time, or an agnostic theist.

Answer 4

I would argue that the distinction between atheism and agnosticism is meaningful simply because I would resent to being called an athiest just as much as I would resent being called a theist or a christian or whatever. Atheists are very clear in their disbelief in God and all other dieties, while agnostics do not have such a strong opinion and are open to changing their opinion. Atheism is a belief, while agnosticism is the lack of belief. As for your second question, atheism is the only rational belief to have if there was no evidence for God, considering that is the reason that you are an atheists. God wouldn't exist if there was no evidence to show that he did. However, I assume what you meant by no evidence for God is that there is no known evidence for God. In that case you have a lack of evidence which should lead to a lack of belief. The atheist has to show that there is evidence that God does not exist. The lack of evidence for his existence doesn't show that He doesn't exist. In matter of fact, it is not possible to prove the nonexistence of anything unless you can demonstrate that by that thing's very nature, it is impossible for it to exist.

Answer 5

No, agnostics are not intellectually weak, and yes, the agnostic/atheist distinction is meaningful. An atheist has drawn an absolute conclusion, while an agnostic recognizes that the lack of evidence doesn't necessarily prove that no supreme being exists. Agnosticism is not a cop-out; it's a definite refusal to draw conclusions where no objective evidence exists upon which to base any firm conclusion.

Answer 6

Self-described agnostics always emphasize that there's no proof one way or the other about the existence of God, so they leave the question open. But I don't see why that question deserves such special treatment. We encounter many questions about which there's no proof, but still we make common-sense, best-guess judgements about them. For instance, most agnostics don't consider the existence of Santa Claus an open question, even though they can't prove he doesn't exist. That's because there's a rational non-Santa explanation for 1) why some other people believe in Santa Claus, and 2) how the things attributed to Santa Claus really happen. But for some reason they don't want to apply that reasoning to religious beliefs.

So I guess an agnostic is someone with no specific or wholehearted belief in God, but who likes to leave the question open. They willfully suspend their common-sense judgement because they're not emotionally ready to give up on the idea of God.

I consider someone an atheist who has no religious beliefs whatsoever. That's how I am. I don't care about the provability of God's existence, because I use the same reasoning we do about Santa Claus and make a common sense judgement. People believe in God for various cultural and psychological reasons, and things attributed to God can be explained better by science, or attributed to legend, hoax, fraud, and wishful thinking. It's not a matter of belief or unwarranted certainty when I say that God doesn't exist, it's just common sense.

Answer 7

Yes it is.
I can't see the Christian point--they go around judging and damning, no thought if you really know what God wants. I think that Agnosticism is a very good position to take, because they don't have the problem of "where did the big bang come from" and they don't have to defend a typical religion, like Islam or Judaism. They are stronger than many Christians I know, including myself. I hold a deep respect for all Athiests and Agnostics. I respect certain Christians, but I have never met a fundi I agreed with. They don't have very strong arguements in my opinion.

Answer 8

The positions of atheism ( lack of belief in gods ) and agnosticism ( claiming reality is unknowable ) have nothing to do with each other. One can be both or either one or neither. One has to do with lack of belief the other has to do with knowledge. Many agnostics are atheists as well. Many atheists are also agnostics.

Answer 9

Atheists (like me) are notably ordinary: they do no longer believe in God or the different divine existence. Agnostics are interior the grey section and there are diverse motives in the back of being one. yet specifically, they could believe in God if there have been some sort of concrete data, extremely than religious hypothesis. different Agnostics purely don't be attentive to and don't probably sense like pursuing an answer, so as that they neither believe nor disbelieve. i individually sense that many so-called Agnostics purely say there are simply by fact it extremely is a extra secure answer for them than going forward and admitting they are Atheist.

Answer 10

You are confused. Agnosticism has to do with 'knowledge'. 'Atheism' has to do with 'belief'.

Of course an agnostic, who does not find that there is sufficient knowledge available to 'know' whether or not there are gods is, by default, is also a 'weak atheist', since because he has no knowledge pertaining to the existence of gods does not 'believe' in gods... unless he happens to be a 'theistic agnostic', who would think that there might be gode, but also that it is impossible to know anything about their nature or purpose.

Your invocation of the word 'intellectual' in your question is nothing more than an example of your own mean spirited pettiness.