Atheists: Are you really atheist or agnostic?

Question

If you answer "atheist" I assume you have confirmed your belief that there is "no diety" as webster puts it?
Where's your scientific proof behind that?

If you answer "agnostic" - at least you're making some logical sense.

Excellent work Seraphim:

If you call yourself an atheist, you are using a title that says "No God".

You have the alternative position of saying "I cannot know" at which you would call yourself an agnostic.
Since you don't choose to call yourself agnostic, you purport to know that there is no God (or at least believe - I'll give you that although we call that faith, so that puts you in the same basket with us Christians)
By therefore implying that you "know" I am justified in asking you for proof.

Another approach is to put the onus on the person who chooses the less obvious position. IOW the bulge in your jacket looks like a gun, prove that you are not carrying a gun. In that case, creation implies a creator - prove that there is none.

In either of the two above - and that's all you can really choose from, the onus is on the atheist to prove that there is no God.

Answer 1

'Tis a good question...

If a person truly believes that there is no God, then they must have some kind of proof that says "there is no God"... which does not mean somehow debunking merely the Lord God, but also all others as well, including proving the pantheistic idea that all things are god (or that god is in all things) [which might prove to be a challenge]. Mere faith cannot cut it, in this situation, because I can have faith that there is no such thing as a Plesiosaur in modern times, but that does not make it so. To validate my faith, I would need to disprove its existance (in this example, by proving that all so-called Plesiosaurs caught in modern times are really rotting basking sharks, and by scouring every lake and loch where one is said to exist, inch by inch, sea cave by sea cave, until I can honestly said "I have truly searched every possibility, and cannot find any").

At least an agnostic will admit that they do not have the knowledge to decide that there is a God or there is not a God, or even if God is knowable. Of the non-theists, they are the open-minded ones... an atheist, however, is closed minded to the possibility.

Answer 2

I'm an agnostic atheist. I do not make any claim that i know all there is to know about the workings of the universe and i am open to new ideas with sound support of evidence and reason. Since this evidence is yet to be discovered and the reasoning behind the existence of god is extremely flawed i say at this moment in time that i do not believe that there are any gods, which makes me atheist.

Answer 3

Forget labels and definitions. Just consider the following sentences:

1. "I do not KNOW whether god(s) do or do not exist.

2. "I DO NOT believe that god(s) exist."

3. "I believe that god(s) DO NOT exist."

1 is generally taken to be the 'agnostic' position...

2 is generally taken to be the 'weak' atheist position...

3 is generally taken to be the 'strong' atheist position.

Notice that 2 (weak atheist position) is TRUE for both 1 and 3.

If you don't 'know' whether or not god exists (1), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).

If you 'believe' that god does not exist (3), then you do not 'believe' in god (2).

So, the common denominator between 'agnostic' and 'atheist' is that neither positions harbors a 'belief' in god... and thus, both are 'non-believers'. That also seems to be the only position that makes sense, since for someone to say that they 'believe' that there is no god implies a logical proposition that 'god does not exit = true'. THAT implies that there must be some kind of logical 'proof' for that assertion... and, of course, since it is impossible to prove such a thing in the absence of infinite knowledge, it is no more than a red herring. Further... if you possessed the infinite knowledge necesary to 'prove' such a logical proposition, then you would fulfill the definition of a god yourself, and end up in a 'Divine Paradox'. Thus, position (3) is logically untenable.

For purposes of this answer (and for most of the answers I give), it should be understood that when I say 'belief', I am referring to an internalized (part of one's self-description) certainty of the 'truth' of some matter pertaining to a fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality.

The only sensible course is to say "I do not believe in god," and let it go at that. It would seem obvious to me that if the FSM descended from heaven on a cloud, and touched me with his noodly appendage... or some other god performed his own version of that trick... I would be logically obliged to reassess my disbelief. But, until that happens... I don't believe in god(s).

Answer 4

You've asked this before but I'll try and educate you again...

I am an atheist.

There is no proof that a god exists, therefore god does not exist.

Stop trying to convince people that since they can't prove a negative, they are agnostics. That is an insult to agnostics.

Now it's your turn, prove that Santa Claus does not exist...

Answer 5

You interested in logic? Then you'll be interested to know that in logic, you cannot and are not expected to try to prove a negative. Thus, we atheists are not responsible for 'proving' that there is 'no deity'. The onus of responsibility for proof is on the individual who makes the positive, assertive statement. In this case, that statement is 'There is a God' or 'The Bible is truth'. You made the assertion, prove it or leave the logic to the adults.

Answer 6

You know, I was agnostic until I started coming here. All the Christians have totally convinced me that there is no god. Thank you!

Answer 7

It is logical to make assumptions about the nature of reality based upon available evidence. Given that no supernatural deities have demonstrated their existence in modern times, it is safe to assume that no such deities exist. Also, given that the only proof that they existed at one time is ancient texts composed by primitive peoples who lacked both knowledge and understanding of their reality, it is safe to assume that no such deity existed at any point during humanity's evolution and cultural development. Finally, given that we have sufficient evidence to demonstrate an explanation based upon completely natural processes to explain both the creation of the universe and the creation and evolution of life on this planet, there is no logical reason to persist in believing that any kind of deity has ever existed.

Answer 8

Is "scientific proof" the only reasoning you accept in matters of spirituality? I doubt it.

I'm an agnostic, and a big fan of scientific reasoning, but it isn't true that it's the ONLY consideration for what one should believe.

Answer 9

technically I'm agnostic. I'm open to the possibility of a "god".

Atheists do make logical sense. They don't believe in a "god". Do you think that a guy who doesn't believe in an invisible green duck is illogical? Let's be fair here.

Answer 10

Atheist. For proof show me god.