Do you think agnosticism is the only reasonable belief?

Question

I do! What the theist must prove, the atheist must disprove, and since we have no evidence for or against, both theism and atheism are illogical!

Answer 1

Not necessarily.

An atheist does not have to disprove anything, its a blank. He chooses to enter the debate of God/gods but "must" does not apply. Belief in nothing is not a belief system, but trying to disprove faith becomes an avocation.

Agnostics would seem to me to be more engaged in a inner dialogue of an existence of a higher power. It isn't really sitting on the fence as one said, but perhaps standing at different times on either side of the fence.

Answer 2

Please re-read your dictionary. Faith is defined, among other ways, as belief in something for which there is no *proof*. There is a world of difference between believing something which cannot be proven and believing something for which there is no evidence. As for agnosticism being the only reasonable belief: I don't buy it. You guys believe/disbelieve all kinds of things for which proof is unavailable. We all do, and claiming otherwise is simple dishonesty. So if you can make up your minds there, why not here? I have real respect for someone who can admit they just don't know. But using that as an excuse to close the question? That doesn't impress me at all. Edit: ---------------------------------------... Your response makes my point. We don't have all the answers about anything, and probably never will. In a way, your retreat into agnosticism is really just another false claim of certainty. How 'bout learning to live with ambiguity? If I took seriously your model, I'd spend my life locked in a dark room because I couldn't know what would happen next. That's just another form of death.

Answer 3

No. I think, for instance, that it is reasonable to believe that a person exists who asked this question. Of course, I'll assume your question implicitly includes the words 'about the possibility of a deity' after the word 'belief'. Not only is evidence lacking, but no form of evidence would suffice.

Logically, on cannot diprove anything (fallacy of shifting the burden of proof). So atheist simply chose to make the leap that lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

There is evidence against many theistic ideas. For instance, there can be no deity that fulfills all of the statements about God in the Abrahamic texts, since many such statements,even in one text taken alone, are logically incompatible or scientifically inaccurate.

Answer 4

Personal beliefs are based on personal experience. If someone believes in something, it is for their own reasons, at least it should be by the time they become an adult. No one else needs to agree or approve for someone to believe. Belief itself does not need to be reasonable.

Answer 5

It does take as much belief to disbelieve as it does to believe. Neverthless religious dogma drives me crazy to the point that I have a hard time even being agnostic rather than athiest.

Answer 6

Way to be luke-warm in your beliefs and to show absolutely no confidence in your ability to pick a faith. I don't agree with atheists but at least I respect their resolve to believe in something. Geez, commit and make a choice already.

Answer 7

I do think that agnosticism makes the most sense. No burden of proof, no set expectation

Answer 8

I think sitting on the fence is more painful than getting off on one side or the other

Answer 9

Be a man, stand up and claim that your atheist.