Are you atheist or agnostic? If so, why?

Question

I'm just curious, and would like honest answers. Thanks.

Agnostic means don't know
Atheist means opposed, against, without, or no god

Answer 1

I'm an agnostic atheist. Both. If you don't understand how that is, let me know and I'll explain. For starters, I don't agree with Chini's definitions above me - no offense to her.

I am so because I decided to look at things as rationally as possible. I decided that the truth was not afraid of scrutiny - that kind of became my mantra. In that spirit, I examined my beliefs, then belief in general and came to where I am as a result of that.

It included research on evolution and a little on cosmology, debating all kinds of issues here and elsewhere, and just basically being as objective as I possibly could be during that process.

Edit - OK, I'll explain how I see the whole agnostic/atheist thing...

Agnoticism is a philosophy that the existence or non existence of god cannot be known or is inherantly unknowable. Notice that we are talking about knowledge, not belief.

Atheism is about belief. An atheist does not believe in a god or gods. You don't have to say, "There is definitely no god," or, "I know there's no god." You simply have to not believe in a god or gods.

I DO say, "I don't know," but I also say, "Until there is evidence, I don't believe."

And, at any given time, you either believe or you don't.

Answer 2

I used to be an agnostic. But after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion I've become an atheist. And I agree with Sam Harris's ideas that religions hurt the world. I can't say that I can disprove God. That's impossible. However, I am more inclined to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there could be a God.

Answer 3

People do not choose atheism - they realise that they have lost their faith and have therefore become atheist (some even fight against it, and it can be traumatic to lose your faith if that faith has been a major part of your life). One of the common reasons for this is that people simply realise that (for themselves, at least) better, more complete and coherent explanations about Life, The Universe And Everything can be found outside of religion - the universe just makes a lot more sense without any sort of God involved. We see no evidence of a Creator in cosmology or biology (which covers just about everything); nothing is known to exist or happen for which the only possible explanation is Divine Intervention. Many, if not all, of the answers given by religions range from vague and ambiguous, through incoherent and contradictory (unless you just have "faith" that they are correct), down to ad-hoc explanations which cannot be tested (or are easily refuted and demonstrably false pseudo-science). Many of the rules and regulations laid down by religion tend to be arbitrary or irrational, and those that are not do not appear to be Divinely Revealed anyway. People lose their faith when their religion has nothing substantial to offer, and better answers, philosophies and ways of life can be found elsewhere.

Answer 4

Agnostic. The nature of religious faith makes it impossible to prove the existence of a deity. Everything in the world can be explained with or without the existence of God. My "faith" consists of a conscious embrace of the informing myth behind an admirable ethical system (one that is frequently betrayed by Christians), but my allegiance is to the behavioral code rather than the theology that purports to justify it.

Answer 5

Atheist, because I finally found a way to falsify the deific hypothesis and when I tested it, it was shown to be false.

I won't spam you with it, but you may see it over at another question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061204231550AATsVmQ&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMhzFWUGovj7lskDp2jNMuoAaQzqMMbhetNmzVqUjHRUaxkfoN_oqYlX0VEO3WSpo6Rg--&paid=answered#EsEsWDK7WWaz5ij3Dz.aj1QIVTX80zsZ7E4_SmvepJRQsVB81APz

-----------

Since the question seems to have been deleted:

For knowledge to exist, three facts must be accepted as true:

- Math & Logic are valid
- Direct observations or aided observations supported by Math & Logic are valid
- Supernatural existence, if real, does not involve itself in the natural realm (otherwise, any 'fact' could be changed by the interference -- say by the God of Gravity changing his mind on how strong it will be tomorrow).

Free will can thus be shown to be false:

- The mind is a consequence of the physical nature of the brain (Nonsupernatural causation axiom).
- Quantum physics contains a truly random component (Mathematical axiom)
- All observations can be expressed mathematically (Mathematical axiom).
- All principles causal to observations can be expressed mathematically (Mathematical Axiom).
- All mathematical expressions can be evaluated (Mathematical Axiom).
- An evaluation need not be deterministic, it can be stochaistic, that is, describing 'probabilities'. (Statistical mathematics).
- Since quantum physics can affect the human brain, and thus mind, the human state is mathematically stochaistic (consequential)
- If the quantum randomness is rescoped to be viewed as an input, the human brain ceases to be stoichasitic and is deterministic. (statement of rescope)
- A deterministically computable system is incapable of escaping its previous states, and produces outputs based on a computable result of the previous state and current inputs.(Turing-Church Thesis)
- Determinism counters free will. (By definition)
- Free will is not possible. (consequential)
- If a deity exists, free will is a natural consequence. (axiomic, potentially debatable. However, a deity that creates intelligence without free will cannot hold its creation responsible)
- Free will does not exist, therefore, deity does not exist. (modus tollens).

The idea of a god existing is disproven logically.


-------------------

I welcome any and all comments, any effort to disprove it can only serve to make it stronger. If there are any flaws in it, let's get them ironed out.

Answer 6

I declare myself to be agnostic there is no physical proof that a god exists. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant, however.

Edit:
PandaMan,
Atheism: The belief that a god does not exist.
Agnosticism: The belief that there is no physical proof that a god exists.

They are both the similar, but they are different because they have a different strategy of getting to the same answer. One flat out denies, and another has found no evidence.

Answer 7

heavily leaning towards athiest.

because even though the probability of life forming out of the big bang/evolution is crazy, it is even crazier to say that we were created by some supreme being. what created the supreme being? also, for everyone who says "well believing gives you better odds than nothing, what if you're wrong", i can't pretend to believe, and any truly omnipotent god would be able to tell i was faking. so i must be "doomed to hell" either way. i might as well fall on the side of logic and reason and try to live my life the best i can. i would hope that a truly just god would judge me based on my life's actions rather than if i got a hypothesis wrong.

Answer 8

Both live under the assumption that religious gods do not exist. Agnostics are just a little bit more technical.

Answer 9

easy question. agnostic because im open to the possibility of a god we will never be able to understand. i personally believe in god but im not betting 100% on it.

Answer 10

I'm an Atheist because I'm not able to be intimidated into believing in the fairy tales

there's no tangible evidence to prove God's existence.