Atheists, is it time to convert to Hardcore Agnostics?

Question

The existance of a god is not impossible.
It is just not supported by any reasonable evidence...Therefore perhaps we should stop saying Atheist= NO GOD! But instead Hardcore Agnostic= There could be a god, but there is absolutely no reason for me to believe that?

What do you all think?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

^ that video convinced me.

Oh yes and there are some advantages:
You can still celebrate holidays like Christmas that the majority of the US society celebrates, as your just playing it safe. But you also get to celebrate talk like a pirate day, Day of the dead, Day of the dragon, Hunakkah..and all that stuff because they COULD be right too. 8D

Parrot...your missing the point. As popostrous as it is, STILL anything is possible. How do you know you weren't placed here yesterday and all former memories, environments, situations are there to reflect otherwise...put in place by invisible midgets....you don't. Well..maybe a bit of a stretch, but the thing is it is HARDCORE agnostic, as you are leaning toward atheism...by a good margin. As ANYTHING is possible. 8P

But smarty pants doesn't that make you hardcore agnostic?

8P

ok ok ok...so soft atheist.

Answer 1

I just came from there...

It's all about what we choose to believe. I used to say "I don't know," (agnostic)... and I still don't *know* However, I do not believe there is a god...

Answer 2

Atheists are frequently confused with agnostics, simply because there's too many definitions floating around.

Agnostic-Atheist - The answer to the question of the existence of god is unknowable, but tends to believe that there isn't.
'Weak' Atheist - Lack a belief in god(s).
'Strong' Atheist - Belief that there does not exist any god(s).

The 'weak' atheist position is similar (the same?) to the agnostic-atheist position. Yet, the difference is that the agnostic position definitely states that it is unknowable, hence the position of agnostic-atheist. Weak atheists may possess a similar attitude such that god cannot be proven to exist or not exist, but the unknowable part of the question is not the reason they are atheists. It's more to the point that the given reasons that theists to believe in god, they simply do not buy into. They *lack* the belief, they do not simply dismiss the belief as unknowable.

Answer 3

I think that many call themselves agnostic to avoid the label of "atheist". They think it is a fanatic position of some sort. That's not really the case, of course.

Classically, the word "agnostic" wasn't about whether you believed or not, but whether you could prove a god exists or not. In that sense, there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Because of this, I really dislike the popular use of the word.

Your label of "hardcore agnostic" is really just weak atheist. A weak atheist is someone who just has no belief in any gods because there's no reason to believe there are any. This is in contrast to a strong atheist who believes there are reasons to think no gods exist.

Personally, I'm a hybrid between the two. There are gods that people believe exist that you can show to not exist. These are gods that people define by the deeds the god is supposed to have done. You can show the history of the belief and how that god is man-made. And you can show evidence to demonstrate their claims are false. The Christian God falls in this category.

Then there are gods that are so vaguely defined and who do so little that there is little you can challenge. For those gods, I'm merely a weak atheist. There's no reason to believe they exist (or even defined), but there's no evidence you can point to. The Deist god falls in this category.

Answer 4

There are hard atheists and soft atheists. An agnostic believes that there is no way to tell if there is a god.

A soft atheist is what you are. They say the lack of evidence makes it reasonable to assume there is no god.
A hard atheist absolutely believes that there is no god.

I personally am really in between the two. I don't say it is impossible, but the total lack of evidence to me is by itself evidence there isn't one. If there isn't evidence then it was made up. I think that it is very, very, very, very unlikely that there is a god. I will think that until there is some evidence presented that there is. I don't think that will ever happen and I really believe that there is not one. My belief is the same with Thor, Zeus, and all the others. I would be no less surprised if someone produced evidence of them.

Answer 5

I used to think like this too...

but then I realized that an Atheist is not necessarily someone who says they are absolutely certain their is no God. They may just think it is highly unlikely.

Think about it, no one knows for sure that the correct God to worship is not Thor... we just find it highly unlikely and are therefore Atheists about him.

As to weather there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, the evidence is not in... that is an example of how I remain agnostic.

Answer 6

Bad thinking, dude. The atheist starts from the position that there is no belief where there is no evidence. Just because a lot of people really, really REALLY believe that SURELY a god exists isn't any reason to believe there is one. The agnosticism argument applies to dragons, the tooth fairy, and Bertrand Russell's teapot. I can't prove any of them don't exist, nor should I be expected to, and while philosophically it is valid to say they might, for all practical purposes, it is foolish to consider it a genuinely valid possibility. Atheism is the only answer until that proof comes along.

Answer 7

How can you be a hardcore AGNOSTIC? That's like saying that you're "extremely really really not sure which side to take". That doesn't make much sense.


Plus, most of us still celebrate Christmas and Easter and stuff.

Answer 8

Interesting idea, but you'll have to count me out. Not only do I not think there's any evidence for God, but I also don't think one even CAN exist. The whole concept just seems so preposterous to me. I don't believe that one exists and I'm honestly not unsure about it one bit.

***

Ehhh, part of me still disagrees, though. I still hold the opinion that a deity would just completely defy logic -- ESPECIALLY the one described the Bible. I still think it's completely impossible. I guess you can argue that nothing is impossible, but like other people on here have been saying, that doesn't mean that we should consider the possibility that everything might exist.

Answer 9

I've always said that agnosticism is the only logically defensible position. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a god, so believing in god is an ignorant, illogical, and undefensible position. There is no way to prove that there is no god of any kind whatsoever, so true atheism (denying the existence of god) is also logically undefensible. The agnostic position of "There's no evidence that there is a god, but it's possible -- either way 'god' has no effect on my life in any way, so there's no need to bother with him even if he does exist" is the only one that is absolutely logically defensible.

I'm with ya :)

Answer 10

The problem with being an agnostic is that you must also believe in the possibility of zeus, poseidon, athena, gnomes, goblins, alchemists and a teapot that revolves around the sun. None of them can be proven or disproven.

I doubt you will find any agnostics that are agnostic towards zeus or invisible goblins.

Answer 11

Just a comment about your additional details. Atheists can celebrate or not celebrate any holiday they choose, listen to gospel music, stand for the Hallelujah Chorus, and give money to the Christian Children's Fund every month, if they like.