If there is no evidence to support the existence or the non-existence of god, is it hypocritical to be an Atheist since no one really knows? Or is Agnosticism just Atheism for cowards?
2007-03-20 05:50:45 · 23 answers · asked by Scruzzer 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Oh man... Thomas Huxley (the inventor of Agnosticism) would be turning in his grave if he saw the misuse of his word. Let's clear things up a bit.
Atheism and Theism are two halves of a sphere. You are either one or the other, depending on how you answer the question "Do you believe that a God or Gods exist(s)?"
If the answer is "yes," then you are a theist.
If the answer is "no," or "I don't care," or "I don't know," or "what's a God?," or anything of that sort, you are an atheist. You lack belief. If I asked you if you believed that the Chinese Gate Gods exist, and you said "What the heck are those?" that's an atheistic answer.
Agnosticism is a question of KNOWLEDGE, not EXISTENCE. In technical terms, it's a question of epistemology, not metaphysics.
"Does God exist" is a question of metaphysics.
"How do we know" is a question of epistemology.
It's a modifier to the beliefs that you have, not a halfway house between atheism and theism. You can be an agnostic theist -- "I don't know anything about what God is, but I believe that he exists."
... or you can be agnostic atheist -- "I don't know anything about what God is, and I also don't think he exists."
Once you use the terms as they were originally intended, everything is much clearer. Most of those people who refer to themselves as agnostic actually hold the beliefs of a "weak" or "implicit" atheist. They're unsure about God, so they lack a belief in its existence.
2007-03-20 06:17:39 · answer #1 · answered by Michael 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some people like decisions to be made. It just clarifies things and makes it easier to function. Others can live with uncertainty. It's like being able to tolerate fools. Some will, some won't. It doesn't affect the "fool".
Atheists categorically reject supernatural explanations as time-wasting, useless superstition, an insult to intelligence. Until such time as empirical proof arises, there is no point in wasting mind or effort on an imaginary superbeing.
Agnostics are more tolerant. They may admit that there are phenomena that can't quite be explained by natural processes. Or they may see the value in living by the light of a guiding myth. But they don't believe "God" could be anything like what the theists describe, because theists can't possibly "know" God. And if "God" has chosen not to be incontrovertibly provable, then "God" can't hold disbelievers to any sort of "account" for a belief beyond the power of reason.
An agnostic should live an ethical life, not to hedge bets but simply because it's the right thing to do by one's fellow human. Atheists would likely agree, the Golden Rule applies to everyone, simply because it makes life more pleasant. They just wouldn't bother with all the speculative metaphysics.
2007-03-20 14:58:45 · answer #2 · answered by skepsis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Atheists believe there is no god until evidence is provided, theists believe there is a god until there is proven not be one...
Agnostics believe that they do not want to make a choice.
Atheists just say "Hey, there is no proof whatsoever for this nonsense, and until some evidence is provided, I'm going to assume its all made up."
Theists say "There is a god until you prove to me beyond reasonable doubt that there isn't, not evidence... proof"
Personally, I think that if there is NO evidence for something, it is not true... and if there is evidence then something is more likely, thus, I am so far an atheist as an agnostic would mean that the lack of proof for a god was negligible... and I disagree with that viewpoint.
2007-03-20 12:53:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Everybody is kinda agnostic. A Christian or a Muslim believes God exists. An atheist doesn't. But all are not 100%sure, so everybody is sorta agnostic right.
I call myself atheist, because my gut feeling tells me that there is no Higher Power.
I also don't call myself agnostic towards the Pink Bowl of Chicken Soup Goddess btw.
2007-03-20 12:55:49 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because you can use statistics to get the unknown to be so small that you can easily make the jump from "very probably doesn't exist" to "he doesn't exists". Sure there is always going to be a .0000001% uncertainty, but until some real evidence is produced, there isn't any more reason to suggest you should believe in god than there is to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Anything your mind can think of, you can claim as true. But, without proof, nobody else needs to give any credence to the 'theory'.
2007-03-20 13:04:49 · answer #5 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a very valid question.
My husband and I have discussed this several times... if we are to be completely honest with ourselves, we are agnostic because no one can know for sure either way. But when I'm pushed and preached at, I'll drop right into atheism every time.
Saying your agnostic is like saying your bisexual... those on either side WANT you to make a choice, so if I'm forced to make a choice to label myself, I'll say atheist.
2007-03-20 12:57:17 · answer #6 · answered by Rogue Scrapbooker 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because there is evidence, indeed, proof, for the atheistic viewpoint.
Free will is a necessary consequence of a deity. Free will is a literal impossibility in the universe in which we find ourselves as a consequence of the Church-Turing Thesis (CTT). Since the necessary consequence is missing, the cause must be missing as well.
Formally:
X = deity exists
Y = free will exists
IF X THEN Y (Premise)
NOT Y (Given -- CTT)
THEREFORE NOT X. (modus tollens)
2007-03-20 12:55:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Atheists don't claim to "know" in the way that theists do. They base their belief on the complete absence of evidence. Atheists are no more hypocrites than you are for being atheistical about Zeus (assuming you don't believe in Zeus). If you give me even a tiny sliver of evidence for god, I'm a follower. Until then, even allowing for the incompleteness of knowledge - we are far more open to that than any theist - we are de facto atheists.
2007-03-20 12:54:23 · answer #8 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Yes, agnostics are Atheists without balls.
Yeah sure I cannot prove that Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist, but to think that he might because of it is just silly.
2007-03-20 13:03:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't assume that there is an equal chance of things existing and not existing. If there is no evidence at all that something exists then it is very unlikely that it does. I mean I could make up a lot of weird s*** that you can't disprove and that wouldn't mean that there is any real chance of it being true.
2007-03-20 12:56:51 · answer #10 · answered by Alex 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋