Do you believe that atheism is the logical choice?

Question

i`ve seen some users saying that atheism is the logical choice, but since the concept of a god cannot be proved nor disapproved, then shouldn`t agnosticism be considered the logical choice?

edit: i don`t wanna be misunderstood, logical choice in the sense of a concept, i`m not claiming that your religion or lack of is wrong.

Answer 1

Yup. Nope. Negative evidence *should* yield negative belief.

No evidence of gnomes means (to me) that I will believe there are *no* gnomes. How about *you*? ...... (And, BTW, *many* anthroposophists *do* believe in gnomes, *just like* theists believe in deities.) ... Many, many others apply, like Voodoo, Zeus & ~360 more Greek Gods, telekinesis, crossed fingers, Odin, black cats, astrology, The FSM... Ya gonna take a non-stance on *all*? I believe precisely *none* of those are real! Do you think at least *ONE* of those is *not* real? If so, it's the same with me and the current "God".

Answer 2

Hi,

If atheism and not agnostism is the logical choice we must admit that the Universe always existed either as a matter or energy or both. No God means no reason for the existing universe. We are here without reason in a world so vast we don't see its end. Why is there something instead of nothing? Nothing seemed more logical and yet we are into a something. On the other hand, agnostism gives us a break as we prefer keeping a grey zone in our mind. For a true fan of atheism, agnosticism is seen as wishy-washy, a kind of a soft version of half atheism lacking of courage. But I prefer the grey zone and, yes, I think that agostisicism is logical.

yves

Answer 3

Of course.

Nothing in the world can be proved or disproved in any absolute sense. The most you can do it gather the evidence for and against and weigh it.

There is a lot of evidence that gods are man-made. That evidence can be gotten from the religion's own "holy" texts, and from what we know of history. Evidence strongly suggests that religion started as simple ancestor worship and sun worship, then evolved into the complex institutions we see today.

The evidence for the existence of any god is scarce and anecdotal. It is all based on hearsay and the claims of religious zealots. There's nothing there that would really stand up in any scientific analysis. The definition of "god" isn't even well established. It is a vague concept, at best.

Agnostic really has two definitions. The popular definition is "undecided", which really is a meaningless one. The classic definition is "a belief that the divine is unknowable". Note that the latter definition doesn't say whether you believe or not. A Christian who believes that God works in mysterious ways and cannot be proved, can be considered an agnostic, especially those who keep pushing the idea that you "just have to believe" or "just have faith".

As far as the "undecided" definition, that really isn't a logical or illogical choice. There is no way anybody can really substantiate any absolute claims, including whether you, yourself, exists. So, with that definition, everybody is an agnostic to some extent. This makes the definition meaningless. I haven't found anybody who believes that the chance of an existing god is exactly fifty/fifty. Everybody leans more towards believing a god exists or not believing a god exists.

I am an atheist. However, I acknowledge that nothing I know is known 100% and anything is possible. That doesn't really mean I hold any real belief in any gods. I am far enough to the "non-belief in gods" end of the spectrum that I can be called an atheist. There are others who are somewhere in the middle in their beliefs. Is that really more logical than having an opinion either way? It depends more on the reasoning behind your stance than where along the spectrum you lay.

Answer 4

I do understand your point, especially as I am an agnostic-atheist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
...but I see both as logical choices. Atheism denies a God or gods because none have ever been known to reveal themselves in anything but author's accounts in books. I too do not believe in a God or gods. Agnosticism is logical because it claims not to know either way because of the lack of evidence for proof, and also falls into many different categories. I am an agnostic because I feel an energy to this universe that connects us all and I do not believe it can be measured by science or mathematics. I also do not believe that I am absolutely right about this. Who knows? I can't prove it, I just live it.

I am an agnostic atheist in that I do believe there is more to this universe than what we as human beings can ever fully know (at least not until we all find peace within ourselves and one another), but I believe the concept of a creator with human attributes who was perfect and yet needed everyone around him to worship him and be punished is a crock of, um, shite.

P.S. Atheism ONLY connotes a disbelief in God. It does not mean that there are no spiritual atheists. I know many. Thus, it is just as logical as agnosticism if not more so in that it questions everything but fact. Think - most people do not believe that the Tooth Fairy exists. Maybe it does, who knows, I've never seen it. The atheists base their logic on the fact that it is a fictional story. Children have seen it in their dreams just as they have seen God - based upon the images they are given and taught to believe. The theists tend to base it on the fact that since 200,000 books weren't written translating and re-translating the Tooth Fairy, it cannot exist. Who would you find more rational in this case?

Answer 5

I agree. I do respect the Atheist for their love of logic, but I can't escape the evidence I have witnessed that something does exist. Agnosticism makes more sense to me. Spirituality either exists or it doesn't. It can't all be fake, except for my religion, like Christians claim. That is very illogical. I have my own beliefs, but I would choose Agnosticism over Atheism anyday.

Answer 6

I think not. When you apply logic to the concepts of god you end up quickly with self-contradictions. Therefore, atheism is the logical conclusion. I'd call it a conclusion rather than a choice.

In my view, agnosticism means that the notion that there is a god has the same validity as the notion that there is no god. Therefore I could never style myself an agnostic. While it is true that I do not know everything in the world, the concepts of a god are so absurd and self-contradicting that I never could accept logic and god at the same time.

Answer 7

I do not believe there is one more thing as logical as atheism. Believing in a God or gods is like believing in Zeus and in toothfairies. It is the logical choice because atheism is all about being logical. We just cannot simply believe in something that has no scientific proof.

Answer 8

For ME...atheism is the logical choice...however, I cannot speak for others...it's just what works for me...

Edit...when I finally accepted that I did not believe in god I tried to label myself as an agnostic...but as time went on I could no longer fight the feeling that I truly did not believe in any god(s) of any sort...so atheism made more sense to me...but I would not label myself a strong atheist...but not weak either. ;)

Answer 9

first i'd like to say the logical choice isn't necessarily the 'right' choice, i don't want to sound anti- any religion

yes, the 'logical' choice is agnosticism. remember, many atheists base their ideas off the LACK of evidence for the christian God, not evidence that SUPPORTS the idea there is no God. of course, a lack of evidence for one extreme doesn't serve as evidence that the other extreme is correct. because there is technically no proof for a God (or lack thereof) given people's general views, the 'logical' religion is agnosticism.

i'm sure people will give my statement a thumbs down. i'm guessing they'll be thinking "wait, yes, there's evidence for ateism". but then where is it? you can't prove something that is abstract doesn't exist, you can say there's a lack of evidence for that abstract point of view, but you can't give evidence FOR the atheistic statement.

Answer 10

It's the default choice. Some can't even choose not to be atheist.

Although, I see you refer to "strong atheism" that purports that there is no god. I would say that "weak atheism" is the default belief (if you can really call a lack of belief a belief).

Every child is an atheist until he learns of a belief system or invents one himself.

Personally, I find "strong atheism" a bit too limiting. When dealing with a supernatural being that is outside of mortal realm, I can't say there *isn't* a god. One can dismiss other gods based on the illogic of the known religions.

But most atheists would agree that even if there is a god, he or they simply do not care enough to reveal themselves to us. In that case, living with the belief that there is no god doesn't really change anything.

Answer 11

I'm atheist in practice.
Agnostic in belief.

Meaning I live my life with no thought to a positive belief in any gods, but what I do believe is that it is not possible to know if a god exists or not that is my agnosticism.