Can the atheists explain their position to me, an agnostic?

Question

I understand the idea that we do not have any reason at all to believe in God, but of course I say that we don't have any reason to not believe in God. Please note that I'm abandoning the Western sense of God. Feel free to interpret this as "divine force" of any kind.

Furthermore, I see people asking agnostics if they withhold judgments from everything about which they are uncertain. This isn't quite fair because it's comparing the material world to the "spiritual" world. It's possible that everything around us is an illusion, but at least we perceive it and make conclusions based on it. There is no such perception of God to my knowledge.

It also seems to me that people who claim to be atheists are actually agnostic... why abandon the latter title for the former? True atheists do exist, just as true theists exist.

Really, the purpose of this question is to find out if I'm missing some big reasons why atheists deny the possibility of any divine force.

If atheists aren't people who reject God outright, then what are those people called? No, "ignorant" isn't it, though that may be true. Look at the word atheist and understand it in terms of word parts. If you allow for the possibility, you are still agnostic. How can you say you are fairly certain about anything like this if it transcends the material world and cannot be perceived? I'm not talking about the existence of a divine force that does this or that. I'm talking about the existence of a divine force. Period.

I have explicitly stated more than once that I do not mean the God of the Bible. I'm ignoring beings that contradict themselves.

Bad Liberal: The things you listed at the beginning can all be perceived through some sense unless they are not part of the material world. I actually don't reject them, though, since I am but one out of many billions of people who have lived on this Earth who could have experienced them. My personal experience is not enough to show that they do not exist at all. If they defy logic, however, I will fight them to the end.

As someone else pointed it out, you can't really reject something entirely (unless it contradicts itself). Unfortunately, theists and atheists do exist. There are people who ignore their uncertainty.

If no one out there is willing to admit that he rejects even the POSSIBILITY of God, then all I have done is more accurately labeled people.

Looks like some people have admitted to it, so forget what I just said.

Kenshin: You are assuming I have made the assumption that leprechauns do not exist. I reject that they can grant wishes because this leads to logical problems. However, a small humanlike organism that wears green clothing could very well exist, for all I know. My experience is very limited. Just because I have not encountered a certain type of bug that hasn't been discovered yet doesn't mean that bug does not exist.

By the way, I'm not really making any argument here that can fall apart. I know it's frustrating, but these things can't be disproven. You atheists speak of a lack of evidence for "God" as evidence against "God." This is silly.

I will say this AGAIN. Do not compare divine forces to mythical creatures. A divine force is beyond our perceptions. Mythical creatures are not unless they themselves have supernatural powers, in which case they fall under "divine forces." If that language was hang-up for people, I apologize.

Fence sit? Why would I declare something to be certain if it is not?

I allow that everything could be an illusion, but I live my life as if the ground I walk on and people I meet are not. I cannot live my life unless I do so. Heh, I'm not even sure it's possible to REALLY reject all of our perceptions like that.

You should ask yourself why fence sitting is so bad. These issues are basically irrelevant if they're unknowable. I'm only bringing up logical fallacies.

When making an argument, one presumably uses logic. I fail to see how any argument I'm making can fall apart when confronted with another argument if mine is 100% logical. I'm not making assumptions - you all are. You say you assume I reject unicorns and leprechauns and the like, but that isn't true. Read above. You're telling me I'm silly if I even allow for their possibility, but think for a moment. You use logic to counter theists, do you not? Where is your logic now? The silly ones are you. I can understand if you live your life fairly certain that a unicorn isn't going to pop out at you. I can't understand if you live your life COMPLETELY certain that this will not happen. This is all the more true for divine forces because they transcend the physical world by nature.

Really, I like to think we're all agnostics, but with varying levels of self-deception. Theists and atheists both make a claim about something they do not perceive. This is only natural for us, and I'm guilty of it as well. Is there much point to this discussion? Probably not. But I'm noting flaws in others' logic, so please give me that.

crystallinectar: You say: "i believe that there is no god, of any kind. I do not even believe in the possibility that there might be a god, simple because all evidence tells me flat out that there isn't. The nature of the universe and scientific laws do not allow for some ultimate creator or supreme being"

There is no evidence telling you that there isn't. There is evidence telling you that the Christian God does not exist, however. You are assuming that science, a product of our perceptions, is the be-all end-all, when really this itself is uncertain by its own terms. An ultimate being could have easily created a universe with such order.

U-98: Good job on that. Might be the best answer, but...
"The modern usage separates agnostics and atheists by assigning atheism the same kind of belief factor as theists. It is not true or fair really."
I don't see how it's unfair. It's merely a title, a label. What's wrong with using correct labels? Do people really want to be called atheists so much that they cannot accept that they really are agnostics?

antiques: Well, good answer, but you're only pointing out the problems with that definition of God. As someone else pointed out, we need to define God in order to discuss it, but we can't even agree on that. Ha, looks like the question fails on this account.

I tried to avoid it by saying divine or supernatural force, but this is not necessarily what one would perceive as God. However, atheists do typically reject anything supernatural as well. I was getting at that but failed in going about it. My apologies. However, none of you but the one I mentioned as potential best answer saw this, so I guess I can safely say it wasn't a big deal.

crystallinectar: In response to your edits...

If you define a leprechaun as a creature that can grant wishes, then yes, I reject the existence of leprechauns. My point remains, and you go on to say so yourself. A God who does nothing. And yes, the discussion is pointless. I'm trying to point out how the logic that atheists use here is wrong, though. That's all. I'm expressing it in terms of "religion," so to speak, because they seem to not apply the logic of their own arguments against theists to themselves.

I didn't say you were silly for your beliefs. I said your logic was flawed. You can't prove that it's not possible because it's outside of our perceptions and, as U-98 notes in another post, it's just LOGICALLY impossible. Read up on negative proofs. The issue is that atheists put themselves in a bad situation when it isn't even necessary. So no, I'm not going to respect beliefs based on logic if the logic fails.

I most likely think in the same way you do, actually... but I want to point out logical problems. I'm not even saying that the logical point I'm making can make a difference in anyone's life... I just want to note it.

By the way, crystallinectar: I'm choosing the answer that thoroughly investigates the question and does its best to provide an answer given the results. U-98 realized the problem with my question, but also saw the logical issue in my point. When it comes to logic, you're either right or wrong. There are rules.

Answer 1

Actually the way they are used they are both fairly recent terms and the term atheist at first simply meant somebody who did not believe in a personal God. Personal in this sense refers to God as being humanoid, both in shape and thought. At that point they counted no difference between atheist or agnostic. An agnostic is not a believer because they only give God a possibility rating, A believer(theist) gives it a certainty rating of one.
The modern usage separates agnostics and atheists by assigning atheism the same kind of belief factor as theists. It is not true or fair really. If somebody offered some real evidence then most atheists would accept that there is a god.
In that sense yes the atheists are agnostic.
The otyher sense of agnostic is that the position is that logically there is no proof of God either way, so that there is no sense trying to answer if God is real or not.
A position that backs a bit farther down the argument is Ignosticism. Ignosticism notes that nobody has bothered to define God and until that is done nobody has a clue about what they are trying to prove, disprove or not bother trying to prove.
Ignosticism is in my opinion more radical than any of the atheist or agnostic positions.
I am getting tired of typing this so only a few more lines.
In the believers there is Theism, Deism, Natural Religion, Gnosticism and a bunch more strains related to Stoicism or Taoism.
Nonbelievers have some divisions like atheism, nihilism, agnosticism and ignosticism. The only real uniting factor is a lack of belief.
Note that technically a deist could be called an atheist under these terms, but the trend is to equate atheist with nihilism instead.
Ok, I am tired of typing. Anything further is only for direct questions.

Answer 2

I agree that many atheists can't seem to make it clear why they in fact don't believe in God rather than being unsure on lack of evidence either way. I am however an atheists who is sure there is no God and I shall outline below my reasons.

Firstly, the idea of an omnipotent being is contradictory. You have probably heard the paradoxes "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" or "If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?" As can be seen it is impossible for anything to be all-powerful.

There is further contradiction between the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient God, as "how can an All-Knowing Being change His mind?" If he changes his mind, then that means he was wrong making him not all-knowing as well as a fallible being, and if he can't change his mind then he isn't all-powerful.

Another reason is that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human.

Lastly, I don't see the need for a God. So much of God's apparent miracles and creations have been explained scientifically, there is no need to explain things by claiming "God did it" anymore.

Answer 3

The main reason is because there are atheists is because they are no more logical than theists. So, no, an atheist cannot explain their belief in the "un-god" any more than a theist can explain their belief in "god". It's just a preference that people have. Heinlein probably said it bes:

"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."

Atheism is for people who like to poke their thumbs in the eyes of those who are too weak to stand on their own.

Until someone comes up with a test to determine the existence of god, the question is really quite pointless.

Answer 4

i believe that there is no god, of any kind. I do not even believe in the possibility that there might be a god, simple because all evidence tells me flat out that there isn't. The nature of the universe and scientific laws do not allow for some ultimate creator or supreme being

And I like the argument right above mine. If you allow for the possibility of a god or gods, simply because you say there is reason not to believe in one, then you must also allow for the possiblity of fairies and leprechans and unicorns, etc. etc.
That isn't to say I have a problem with you being agnostic--I used to be, but veered over towards atheism, precisely because of the above argument.

edit: so, to answer your question to your satisfaction: I reject even the POSSIBILITY of a god or gods

another edit: you said that you don't reject the possibility that leprechans exist, only that they can grant wishes because this would lead to "logical problems" to deny the wish-granting factor and claim that there could be little men in green suits does in fact reject the possibility of leprechans. little men that DON'T grant wishes are not the same as those that do. and on that note, any god that would grant prayers would also lead to "logical problems." which means the only kind of god you are claming there is a possibility for is an entirely inactive one, one who sits up there doing a whole lot of nothing. and if this is the case, then why bother even taking a position on the topic at all. the type of god you allow possibility for turns out to be an irrelevant god.
-----------------------------------------------

and if you're just going to call us "silly" for our beliefs, then why bother asking a question you don't really even want the answer to? you go on and on telling us all how wrong we are and instead choose a 'best' answer that most closely matches your own belifs. you obviously don't want a real answer. i didn't get on here and go off on you telling you how wrong you were--in fact i said that i respected your beliefs. silly me for thinking you were actually going to do the same with mine.

Answer 5

What reason do you have to assume that any spiritual world exists.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for spiritual existence.

Your entire argument falls apart because there is no reason that you should make a distinction between god and leprechauns. Neither can be proved, but I assume you don't believe in leprechauns.

Answer 6

I agree with you.

I reject the idea of an angry Charles Durning sitting up in the sky zapping us for thinking about sex. How much damage has that silliness done to families and our world?

Is there another force or series of forces out there? Maybe. Don't know for sure either way. I'm just a human.

Answer 7

Atheists don't deny that there could be a god. We just say that based on the current evidence (or complete lack thereof), we're not going to bother thinking there is one.

The difference between that and agnostics seems to be that agnostics can't make up their minds whether there's a god or not. Atheists are pretty sure there isn't. We're willing to reconsider given some proof, but thousands of years and counting, no proof.

Answer 8

Personally, there is so much reasoning against God and so much that doesn't fit together I choose to not believe. Its like Santa Clause, all it takes is one moment to be able to see the truth, also, over half the bible contradicts itself (look it up, you will find lots in John)

Answer 9

I have no supernatural beliefs. Period. There are no gods, no spirits, no demons, no ghosts, no goblins, no Easter Bunny. And, no possibility any of them exist. Everything has a scientific explanation, or will eventually.

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Answer 10

Are you agnostic about dragons? Goblins? Leprechauns?

Yes, it's remotely, remotely possible that a god exists, but if he does, he has created a universe which obstinately conceals every trace of evidence that he does.