Isn't being an atheist just as dumb as believing in a religion?

Question

The truth is we have no idea. Doesn't that mean agnosticism is the true religion of all mankind?

ZER0, you put too much faith in logic. A few good college lectures on subatomic particle physic and the nature of time and space will show you logic doesn't always work when you ponder reality.

Answer 1

The truth is, stupid people don't know they are stupid. That's why we call them stupid. I know that I'm stupid, that's why I ask questions like 'why?'. Atheists don't know why, and don't want to know why. You do the logic...

Answer 2

I've thought many times that taking a stand of any sort (atheism, agnosticism) against any other stand concerning religion, paganism etc. is tantamount to having a religion.

My beliefs have always been with spirit... that breath of life SOMEthing incorporated into all plants and animals. I think spirit may be an eternal thing, or may not be; but I'll refer to it while I'm alive and take it in like fresh air on a clear day, with joy! The church I believed in most was the N.A.C. but I no longer attend... there are no true ways done around here.

Yet spirit, or the Creator, remains. That's cool. And as true as breathing.

Answer 3

Not really. If we have no way of knowing for sure, but there is no particular reason we should believe something, then the logical thing to do would be just to not believe said claim, rather than remaining uncertain about the claim.

For example, it is entirely possible that we live on a non-spherical earth, I can't prove that the earth is a sphere, and that everything about space we were told hasn't been a lie, and neither can you. Despite this, I have no particular reason to believe that the earth isn't really a sphere, and as such, it is more reasonable to believe that the earth is one, rather than to remain undecided.

Answer 4

Hey, do you remember when logic convinced people that the earth was flat? Being an athiest in today's society seems to require seeking to prove that God does not exist. Therefore, being an athiest and trying to disprove religion is actually a giant waste of time which makes it even dumber than believing in a religion.

Are they spending all of that energy trying to convince us that we are going to rot in the grave? It's like hangin' out at the playground just so you can tell little kids that Santa doesn't exist. If i didn't know better, I would think that they have other motives for fighting against religion....maybe religion rejected them or at least their behavior first.

Answer 5

By your "logic" we'd have to believe in thousands of gods, because none of them can be disproved. Then, there are leprechauns, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- none of which can be disproved. The list goes on and on . . .

In the absence of evidence, the default position is that a thing does not exist. That is the only intellectually honest position.

(Edit)

Agnosticism is not a religion because a religion, by definition, requires a belief in a god or gods.

Answer 6

I think you're right on that. We can't know, but we can go with what is most likely and what explains the world best - but we can't indefinitely know at the moment.

However, it isn't really a matter of "likely" or "unlikely", else believers wouldn't believe. Does anybody here pray to Zeus to refrain from throwing lightening bolts? No? Can we KNOW he doesn't exist? No!

Theoretically every single one of us should know that we don't know. That doesn't mean that I can't say that everything I know suggests there is no god, and to be somewhat convinced of that.

Also - the rule is: prove something exists. You can't prove something doesn't exist, that is illogical. So far, there is no proof that god(s) exist(s), so I would assume that atheism is still the first choice.

Answer 7

Agnosticism is a subset of atheism anyway so your question makes no sense.

Strong atheism against all possible gods doesn't make much sense but weak atheism against all possible gods with strong atheism against certain gods (that can be proved to be impossible to exist) does make sense and is fact the viewpoint of most people who call themselves atheists.

A lot of agnostics just use the term because it is more acceptable to the religious than atheist.

Answer 8

An anthiest relys on facts and science so its not dumb actually its educated as it progresses as science and knowledge expands unlike religion which relys on stories of events thats happened in the past such as jesus,budha etc. its no more acurate than you telling someone a story and its retold so on and so on that the story changes.
is anything in religion true?? proberley but as the story is retold it gets added to and changed to become a more interesting tale. Do you really think jesus walked on water??

Answer 9

Being an Atheist is deciding not to believe all of the people who say that their book is correct. Tell me ONE valid reason that any of them are actually believable. And don't say, "because it was written by goooooooood." Tell me WHY you are convinced if that when there are so many others.

The Book of Mormon
The Quaran
The Book of Satan...etc.

Answer 10

human beings kill for faith quite? it somewhat is humorous, because of the fact my very own examination of historic past shows to me that folk killed one yet another for administration of finite supplies and that generally faith substitute into used to recruit the peasant to do the killing for the guy who could at last finally end up with the candies. how many hundreds of thousands have been killed to unfold the gospel of the greater financial distribution and political device? Democracy, Communism/Socialism, and Capitalism have not popped up on your radar as undesirable recommendations yet? EDIT: Yeah why do no longer you're taking a glance at Muslim terrorists. it somewhat is the worst occasion you have used to help your place. the place is this Christian slaughter of the gays happening? learn the underpinnings.

Answer 11

No. Religion means believing in something for which there is no valid argument or evidence. Atheism means declining to believe in something for which there is no valid argument or evidence. The latter is rational and sensible, the former is irrational and 'dumb' (although I wouldn't use the word myself).