atheists & agnostics?

Question

Atheists... why not call yourself agnostic?

Agnostics... why not call yourself atheist?

FYI... I call myself agnostic because I don't believe we can ever prove that no god(s) exists... its like trying to prove that purple dragons don't exist

Answer 1

I don't need to prove something to believe it. In fact, the vast majority of my beliefs are unproven.

I'm an atheist because I don't believe in any gods. I wouldn't call myself "agnostic" about that anymore than I'd call myself "agnostic" about the idea that there is a polka-dotted chimpanzee dancing on my head. I can't prove there isn't, but I think it'd be mighty silly to conclude "I don't know whether or not there is".

Since I'm not dogmatic about things, I'm willing and able to apply that same reasoning to the claim that there are gods.

Answer 2

Atheists, by the term, don't allow the existence of a god or gods are possible.

Agnostics, by the term, generally find organized religion silly because religion by its very nature claims to know something about the nature of a god or gods that cannot actually be known. At the same time, agnostics may doubt the existence of gods, but acknowledge that it is impossible to know either way.

In otherwords, in a more politically incorrect explaination. Athiests are certain of something that is impossible to demonstrate and are possibly brash in asserting this.

Agnostics on the other hand can just seem too wishy washy to bother to try to figure out any belief system and just leave the whole issue alone because it really is impossible anyway.

Both are really quite logical arguments. Its almost a matter of differing personal philosophy and personality. And I sort of wonder if young atheists don't sometimes mature into agnostics, and young agnostics don't sometimes mature into atheists.

Of course then there are those of either persuasion that then mature into pagans :D

Answer 3

I'm an agnostic atheist.

The term 'agnostic' was coined by Thomas Huxley and it refers to a person who holds the view that it is wrong to assert the truth of a proposition without logically satisfactory evidence.

So, an agnostic would say that it's wrong to say "God exists" or "No gods exist" without the argument or evidence to back it up. Moreover, the agnostic would say that it's immoral for a person to tell someone else that they *ought* to believe in the existence of a god or gods without providing logically satisfactory evidence to support that claim.

A 'theist' is defined as someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods, so an atheist is anyone who is not a theist.

Therefore you can be agnostic and also an atheist, or agnostic and a theist, or not agnostic and an atheist, or not agnostic and a theist.

It seems axiomatic to me that the external world I experience with my senses really exists, and that the only way to know about it is through reason and objective evidence. Those things tell me that a god is a logical impossibility. If I was going to concede a god as something that could possibly exist in the real world, I would have to abandon my notion of reality, and I'm not prepared to do that, because I see no reason to do it. Therefore I'm agnostic, and an atheist.

Answer 4

Well I wouldn't say 100%, but two things
1- Humans are really good at making up gods, by anyone's standards.
2- There is not a shred of evidence for any god.

I find that it is very unlikely that there is one. In fact I would place the odds so low that it really isn't worth the time to consider unless someone comes up with some evidence. I mean I wouldn't call myself agnostic about those purple dragons either, and they have exactly the same evidence.

Answer 5

You fail to understand... agnostics ARE atheists... they DO NOT BELIEVE that dieties DO exist... and that satisfies the definition of 'atheist'... atheists DO NOT BELIEVE that gods DO exist. Note that there are SOME people who DO BELIEVE that gods DO NOT exist. Can you see the difference? BUT... while such people do not DEFINE 'atheist', they do fall under the definition of atheist, since they DO NOT BELIEVE that gods DO exist.

In general, atheists do not 'believe' simply because they find that the reasons or evidence purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies 'exist' (gods) are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or support a mental state of 'belief'. The idea that there is a 'choice' involved is... well... the word 'stupid' comes to mind.

The reasons for 'believing' are either good, or they're not good. If they're NOT good, then one's 'bullshit alarm' goes off. You do not 'choose' to have your bullshit alarm go off... it just goes off.

Agnostics, on the other hand, find that they do not have (or have access to) sufficient 'knowledge' (Greek: gnosis) to make a DECISION as to whether gods do or do not exist. So... they DO NOT BELIEVE that gods DO exist... and they DO NOT BELIEVE that gods DO NOT exist. Notice that the former statement corresponds to the statement which defines 'atheist'.

So... all agnostics are atheists... but not all atheists are agnostics.

Some people (christions, mainly... not renowned for critical thinking skills) tell us that since we don't believe in gods, then we are obliged to prove that they do not exist. 'Proof' is irrelevant. NOT believing in something bears no burden of proof. It would be silly for someone to think that if you DO NOT believe that garden gnomes, bridge trolls and invisible pink unicorns exist, you are somehow logically obligated to PROVE that they do not exist... right? Well... it's silly to think that such proof is required when one declines to believe in invisible, magical sky-fairies 'exist' (gods), too.

Actually, I think that the world could get along quite nicely without words like atheist, agnostic, unbeliever, rationalist, humanist. All of those could be clumped together quite nicely if the religionists would simply refer to us as '... those doggone sane people'.

"Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief', or a 'religion', only in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'." ~ Unknown

"I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

"If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so." ~ Richard Dawkins
.

Answer 6

Of the two, I prefer the label "agnostic". I categorically do not believe in the magic invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do, but I am open to the possibility that "God" has been grievously misdefined and is perhaps something like the fundamental ground reference of the universe, rather than an external, meddling deity. There are some basic scientific mysteries that are nowhere near being pinned down, so I keep the door open to a spiritual dimension in life. But whatever "God" there may be, it is nothing that can be anthropomorphized.

Answer 7

Because I'm not agnostic, I fully believe that their is no god(s). Agnostics don't make a claim on either side, they fell like it can't be proven if a god exists so they don't make a judgment (which is fine by me). But I made the judgment based on logic and reason that god doesn't exist.

Answer 8

Because you can't prove that purple dragons don't exist, do you call yourself an purple dragon agnostic? No, you don't believe in them because of the lack of evidence.

Answer 9

Hate to confuse things, but technically I refer to myself as atheist agnostic. That's because, although I can't prove it, in light of the total lack of evidence supporting the existence of god, I am quite comfortable assuming no such thing exists. In other words, I say I'm atheist, but technically I'm agnostic.

Answer 10

I call myself atheist because I see no reason to believe that a god might exist...

After all, if you told me that you had a purple dragon in your garage and had no proof, why would I even entertain the idea seriously?

There is no god.